THE EDITOR: Sedition law is not about colonialism or gagging democratic expression. It is to do with controlling things that could lead to insurrection or mass disorder via speech and acts.
The power of the State to obstruct what would undermine rule of law is inherent and original to the State and its jurisdictional domain. It is recognised in the Constitution precisely because of that and also so as to bring it within the formalised system of justice to be constructed and followed to the Constitution.
To say that sedition law is unconstitutional for whatever reason is, therefore, with all due respect, bordering on the ridiculous and very stupid. Sedition law can also be crafted to protect against subversion of the moral or ethical integrity of the nation, for example in the advertising of abortion and homosexuality.
Right now there seems to be no one willing to give this reading to the law. But to declare sedition law unconstitutional is to kill it altogether and impose a necessity of the generation of a whole new order of law from scratch. Will that include the existing Constitution? How much? If is to happen the innovators are not saying in advance what it is they intend to eventually accomplish.