AUSTRALIAN 'SUPER-INJUNCTION'

WikiLeaks and the courts: keep the debate open By Carla Silbert Posted about 7 hours ago The ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is scandalous, and WikiLeaks' latest exposé adds a new and disturbing dimension to this issue, writes Carla Silbert. Australians have found themselves the beneficiaries of WikiLeaks' latest exposé - the publication of a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order so broad in scope that even the order itself is suppressed. ... It comes as little surprise that this "super-injunction" - an order that suppresses not just information such as the identity of a witness from publication, but the contents of the order itself - has come from Victoria, the state notorious as the "gag order capital" of Australia. ... When the reasons behind a court's actions remain secret, there can't be any scrutiny of those actions. That can never be in the public interest. In an era when the privacy of Australians is being increasingly compromised by the introduction of powers such as those currently being considered by Parliament to enable ASIO and ASIS to spy on private citizens in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the ability of state institutions to shield their actions from public scrutiny is all the more scandalous. The WikiLeaks release has added a new, and troubling, dimension to this. Not only does the court have the power to keep us both ignorant and unaware of information of national concern, but if the cat gets let out of the bag and the documents are leaked as they have been here, we immediately find our freedom of speech restricted by threats of prosecution if we dare discuss it. Such discussions are vital to our ability to challenge the reasons why this information was withheld from us in the first place. Without these discussions, those doing the withholding can't be held to account. Extracts SOURCE - ABC - here.

So you elect a government and then the government (along with unelected intelligence agencies who presumably work for the public) do whatever they like; and then they go running to court to use the excuse of 'national security' to erode civil liberties and to fetter freedom of press, while they're scrambling to cover up some international scandal that involves government.

Having shut down scrutiny and debate by way of secret court order, the government's deftly sidestepped transparency and accountability and has, ultimately, undermined notions of democratic government.

How can this possibly be right?