“Fear not children Big Brother is your friend” is typical of Phil's fiendishly avuncular style. However, I think, the people in AG’s and ASIO who provided the source material for his article/speech are actually talking sense.

I've equivocated over the anti-terrorism laws, particularly the sedition one, but the recent Sydney/Melbourne arrests and the French Muslim riots have swung me back in favour of the laws.

I recognise that it is the hope of many intellectuals that they might be considered important enough to draw the interest of state security (ASIO). Few of us get mixed up in bombmaking but many of us are rightly interested in opposing Howard's decision to go to war in Iraq.

However this anti-war feeling is so widespread that ASIO simply does not have the desire or the resources to round up anti-warriors. Similarly, I believe, ASIO or the police will not go to the expense of locking someone up for 14 days without charge or tagging them because of that person’s political activities. There are some serious would-be terrorists out there (perhaps under surveillance) who are on top of the list for accommodation.

That these proposed laws run the risk of alienating the Muslim community is common sense. That is where the main terrorist threat is coming from. As Irfan says in his OLO article yesterday it is the Muslim community who should take a look at themselves.

It is just unfortunate that some of us are fearful about these proposed laws – to be brought in precisely to counter the Muslim terrorist threat.

Phil,
If you want to see free speach in action, please watch tonight's news 15.11.05. There is quite a lot of it around today, and the message is very clear, I suggest you heed the message.

The greatest threat to 'freedom' of anything let alone speech is found in the events in Denmark not so much Australia.

1/ Cartoonists portray Mohamed in various roles.
2/ The Danish Muslim 'community' takes to the streets in protest + Ambassadors of Islamic nations demand apology

Why ?

Simple.. "Sharia law" under which is is a crime to 'insult or portray' mohamed.

Do we have inroads of Sharia law in Australia ?

YES...

WHERE ?

1/ Discrimination against non Muslim Australians (78% of the community in question) in Hume shire denying ham sandwiches to attendees of council events. (Sharia forbids eating 'Haram' food such as Pork)

2/ Changes to Laws concerning Stamp Duty (Victoria) to enable Muslims to obtain 'interest free' loans. (Sharia forbids interest.)

3/ Changes to 'burial laws' (Victoria) to allow 'Sharia' Burials of Muslims.

4/ Huge law suit /complaint against 2 Christian pastors for (it now appears) prophetically predicting the nature of a resurgent Islam in Australia. (Sharia forbids opposing Islam)

The freedom of speech we have in Australia, where cartoonists and comedians can sattirize and send up even the Pope without half a million catholics rampaging through the streets burning cars busses and old ladies is worth protecting.

Shonga..

thanx for your kind words in the other thread mate... I try :

Part 1

The Hon Mr Ruddock, and ladies and gentlemen of the OPO community. This is indeed a rare and welcomed pleasure to have the opportunity to voice my humble opinion in such exalted company. However I won't let that stand in my way of letting loose as the fourth rate citizen of this great nation of Australia that I've had the displeasure to become over the last forty years or so.

(Takes a deep breath - shakes a little in the knees - and in a big voice...)

What's all this rhetoric about freedom of speech, Ruddock?

Freedom of speech was silenced years ago, with no end of equal opportunity rubbish, vilification and hate speech laws, politico-correcto elitism, corporate newspeak and of course the great blocker of all free speech over the years, multiculturalism. Naturally, all of this was in our best interests and when that didn't work, it was "in the best interests of the child". Politicians are very keen to trot that one out when they've got no genuine platform upon which to stand.

So now you Mr Ruddock, dare to come on to this good site, frequented by good decent people, which permits them to express an OPINION with something, which isn't an OPINION at all, but is in fact a lecture.

If as you say, there's no need to fuss, because all you're doing is rewriting what already exists, then why bother rewriting it? What's the point? Obviously, if that were true, there isn't any point in doing it. And then you expect us to believe you. The sheer audacity is breathtaking.

Now the point here is that these new laws have much graver and more serious ramifications on individual liberties and freedoms of expression for everyone and you know darn well they do. So why are you telling us that they don't? Why don't you tell us the truth?

Continued...

Part 2

(takes another deep breath)

And how dare you deliver a lecture to the people of Australia telling us what you're doing, when it should of course be us telling you what you're doing. Australians don't like being lectured to by their servants. Such hubris will be awarded by the ceremonial giving of "the sack".

It would have been a far better thing for you to have presented a case for opinion and feedback, asking politely what we the people felt and wanted.

Mr Ruddock, your arrogance and that of your cronies in Canberra is wearing thin - and I'm genuinely one of those who does vote for your side - so please demonstrate some respect, stop lecturing us about what's good for us and start asking us what WE want.

And that's an opinion of mine.

You have a nice day Mr Ruddock and enjoy your Parliamentary Privilege and freedom of speech - a privilege we, your employers, don't necessarily share.

Mr Ruddock states that these laws may be safely ignored by any person, that encourages lawful protest. However, the current IR legislation, renders unlawful many types of industrial action. Protest about which is unlawful per se.

Does this mean that our Constitutional right to freedom of speech can be constrained to the topics that the present Commonwealth Parliament deems lawful (cf Coleman v Power). Does this mean that, for instance, a union (or non-union) activist, that advocated publicly for employees' to strike, in a manner that was not a protected action, could be arrested and subjected to a secret trial under the terrorism legislation?

Would the outcome depend rather on whether the non-protected action would pose potential danger to individual Australian's, or would it be sufficient that it may have a deletorius effect upon 'essential' industries or trade (SEQEB/Patricks-MUA)? Could the Army be used to break up such a protest, and could a union (or similar body) be listed as a proscribed organisation? If so, wouldn't every person that was a member of that organisation face retrospective criminal liability because of their membership of the same (142.2 Anti Terror Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth))?

I am sorry Mr Ruddock, I see absolutely no cause to alter my stance regarding this appalling legislation.