Would someone please point out to Con that we already have EFFECTIVE anti-terror laws. Hopefully, when the new laws are passed, Con will be locked up, where he will be safe from the terrorist bombs.

point d'appui? What's wrong with point of support? marivaudage? could be read as light hearted gallantries - I would not read any of the assertion of the civil liberterains as at all light heated, in fact most of them seem unduly earnest and I can not underestimate the importance of being earnest in this debate. It is arrogance of the highest order to assume the opponents of these laws do not take their mission seriously or the matter of terrorism just because they adopt a different approach

Con goes on, and on and on but take this bit for example - The human condition is one of irredeemable imperfection. But despite this grim fact the evolution of human nature has not stopped at the aemoebic stage. ? What does that mean? the imperfect does not or should not evolve?

George says in 2000 words what the average punter could say in ten - this is twice now that I have read him - and leaves himself open to pedantry.

However he makes the point that the response should be commensurate to the threat - the claim is correct and buried somewhere deep in the text of this last piece - he has failed miserably however to equate the level of the current threat with the new laws.

I say that notwithstanding the recent raids - that have followed an investigation of some length and have been largely based on the old legislation - and I say that before the new sedition laws are enacted which pretty much put the kybosh on most forms of dissent or comment.

Normally these articles are edited - in fact the editors name often appers as a footer; the absence of such a declaration here makes me wonder.

Dear Con

You paint a fantasy world of straw men who do not see things your odd way.

Your whole argument assumes that we are in a state of war (not true) with Muslim terrorists (none of whom have bombed anything in Australia).

You ignore the fact that the recent arrests were based on existing laws and NOT based on the proposed laws necessary to fight the war in your mind.

Howard did not choose to expedite the proposed laws through Parliament last week (with the exception of "a" instead of "the") because obviously he did not see them as essential to the largest counter-terrorism operation since the Hilton bombing of 1978.

You forget that after the much higher threat scenario, immediately following 9/11, Howard did not seek to pass the laws he now proposes.

Your two tiered proposal for different types of terrorists as well as your veiled suggestion of the death penalty appears arbitrary and unworkable.

You are not a visionary (unlike your nickname Themistocles) working in a legal or organisational vacuum. As has been said Australia has a complex and demonstrably effective (the recent arrests) counter terrorism capability.

If you require more information (I can see you do) I suggest you consult the National Security website http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ which inter alia lists the 31 existing and comprehensive laws pertaining to this issue.

I'd get over your obvious fixation with European military history, both ancient and modern, because its off the track (if not the planet).

Con,

I seek nothing more than a guarantee that the new laws will only apply to terrorists. At the present time it appears that the new legislation will be a federal version of the anti-protest legislation introduced by Beserk-Paddymelon in the 1980's to cope with the enormous protests caused by the SEQEB dispute. This legislation could be used to outlaw essentially all political and union protest, with the added proviso that the army could be used if the problem were adjudged to be beyond the capacity of police to deal with effectively.

I suggest that my view of these laws is vindicated, rather than refuted by the arrests yesterday (being that reasonable cause had to have existed before the surveillance / tapping warrants were issued, and the search warrants were therefore available under the pre-existing laws).

Terrorism offences are hardly necessary when apparently (allegedly) evidence exists that the accused' had agreed to commit mass murder, and were engaged in preperatory acts in order to attain this objective. I presume that they would be capable of being charged with 'conspiracy', being that the agreement is the actus reus of the offence, which is complete upon agreement being reached.

Please feel free to provide the guarantee I request (nb No Mr Howards record will not suffice).

Con seeks to justify the restrictions on our civil liberties because we are at war. Sorry, I must have missed that declaration of war. When was it made and just who are we at war with? How will we know when the war is over so we can get back to normal?
There have been no deaths in Australia due to terrorist bombs in more than 30 years, if indeed those deaths can be attibuted to terrorists. If there were to be any deaths in the current climate it would be a relatively small number - certainly far fewer than those killed every year by car accidents, workplace accidents and deaths due to smoking and drinking. On the other hand the loss of freedom due to the anti-terrorist laws affects every one of us.
If we want to be serious about those things which really put us at risk of dying there are many more areas to worry about than terrorist bombs.
By the way, when is John Howard going to admit that our continuing involvement with the illegal occupation of Iraq increases the risk that we will get terrorist action in Australia and against Australians overseas?

If the current anti-terrorist laws were effective, surely the nay-sayers would have been complaining about them from the minute they were enacted.

I'm with Con. Civil libertarians use the fear-mongering they attibute to others to maintain what little relevance they have in a democratic society.

The trouble for them is, that if they were responsible for the security of Australia instead of being full-time critics, the people whose rights they are so concerned with would happily blow them away with the rest of us.

To Leigh; who is frightened here?

And I congratulate you on distilling anything at all out of Con's ponderous prose.

Most people, CL's included, are agreeing with the principle of some form of anti terror legislation; many belive what we have is adequate and the recent raids certainly do not contradict that yet

- many are simply saying the erosion of certain principles represents an attack on our exisiting freedoms and our physical safety can be assured without some - not all - but some of the proposed measures.

Now a cell or cells have been exposed will the commmunity be reassured - or will they think wheres there's one or two gathered in Allahs' name there must be a whole bunch of cells cooking up the same thing? If so where do we go from here? Clearly Anti Terror laws mark one were not of much deterrant value; do we wait and see how good ATL mk11 is before we ramp them up again? Or do we try to develop a response commensurate with the threat? - my guess is whether we find some bomb thrower with the fuse a fizzing or not ATL Mk 111 is just around the corner.

The relevance of the the CL's can in a small way be measured in the vehemence of the resposne they get when they defend those liberties.
Hoping they go away, dissmissive commentary and derision is a poor excuse for an argument. Those approaches are usually associated with fear and confusion so prevalent in this debate and certainly not the preserve of civil libertarian

The recent arrests of alleged terrorists was achieved under existing law. I would like to see detailed explanation of just how the new laws will keep us any safer.

So far as I know, making and letting off bombs has always been a crime so how do the new laws prevent making and detonating bombs?

Being unable to criticise the current government (sedition) is an infringement on free speech and I don't see how that makes us any safer. Also will blogs like this be able to continue if some of us refer to John Howard as "that lying little rodent" or Alexander Downer as "that mincing clown", or Costello's smirk, for example.

I warned my mother from going out in public - unlike me she is dark skinned and dark haired (Jewish Great Gran) and she likes to wear scarves - could be risky with these new laws, so I have warned her to stay away from airports, railway stations, houses of parliament and very tall buildings. If I don't hear from her for 2 weeks I'll know what has happened. And I'll never be able to ask her about it.......

I am also somewhat concerned about the imposition of retrospective criminal liability upon people who had trained with terrorists (s.142.2(2) of the new laws). The last time Australia was facing similar problems (complete with hysterical press coverage) teh Federal Parliament tried to introduce similar laws, which were found to be un-Constitutional (Comunist Party Case) because Australia could not justify these actions, because Australia had not declared was on Communism (despite being involved in Korea at the time).

As Con so intelligently points out, these laws are valid in time of war, however Australia is not actually at war, therefore these laws are not valid (Polyukhevic; Communist Party Case). I also have grave concerns about the ability of Courts (Federal Court; Federal Magistrates Court; and the Family Court) to issue what are in fact warrants for detention, without the need for a trial (see especially Plenty v Dillon; Coco v The Queen), which is a thoroughly discredited concept, and according to Blackstone, a magistrate who does so has committed an offence.

Therefore I do not see that the majority of magistrates or judges would be at all interested at being involved in the issue of such warrants (control orders), as this arguably, is one of the only issues upon which they could incur personal liability, whether acting as persona designata or not.

Well, I’m not frightened, Sneeky, and I don’t know whether or not the current laws are adequate. They could be adequate, but I just don’t know. That’s why I’m happy to leave that to someone who does know, and that certainly isn’t CL’s.

I think I’ve said this to your before: I have no problems about my own civil liberties because I have never done, and never will do, anything that will bring me to the notice of the bogies with regard to the legislation in question.

You speak of deterrent value. I don’t think the laws are of any use at all as a deterrent. The people who they are aimed at are fanatics. Nothing except death will deter them. The laws are there to deal with them when, and if, they are caught.

You say that the relevance of the CL’s can be judged by the vehemence of their detractors’ reactions. I can see why you say that. I agreed with Janet Albrechtsen’s “This level of hysteria suggests anti-terror laws are sound” a couple of weeks ago. I supposed it’s just what we believe.

Like you, I did find Con’s piece hard to wade through, and I’m all for simple language, but remember, he’s a lawyer.

LEIGH

Thanks for standing by me. It's good to see an eagle among a pack of chickens, with one exception, Aaron.

CON

Con,

Further to original post(s)

Please follow the link below to read the advice provided to ACT Chief Minister (Stanhope) from the law faculty of UNSW.

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/News_and_Events/Doc/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf

This tends to suggest that there is major issues with this legislation, not least of which is the detention of a person with no need for proof, the removal of the need for the prosecutrix to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reversal of the evidential and persuasive onus' of proof (on appeal) - presumably also to balance of probabilities, but even so - the accused must prove that they did nothing wrong. Moreover, the accused will have to do so with no access to any of the information or allegations against themself.

Additionally, despite reassurance regarding the need for effective access to the courts, the bill expressly excludes judicial review (ADJR).

Yes, I am forced to reiterate my opposition to these laws.

AARON

I will take your advice and open the link to Stanhope.
You can also go to my BLOG and see further readings about the threat of terrorism.

Blog Address on Google: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com
click on URL LINKS to get in my Blog.

CON

Howard finds Fidel Castro an inspiration:

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

My pleasure, Con. After getting a lambasting from a couple of members of the loony left this morning it nice to read your message. Keep up the good work.

FELIX

What you seem to forget, is that Castro does those things to those who would threaten his totalitarian/dictatorial approach to government. i.e. he is ridding HIMself of those who threaten HIS power and the lack of freedom they have in Cuba.

Howard would be doing it to REMOVE those who want us to be LIKE Cuba or Saudi Arabia, and is thus protecting our freedom.

THUGS/EXTREMISTS
I still have etched into my mind the images of the young Muslim extremist thugs who battered and kicked the Chanel 7 cameraman half to death (I'm sure they would have killed him if not restrained or chased) and you can be SURE that they would be FIRST on my list of 'Deportees to Lebanon'.

DEPORTEES LIST
Those types represent the absolute worst in humanity, as we see clearly by the rage on their faces and the hate which permeated their grunts that they would think nothing of imposing their brute will on everyone else if they could see an Islamic replublic established here.

NEWSFLASH -THE U.N. DOESN'T WORK.
It is totally pointless to draw our attention to failed documents and failed bodies such as the UN who have nil effect in saving countries from Genocidal maniacs. It is up to sovereign states to do what is needed.

"RIGHTS" ARE FROM GOD.
There 'are' NO rights except those given by God, and they can be summarized in terms of 'The right to be treated by your neighbour as you would treat them'. This means that I should not seek to white-ant the freedom of another State for my own greedy ethnic advantage.

The status quo in Autralia is unquestionably 'white/caucasian/anglo/european/Judao-Christian.
This does not in anyway mean that those of other backgrounds cannot be welcomed, but it DOES MEAN that we welcome them in:

a) Numbers we feel are managable and non threatening
b) Based on selection criteria estalished by US in terms of our national/social interest.

We TOTALLY REJECT such things as the U.N. being able to tell us how many and of what cultural/religious/sexual orientation flavor should be allowed to come here.

These comments were made this May from Dennis Richardson, at the time head of ASIO, while discussing the efficacy of the then-existing terrorism laws...

"I would note [the legislation] has worked very smoothly so far. To be frank, there was a concern it would be unduly complex and difficult to administer. What was initially introduced into the Parliament, with our support and advice, was much simpler and, of course, tougher. We debated among ourselves whether the compromises [forced on the Government by a hostile Senate] would make it unduly complex. Our concerns were misplaced. We were wrong on worrying about it. The balance has so far been very workable …"

It is testimony to John Howard's political acumen he can manufacture a crisis out of thin air. Play the tune loud enough and often enough, and folks can't get it out of their head.

Con/Themistocles/Patriach

Its rather indulgent of you to describe those (who sincerely criticise your articles) as "chickens".

I happen to be a conservative generally but I believe the current anti terrorism laws are adequate and do not support a turn toward authoritarian laws that you see as saving us in your "war" against Islam.

OLO has been kind enough to give you two goes at publishing very similar articles in two weeks. Its not for me to criticise the wisdom of that.

Your views would probably gain much more acceptance (and I might even admit I agree with some of them) if your style was less impenetrable, uncompromising and grandiose.

Separately, I found it interesting on a different blog, how a non simple discussion of the sedition law rehash could put my mind, to some degree, at rest on that change. Legal protections include "certain acts done in good faith not unlawful". http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s24f.html

In

"CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 24F
Certain acts done in good faith not unlawful
(1)
Nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful for a person:
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the advisers of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or their counsels, policies or actions;"

Amazing (for me) what non dramatic discussion can do.

Clearly there's a lot of love in this room at the moment amongst some of the posters -

To Leigh - I am sure you have done nothing to bring yourself to the attention of the spooks - the point is you may not need to - already the forces of good have already paid out a few bucks to a family wrongly raided some time ago; mistakes happen - why even during the Timor crisis our leading spooks truned off the information tap to our boys in the field:
our intelligence boffins seem far from intelligent at times.

Even though Con regards you as an eagle, and well you may be, his reference to chickens underlines the rather one dimensional approach taken by some in this debate; again it is a bit like school yard stuff with one group or party trying to out tough the others.

I would suggest that there is a degree of toughness on both sides of the debate - Cons approach demeans himself; In fact I was surprised at the rather simple metaphor.

I am however going to visit his blog - I suspect there is a lot to learn there.

We have troops in Iraq alledgely trying to instill democracy. They will return home to government doing its best to kick democracy to death. So tell me, why are they really in Iraq ?