George

I agree with your point that Australia's legislative environment makes the replication of the UK Terror laws inappropriate here.

As you've also said our current political environment (with the Coalition dominant in the Senate) also denies Australians the level of parliamentary and committee debate that their UK cousins are enjoying.

The Coalition’s Senate majority is also a convenient excuse for the Federal ALP and its Leader, The Hon Kim Beazley MP, to provide a pathetic opposition on this issue.

It would be unkind to say that Beazeley is the best former Defence Minister, still on the public gravy train, that the Coalition Government can always rely on.

Beazely has had long experience as a security and defence decision maker. He genuinely enjoys the access to sensitive material that his status as Opposition Leader provides him. He recognises that this frustrates his lefter-wing intellectual colleague, and political opponents in the ALP but being in the know is what Leadership is all about. His ALP mates can do bugger-all about his advantage in “knowing secrets”.

As Beazeley is part of a political dynasty he recognises that muzzling his Party from providing an effective opposition, on behalf of the public, is a peculiarly pathetic stand. However, in the end, one has to assume he believes it is better to skulk behind Mr Howard's shield of secrecy than run the risk of showing guts like Curtin or Whitlam.

If I’m being unkind it would be great if The Beez could explain his actions one day.

PRESENT COPY BETTER THAN UNREALISTIC COPY OF WILLIAMS

Professor Williams umbrella in hand, like a trapeze artist, in his attempt to get the balance right, between national security and individual liberty, loses his intellectual balance and falls into his realistically 'netless' argument. Williams contends that because Australia lacks the safeguards of a Bill of Rights, "to pass UK-style terror laws" would be an "inferior copy" and would pose a risk to our "fundamental liberties". He also reminds us, that the terrorism Bills in 2003 were debated for months and gave us laws that could survive a High Court challenge.

These are emergency laws to protect civilians from attack. And these laws have to be passed whether there is in place a Bill of Rights or not. It would be the acme of folly to debate such laws, which by their nature are "contentious", for long, when an attack by terrorists could be imminent. This is Nero playing the fiddle...

Moreover, all laws are basically untestable, that is why there are Appeal Courts. But despite this 'untestability', no sagacious legislature would evade the responsibility to pass laws that would protect civilians from an attack.

Williams totally disregards the effectiveness of law as a deterrent. This deterrence is even greater, when its laws are severe-since they correspond to a great danger posed by terrorists-and when they are portrayed fully in their 'draconian' mien.

Profssor Williams should do well to consider both aspects of the law, in its infringement as well as in its deterrence, especially in its effectiveness as a 'no tolerance law'.

KOTZABASIS

Having a Bill of Rights doesn't make any real difference. What makes a difference is being able to vote out a government that does not represent the views of the community, and we have such a system.

Does anyone seriously believe that the intention of the proposed laws is to undermine our democracy? They could only have that effect if the public let them, and I refuse to believe that the Australian public holds its rights in such slight regard.

Laws can be changed, governments can be removed, and it is the role of the voters, not the judges, to defend our rights.

Mr Williams,

Unfortunately the Parliament has managed a PR miracle today. The 'new' laws were apparently vindicated by the arrests of terrorism suspects in Melbourne and Sydney, with chemicals, bomb making equipment and firearms allegedly located. All of this took place as the result of a 16 month surveillance operation (presumably requiring phone tapping / search warrants etc.), which has entailed communication and physical surveillance of the suspects at all times.

My point is that, having reasonable grounds, sufficient to gain the necessary surveillance warrants (as required), would inter alia mean that the various State and Federal agencies had sufficient grounds to obtain warrants under pre-existing laws, therefore these arrest bear absolutely no direct relation to the recently introduced laws (their introduction was purportedly for the purpose of making these arrests).

In that case, if the pre-existing laws were sufficient to allow police to prevent terrorism through surveillance and intelligence (as demonstrated today), what exactly is the purpose of the new laws? obviously such laws could be used in situations like that in Paris at the current time (and in Macquarie Fields), and could arguably be used in times of protracted, or widespread industrial action (eg. SEQEB; Patrick / MUA). It is simply that inlight of the ability of police to effectively prevent terrorism using the pre-existing laws, one must wonder exactly what circumstances the Howard Gov. is envisaging, and also who will be the enemy.

Aaron your well reasoned posts throughout this forum are appreciated.

I too am very concerned at the extent of these new laws, when the old laws were sufficient. The IR reforms will be difficult to protest when the new terrorism laws are in place - is this a part of what (neva -eva) Howard is not telling us?

I will be attending the Nov 15 protest - will this be the last legal protest?

Howard is inspired by Fidel Castro:

How it is
http://www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/dunstan.htm
In 1996, it all went wrong. In the time of Dickens, John Howard might have aspired to be the Parish beadle. He has all the right qualifications: limited horizons, antiquarian values, a narrow vision, and a taste for harsh rules rigidly enforced. He came to the Lodge with a vision which looked backwards to the time before Menzies gained power. In many ways, his world view makes Menzies seem progressive.

Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, and Exile

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-02.htm

Cuba frequently subjects nonviolent dissidents to arbitrary arrests and detentions. Human rights activists and independent journalists are among the government's most frequent targets, along with independent labor organizers, religious believers, members of independent political parties, organizations of independent academics and medical professionals, environmental activists, and others. These improper arrests and detentions, which serve as intimidating measures designed to silence dissent, violate Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cuba often ratchets up pressure on government opponents by subjecting them to repeated arrests, short-or long-term detentions, or criminal prosecutions. In many cases, the government then presents activists with the "choice" to go to prison, or continue serving a prison term, or be exiled from their homeland. This practice violates the UDHR, which explicitly prohibits governments from exiling citizens from their own country.1