Fewer than 200 Australians killed at the hands of terrorists? Well, hell. Let’s forget about defending ourselves and preventing others from being killed. Let’s not worry about all the other innocent non-Australians murdered by terrorists – particularly the large share of the terrorists’ (aka ‘militants’) victims in Iraq.

More than twice as many (than terror victims) ‘killed’ in Australian police custody? Is the very strange John Tomlinson suggesting that police in Australia actually kill prisoners? If he is, he should be required to provide the evidence.

The Government is also responsible for domestic violence. What sort of kook is this man?

I think that Howards new anti-terrorism laws are a real threat to liberty. I agree with the author that spooks don't mind generating a crisis to gain more of what they want (resources and powers). However so do the progressives that they have supposedly stifled. The whole notion of democratic government has become a game to see whos liberty can be most readily trampled and how quickly taxpayers dollars can be most quickly spent.

The ALP has failed to impress. Beazley actually prides himself on having a tougher set of ideas with which to compromise due process and remove limits on the executive wing. And without good opposition we are unlikely to get better government.

Liberty is the new dirty word. Security trumps Freedom it seems, as we all sign up to live in cage where it will be nice and safe

I agree with John.

Who do we think we are, or what is it about us that makes any one think any terrorist really is that interested in blowing us up - ooooh they depise our way of life! they resent our prosperity! they are offended by our values! they will stop at nothing to see us all burn! nope. I dont think so.

People are perfectly justified thinking those thoughts but we flatter ourselves to assume that any one really gives an airborn act of sexual intercourse about us.

The senseless loss of life is always sad - although there are many here who readily cheer for various persons to be snuffed out - but the response to this terorrist scare is disproportionate to the risk of further attacks for Australians here and over seas.

But our jelly backed pollies fearing they 'd be blamed for in action - not prosecuted or suffer any penalty but merely seen as inept (if they aint already) and be turfed out of office - as much as any body they have promoted a sense of fear and dread;

The proposed ammendments to the sedition laws will make it a high risk proposition indeed to persist with the kind of candour seen in some of these posts if it is at odds with government action - the wording is loose and open to misinterpretation by the weak and fearful; some of the posts here could also be interpreted as inciting ill will, exposing the average punter to further risks of prosecution for thinking out loud. I have read countless articles by "opinion writers" that could incite ill will - both from a conservative and a leftist perspective -

These are dangerous times and the danger dont come from the terrorists all that often.

Ring Ring Ring; Oh Mr Keelty from the AFP. Yes it is I sneekeepete. What another 14 days! how come! sedition??!! But I might loose my job under these new IR changes; What? learn to be flexible you say; oh alright. You guys semm to have all the right answers.

Leigh,

You said: "The Government is also responsible for domestic violence. What sort of kook is this man?"

John is clearly not suggesting that the government is responsible for domestic violence. His argument is that fighting the criminal offence of domestic violence should be given a higher priority by the government. He said: "We need to ask why then is domestic violence not given a greater priority than Ruddock’s home detention for people suspected by Mister Plod of being likely to carry out an act of political violence."

I see this happening more and more - people misrepresenting someone elses argument in such a way as to make it sound farcical, and then attacking the imagined argument of their own creation.

If you are the Leigh of House of Wheels fame, I expect better. :-)

Borofkin.

I could imagine this article being written by someone like Michael Foote – past leader of the UK labour party.

It has all the hallmarks of the blithering incompetent who is well read in all the problems, can expound at length on the issues but lacks the creativity or skill to come up with solutions.

Simply making observations of fact like “We do know that in 2001/2 there were 386,946 breaching orders issued by Centrelink.”

And projecting that onto a question

“We don’t know how many unemployed Australians breached by social security are made homeless or commit suicide each year.”

Is the sort of lame and puerile drivel which works well in primary school playgrounds but is discarded by the time someone has grown sufficiently to attend secondary school.

Quite honestly, I do not care and I am not responsible for the unknown numbers of weak willed and spineless individuals who “top” themselves because they cannot meet the social obligations which accompany their acceptance of public welfare.

Likewise, having experienced the tyranny of terrorist bombs in London, I have a more circumspect view of the need and benefit of security. I recognise bad people do bad things and bad people need to be stopped before they do them. The fatuous, asinine and cynical assumption that “it has not happened, thus it will not happen here” is as misguided as allowing illegal aliens to arrive on our shores and letting them mix freely in this relatively peaceful society.

Such foolhardy “magnanimity” of spirit might well work when singing along to “L'Internationale” but the notion is as dated as the song and seriously “out of tune” with contemporary values.

The pendulum has swung, the “left” is just a rotting corpse. Putrefying as the memory of socialism and the other political aberrations of the 19th and 20th century sink into ignominy and disrepute. The world has grown up, “trade” is what helps prevent wars. Nations will think twice before they destroy their commercial opportunities

Far more worrying to me is the fact that "they" know of perhaps 800 suspected would be terrorists are in this country and "they" let them stay here instead of rounding them up and shipping them out.
No one can keep an eye on anyone all the time so this festering danger could blow at any time.
So why give them time? Why give them the opportunity?
And who gave them the opportunity in the first place?

I am with John on this. Excellent article.
If the spooks "know" of 800 people who are a threat, they should share that information with us and let us make up our own minds. If someone in my street is a threat to my safety, the government has a duty of care to let me know. Personally I think it is all just part of the government's scare tactics and obviously some have fallen for the bait. There are far bigger threats to our daily safety than any possible terrorist attack. There is more chance of being picked up and interrogated by the secret police than there is being killed by a bomb.

Well Col Rouge doesnt mince words; he strikes me as a mans man - a self made man. And possibly a man with a military background. I think he doesnt suffer fools gladly - if at all.

I am glad he knows evil people do evil things and they have to be stopped well before they do more evil. Its that kind of talk this country needs to highlight the depth of paranoia and fearfullness to which we have sunk.

CR also knows, and doesnt care I might add, that people who suicide are weak willed and spineless: so we can add degrees in psychiatry and orthopaedics to his lengthy CV (he's also had first hand experince of London bombings you know). Nothing like the smell of death to heighten your analytical powers and rights to claim authoratative knowledge over all manner of subjects

He clearly isnt a fan of the left. And he asserts trade stops wars. His reason. Self interest.

Well he would seemed to have missed his economics lectures while developing hisself into such a well rounded kind of guy.

There is evidence that trade prevents conflict - bilateral more so than multilateral arrangements; but there is also evidence that suggests multi lateral trade agreements leave negotiating nations more susceptible to war (Martin, mayer and Thoenig). Beare and Fisher argued that some factors that promte trade also have a tendency to engender conflict - but what would they know? they're academics, of the left no doubt and are probably knee deep in spilt chardonnay and latte's, they probably got some government grant as well adn rides push bikes to work They might even be homosexual and have never fired a shot in anger eh Col. Of course there was also the Opium War - a trade War - driven by imperialism no less.

But as long as the old Col has the answers we can all sleep safely at night.

We might not have much choice once the feds bring in the 1800 hour curfew to appease the chronic bedwetters waiting the bomb to go off.

Good one John;
Pretty sure more readers got your drift than the survivor of a London Bombing, Col Rouge. I guess he was too alert to sprint for a train wearing a bulky jacket though.. Pity about that.

As a sensible, viable tool for fighting terrorism, this bill just doesn't cut the mustard.

As a shield for a Prime Minister, who may one day be called to account for his actions over Iraq, it is just the ticket.

Needed - a firewall with the real potential to limit the bounds of public discourse.

"Disaffection with government" indeed. Read the damn thing.

Now add ASIO into the mix and you have what amounts to a force-field.

In time, there may be no more posts like this one. A good thing?

Where to begin on this diatribe? First point I'll make is that I agree that no new laws are required to make the blowing up of people illegal. As far as I know, but I might be wrong, it has always been illegal to strap explosives to yourself and blow others up. Similarly planning to do so as well.

Notwithstanding this common ground though, I'm left gobsmacked at the attack on the tate for not doing enough. It is one "Won't somebody think of the children" argument against another "Won't somebody think of the children" argument, with common theme is that it is the government's fault for everything, people commiting suicide (blowing themselves up or otherwise), dying prematurely, beating up their wives, etcetera, etcetera, ad naseum.

The state is extremely limited in its ability to solve problems, and often exacerbates problems in unforeseen ways. I don't understand why these "progressives" have so much faith in government's ability to fix the world when they've been let down so many times before. Isn't there a clue in there somewhere, or is it just wishful thinking that if they ran the government, they'd do a better job and be able to shape the world to their liking? Just as state intervention can't completely stop Australians getting killed by terrorists, state intervention can't make Aboriginals live longer more productive lives, or depressed people happy or unemployed people employed, or save starving Africans from genocide by their own governments, or prevent muslim women being mutilated, or any of the innumerable ills that plague Australia and the world.

Better to rely on individuals and small groups of individuals to make the world better, not the state.

Good piece John, The dedication to paranoia is fueled by a dedication of the Howard government to always push the fear button.

-

...And that fridge magnet Howard sent me is starting to lose its sticking power. This new anti terrorism law sez nothing about replacing this magnet. What does this mean for thousands of families across our nation with week magnets falling off their fridges?

Will my family be safe? Will yours?

Irony...a paranoid rant by a leftist professor complaining of the government using paranoia to get their way.

Fallacy...Deciding the scope of comparison to 20 years, when the terrorism of the last 6 years is the issue.

False dichotomy...claiming that because we have other causes of death, we cannot focus on terrorism

Begging the question...Assuming there are no terrorists in australia and so making asinine comments about tearing up newspapers keeping australia terrorist free.

Ad Hominem...Casting dispertions about the governments motives without evidence.

Yep...a real scholarly piece.

To Leigh, Terje, sneekeepete, borofkin, rossco, maracas, Chris Shaw & Ranier,

Two questions:
1) If you were PM of Australia in place of JH what alternative legislation would you seek to be implemented ?

2) Would your answer to 1) be different if one of those near and dear to you were among the Australians murdered by a terrorist ?

To Terje,
Irrelevant to the above. What happened to IP ?
Gadfly ( geoff33g@yahoo.com.au)

You're right Grey and Gadfly

Finally sense is breaking out in this string. Tomlinson must live a quiet life but writing of "spooks" must excite his imagination.

All the spooks I ever mixed with...were well balanced, intelligent and fairly ordinary. Its their political bosses who request reports supporting a pre-set policy (like the invasion of Iraq) that we need to worry about.

That said, I support tighter legislation.

New laws are necessary because the threat of bombing appears to have increased since the old laws went into force.

When the old laws were made shortly after 9/11 the obvious organisation and efficiency of suicide bombers walking into crowds (in London and Madrid) wasn't anticipated by our legal drafters (that is basically AGs drafting them on ASIO advice).

Also direct references to Australia (Melbourne) from an al-Quiada propaganda type suggest a threat is there. Al-Quiada has had a history of "making good" its threats.

Howard's denial that the increased threat is NOT connected to Australia being in Iraq fools nobody (or does it?). Howard just doesn't want to be politically blamed for making things more dangerous for Australians.

The proposed anti-bombing laws are a defacto admission that he has made it more dangerous.

What are we trying to defend though? I thought it was in George W's words "freedom". If so, why are we giving more of it up even before anything has happened on our soil?
Terrorists win, not by killing many people, but by making us so afraid we change and curtail our way of life.
Howard and the Premiers are covering their proverbial's with this legislation, so when and if a terrorist act occurs they can hold up their hands and say, we did everything we could.
The truly terrifying thing is, if and when such an attack does occur, what other freedoms will they take from us then?
By the way, Col Rouge, before you dismiss the left so scornfully, remember a pendulum is a pendulum and, eventually, as it has done throughout history, it will swing back the other way.

To Gadfly:

In answer to 2 - I recognise we are a very very temporary installation on this planet - I would mourn the loss of any of my loved ones; how they die is, at the end of the day, a sad irrelavancy. Gone is gone.

As for new legislation - we should have legislated not to supoprt Bush and Blair; but given that the brain dead have the whip hand at the moment we are stuck with an increased risk with it lies as its father; accordingly my personal alert system has leapt to code " its time for another beer" from " I think I'll stay in bed".

If we had an intelligence agency that operated with any integrity they should be resourced to do more of the same more often with the legislation they have got; the current raft of proposals represent no effective means of deterring any one or determining what the bad guys next move is; their is enough latitude in the covert capacity of ASIO etc to keep us safe - or as safe as we can be.

It is ridiculously easy to undertake an act of terror - the new measures are headline grabbers designed to generate an illusion of activity and a posture of strenfth - as they stand they will do little in reality - just make a few people feel better - they are placebo measures with severe side effects.

Laws that allow an outfit to arrest and detain someone who knows a guy who knows a guy who read the Koran who knows a guy that used fertilser on his farm and is a dab hand at repairing electric gizmo's is a joke - and thats what we are looking at.

I am sneekeepete and I remain incensed (gotta get out of this temple)

SYDNEY HILTON BOMBING

I suspect that this is a good time to remind people about the bombing.

There is a good article at
http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Sydney_Hilton_Bombing_Conspiracy
Which is one of the few that succinctly enumerates the evidence.

I would appreciate people providing additional links to this page to increase its Google rating.

Gadfly, Well, unlike you I've read the legislation in its draft form.
Ask me the question when you've done the same and while you're at it read up on some criminal law legislation applicable to this nation as well as international laws that protect the civil and political rights of us all.

John Tomlinson has obviously read the draft legislation and constucted his views upon its intentions and content.

Moreover, he obviously relies on a much more balanced approach in his appraisal than listening to Howard and Ruddock and reading the Murdoch newspapers which I assume is all you have done.

And by the way, I have had relatives killed by actions of a state agency. Terrorism and its definition is relative to who you think a terrorist is in this nation and elsewhere.

Rainier,
You are being very presumptious when you say I have not read the draft legislation ---- I HAVE READ IT THOROUGHLY.

For any others following this thread the original draft is available at www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1551.html.

I do not, and did not, say that I considered the draft legislation to be perfect; indeed it's a long way from perfect with many clauses which will only be clarified after High Court challenges. BUT, it is a necessary and intelligent step towards protecting Australians from a new category of murderer within Australia. Current Federal or State laws do not provide protection against this category.

You did not respond to my question as to what alternative form of legislation you would put forward if you were in a position to so do.
It seems that your attitude would be 'do nothing'.

Further, in a lame response to my second question ( in which I asked would your answer to 1] be different if someone dear to you was muredered by a terrorist), you reply by saying " (you) have relatives killed by action of a state authority".
What on earth does THAT mean.

I think the main point of my namesake's article is to try and get a sense of proportion into the debate.

While there is undoubtedly some danger from terrorists to Australia, the level is not considered that high, as I understand it. So how far should we go in restricting civil liberties for a relatively low-level threat?

The other element in the equation is the effectiveness of the measures. The cases that are put forward to justify them (we have a terrorist associate in custody who knows details of a planned attack, and we want to detain him/her without charge or place a restriction order) are very hypothetical and do not seem to have occurred anywhere in the world in actuality.

History tells us that it is dangerous to give arbitrary powers to governments - it is much more certain that they will abuse them and victimise innocent people, than that they will successfully prevent terrorist attacks.

I have been hoping for a chance to agree with Terje, and sneeky pete, this is it, I wholeheartedly agree with you posts, and congatulate you both on a job well done, I have nothing to add to what you blokes have already said.