"The Prime Minister and his minions say that the safety of the Australian people is their number-one priority and that they are proposing to limit our liberties in order to protect our freedom. We all know how to sneer at this rhetoric and where to look for the appropriate analogues: to the USA Patriot Act and the British state security apparatus, for a start. But the government's reasoning is really no different to the reasoning of those who would curtail free speech in the name of social harmony. In the end, it comes down to the following question: what kind of relationship between the individual and the state are we, the people, prepared to accept."

Well said, great article.

Yes it really is nauseating to hear Tony Abbott talk about 'Team Australia' fighting terrorism; and the moron rushing to kick the worst most chronic hornets nest in the world, in the name of keeping Australia safe.

However you can only shake your head in wonder at the double standards and cognitive dissonance of the leftists in criticising Abbott. These are the ones who are never able to answer with any principle to limit government power than the non-principle that it be "democratic". Well? It never occurs to them that the interventionist foreign policy that they hate, has anything to do with the interventionist domestic policy that they love and consistently promote in everything.

By the way Richard, a government that is "socially libertarian and economically socialistic" is a contradiction in terms. People aren't chattels owned by government or by you.

This is a very clever article, one that, initially, should appeal to the many black and white bigots who all too frequently congregate on OLO.

The sending of Australian warplanes and troops to the M.E. then leaving them there while Tony decides whether or not to send them into battle is also rather ironic. It could start a whole new fashion in world politics and military strategies.

Perhaps the U.S. could send thousands of fighter jets and many battalions of Marines to the Ukraine, then say it hasn't made its mind up yet whether to deploy them!

And then Russia could move weapons and men to Cuba to be ready should Putin decide that attacking the U.S. over its sanctions is on his agenda!

Humans are so intelligent, aren't they?

P.S. Tony, that doesn't include you!

as a white male who believes in the natural family unit, preserving life instead of murdering the unborn, calling the teachings of the Koran barbaric I am comfortable with the 'regressives' labels. I doubt whether any of my family members or work colleagues or anyone who knows me would call me a bigot/sexist etc however it fits the narrative of feminist/progressives. So be it. Its so sad that those who spew out the most hate (usually dressed up in pseudo intellectualism) come from the left and yet they see themselves as the champions of 'decency'. I am afraid unlike the likes of Ms Gillard I can't claim some made up vicitm status to cover my incompetentcies.

JKJ,

"Yes it really is nauseating to hear Tony Abbott talk about 'Team Australia' fighting terrorism; and the moron rushing to kick the worst most chronic hornets nest in the world, in the name of keeping Australia safe."

Well said!

Interesting though that although this is being enacted by an extreme right-wing outfit in Australia - that you bounce the Left.

Besides, it doesn't really matter if the regime is fascist, Communist or a "democracy" such as ours...if the govt chooses to exploit the domestic population with dubiously overblown "terror threats" and institute laws that suppress freedoms, it's down to the particular govt of the day - and their handmaidens (thanks for nothing, Labor).

I suppose we all believed that an "Australian govt" would never manipulate us this way...well this one has - and good and properly too!

runner,

" So be it. Its so sad that those who spew out the most hate...."

No worries there, you've got that one sewn up.

Abbot presumes that Australians prefer their safety over their liberty. This says more about him than it does about the rest of us. He is no leader or inspiration to the best of our human qualities.

History is full of great men and women who have refused to remain silent just for the sake of their own physical well-being. They have brought about great changes in society and we are forever in their debt. No one really knows which value they would uphold if they were put to the ultimate test but you cannot assume everyone would choose safety. You cannot even assume that the majority would do so. If you have no abiding argument that they would choose one way or the other then you have to give them the freedom to choose simply because as a principle it is better to have more freedoms than less.

Let the people take responsibility for their own choices. If citizens do not like what their fellows choose well that is the price of freedom. Many who think they would prefer safety jump eagerly on to the ‘Team Australia’ band wagon but perhaps they may surprise themselves and act to protect their freedom of speech rather than safety. They should trust their instinct and they should be given the freedom to trust it.

This also sends a potent message to terrorists that unlike them we do not necessarily give in to fear. Our values are more important to us than our safety. Any victory that comes by force is a very hollow one and you cannot undo the violence that you deliver upon others. Terrorists are still human beings who have consciences and no matter how much bravado they exhibit in a mob they cannot rid themselves of the guilt they will always carry from their violence. It will torment them the rest of their lives. Who is really free – the person who has died with their values intact or the person who spends the rest of their life being eaten up inside by their brutality?

Dear Runner,

"One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off." [Kings I, 20:11]

Today, state-power seems to be on your side, so you allow yourself to be relaxed and confident, but that need not be forever. Once it is accepted that government is allowed to infringe on individual freedoms, another government might come ("Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph") with different ideas and start oppressing religion and the religious. It was in our times even that some states banned religion, North Korea still does and forced abortions are still prevalent in China.

Please don't play with fire.

The only way to keep our religious freedom is to have freedom for everyone, whether or not we like what they do.

---

Dear Phanto,

Great response, I liked it very much!

---

Dear Jardine,

Yes, I would also like to understand what the author means by "socially libertarian and economically socialistic" - it seems a contradiction, but perhaps he came across some formula that we missed.

I don't like capitalism, but I can't see how it could be prevented with human population in the billions and without taking away individual freedoms, so I have to reluctantly accept it. Yet if the author possesses some magic, I would very much want to know about it.