Irfan Yusuf has read the Anti-Terrorism Bill, and claims that the liberties of ‘ordinary’ Australians will be most affected by it, even though he says only groups connected with Islam or Muslims are deemed to be terrorists in Australia. That prevents most ordinary Australians from being shot. He also says that people who look the part will be at risk. A ‘strange’ name, even, will be enough.

He then adds a Eurasian-looking girl to his list, and another girl with an Arabic name. But, still no ‘ordinary’ people.

We have to assume – because IY and other opponents of the anti-terror legislation as it stands never say it – that ‘ordinary’ Australians are the majority – Anglomorphs, Europeans, people who look like the PM and his wife, but not Aborigines. IY and company are deliberately vague in their language, because there is absolutely no truth in their claim that ordinary Australians are at risk of being detained, shot or whatever action is contemplated against terror suspects. Their claims are totally dishonest, and this is why they can never tell us just how the liberties of most Australians will be affected when they are asked. Trying to frighten Australians in this way is a no-brainer.

With terrorists committing their acts in the name of the same deity worshipped by ordinary Muslims, common sense should tell those ordinary Muslims that some suspicion will fall on them: particularly, and perhaps only, on those who believe that they can live in a western secular society yet flaunt the very obvious differences of Islam in the way of dress and in-your-face worship.

With dress, women who insist on wearing headscarves and voluminous clothing will be mostly affected. We can say that Muslims are entitled to worship as they please and dress as they please. But, if they are not prepared to modify these things to fit the society and country where they live, there will always be the potential for discrimination.

So your saying it is ok to lock up people for no good reason or shoot them if they dont dress like us?

The fact of the matter is, these laws can be administered with so little oversight that it would be easy for these laws to be abused and used against the general population.

"He then adds a Eurasian-looking girl to his list, and another girl with an Arabic name. But, still no ‘ordinary’ people"

I think he meant ordinary as in outlook, life, habits, religion.

In many professions and areas of aust, "white" people are barely a majority. Given that, for myself I find it hard to equate "ordinary" with "white".

When people consider these new anti-terrorist laws, they need to remember that we are at war. In the last war, people supporting Adolf or Tojo weren't just prosecuted, they were interned. That's war. The fact that the current casualties of this war are not soldiers, but ordinary Australians, such as the ones from Newcastle who were killed and injured in Bali, means means that no state government dares oppose the new laws. The public wrath if they did so and this could be shown to have caused the death of ordinary Australians in a future attack would destroy them. Unfortunately people of similar origin to the terrorists will be inconvenienced by these laws. That is very regrettable, but that is war. Their best strategy is to express their loyalty to Australia and opposition to terrorism in every way they can, as they could be our best allies in the struggle against people who have perverted the principles of Islam.

Mr Yusuf appears to be in denial. But it is a fact that the recent victims of bombings, beheadings, gang rapes etc have met their horrors at the hands of muslims.
This whole beat up is a lot of bally hoo. The police have always had authority to shoot threatening thugs.
The days of the politically correct left is done. It was buried at Bali.

Irfan: I also am terrified at these new laws, but whose fault is it mate? We have moslems like you planting bombs to kill people because they are told it is their duty as a moslem to kill unbelievers.YES! and it is written in your bloody koran.
Or blowing themselves up and killing innocent totally unarmed, unprepared people who's only "crime" is that they are not moslem. The totally misguided naive and completely gutless twits kill because they have nothing here on earth. Yet they have been promised an X-rated paradise.
In the time before moslem extremists we NEVER needed such draconian laws here in Oz.
But most moslem countries have even worse and more constrictive laws eh! Irfan.
In this nation moslem have freedom yet they want to foul it up and turn this country into another dark, dismal, dreary, death loving, mysoginist arab/moslem country.
This is why we do not trust moslems, this is why we are planning these very dangerous laws. No other reason at all. numbat

Mickijo, it appears you are in denial.

The majority of victims of terror are themselves of Muslim background. That was and remains the case in Bali, Iraq and just about everywhere else.

During the first Bali bombing, two of the Australian victims were of Turkish Muslim background. If you regard Turkish Muslim Australians as being less Australian, please say so.

I am the last person you should be accusing of pandering to the Left. If you provide an address, I can send you a copy of a letter I received from Tony Abbott thanking me for handing out "how to vote" cards for him at the last election.

I guess the great thing about prejudice is that it doesn't use up alot of brain cells.

Prior to 11/9/2001 who carried out the most deadly terrorist attack in US history? Timothy McVey, a home grown US terrorist.

Who carried out the most lethal terrorist attack on Austtalian soil - the Hilton bombing of 1978? Well no seems to be certain, but no-one blames Islamics.

Who carried out the most lethal series of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom? Well, you would not be wrong if you said the "Catholic" IRA. 467 deaths (on all three sides) in 1972 alone. And Bobby Sands and the other 9 hunger strikers who starved themselves to death in Bogside prison are not too far removed from the idea of a suicide bomber.

Who carried out a bombing attack in New Zealand in 1985 (Rainbow Warrior) well, it wasn't Islamics - it was the French.

Who has carried out numerous suicide bombing attacks in Sri Lanka nd India? You would be wrong if you said Islamics.

Who has carried out the most terrorist attacks in Spain? No, not Islamics, but good white European Basques.

Who carried out the first major terrorist attack in Palestine? Well, it was not Islamics, try the bombing of the King George Hotel in 1946 with 91 people killed...

Terrorists come in all shapes and forms, but these laws are not going to stop them. But they will impinge on the freedoms of everyone.

Well Irfan, here we have actual proof (via posts) that so called 'ordinary Australians' - if armed with a gun - would shoot someone they consider not to be an ordinary Australian simply on looks and skin color.

Hypothetical-

Bang, Bang, Bang,

Suspect down.

What's this? Her ID says that she's a specialist surgeon in a children's hospital.

"Bugger me, she wasn't a terrorist after all' oh well, better luck next time boys and girls".

Press release:

We regret that due a glitch in our intelligence, Dr Massima Abdul was accidently shot as she was running back to her surgery to attend to an emergency case.

[Deleted for having absolutely no relevance]

Facinating that Leigh thinks that "ordinary Australians" are "Anglomorphs, Europeans, people who look like the PM and his wife, but not Aborigines".

Undoubtedly, s/he is an "ordinary Australian" under his/her definition. I've noticed from Leigh's other comments that s/he likes to express other "ordinary" Australian sentiments that are, if not outright racist, then certainly xenophobic.

Irfan Yusuf probably considers himself an ordinary Australian, as do I. On the basis of the intolerant opinions that s/he spouts in these forums, I think that Leigh is a "very ordinary" Australian.

[Deleted for having absolutely no relevance]

Irfan Yusuf makes the effort to respond when it suits him - e.g. his latest crack about brain cells. However, like all Muslims, he is unable to rebut any criticsm or questioning of some of his statements.

With Muslim terrorists, we know where we stand. With so-called moderate Muslims, we will never know. Where is the real danger?

>>Where is the real danger?<<

The real danger, Leigh, is giving the right to kill to anyone who views others as suspicious based purely upon their appearance and whether it is 'ordinary' or not.

For a satirical take on our new anti-terrorism laws check out Danny Katz's article

"Once upon a tram ride"

The Taliban was on the tram, and al-Qaeda was on the tram, and Chechen rebel separatists were on the tram — a whole bunch of terrorists were riding on the tram, and I was sitting among them, all of us heading down St Kilda Road, on the 67 from Carnegie. Sure, they didn’t actually look like terrorists, but terrorists can be tricky like that. The Taliban guy looked more like an ordinary businessman, standing up the back, picking his ear with a house key. And the al-Qaeda operative looked just like an old guy with a cane, sitting next to the door, wearing his toupee on back-to-front....

the remainder is at:http://www.theage.com.au/news/danny-katz/once-upon-a-tram-ride/2005/10/19/1129401316510.html

As Irfan clearly and succinctly stated, what happened in London can happen here too with the introduction of the new laws. If anyone believes that terrorism can be fought by the shooting of innocents, then they are indeed short of a few brain cells.

Leigh, I realize from our other interactions with you that it’s pointless trying to teach an old dog new ways of thinking about racism. But I'll try again.

It seems that in your little world of paranoid conspiracies and urban mythologies I don't look like an ordinary Australian. But because I’m indigenous I’m not an ordinary Australian. I doubt if you could tell the difference between Koreans and Chinese let alone Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders but in your little world you and only you have these wonderful powers of observation. How clever are - you foxy lady !

Do yourself a favour and read some research on racial profiling and the law. Amnesty international published a report on these sociological phenomena last year: Follow this link - http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/index.do

You also assert that IY and company are ‘deliberately vague and provide no truth in their claim that ordinary Australians are at risk of being detained.’

Irfan was making the point that ordinary Australians WILL become targets as a result of these new laws. Yes, this means people like me and other people of color and people like you too - who might be friendly with non-Anglo peoples. (I’m assuming you do know someone like this?) will become targets for investigation and detention without any regard for our civil and political rights.

By the way, just in case you didn’t know, Kath and Kim is satirical comedy show, Nieghbours is a soap - both are not serial documentaries about ‘ordinary Australians’ in the urbs

The anti terror laws are nothing for law abiding muslims to worry about

It's when the welfare system is finally overhauled. Then they'll have problems.

Terrorism 101:

In order to defeat a liberal democracy, or to cause a liberal democracy to stop acting in a rational and liberal way the following steps are useful.

1. In order to be successful with any terror campaign you must carry out sufficient attacks so that the population will become fearful. These attacks need not be more life threatening than the normal road toll, or even the number of people who die from bee stings or peanut allegies.

2. The fearful people will want security, and will accept the government taking action to restrict civil liberties.

3. The insurgent group should continue attacks, just enough to cause outrage.

4. The government will start acting harshly against those who are suspected of supporting the insurgency.

5. This will provide a propaganda victory for the insurgents, and will drive more people to their cause.

6. Attacks will continue, the government can only react more harshly, detention, concentration camps, arbitrary arrest will follow.

7. More people will oppose the government, the insurgency will grow, not weaken.

8. The government will be seen to have ceased being that of a liberal democracy and its legitimacy will be under question both domestically and internationally.

9. Liberal democracy will be shown to have failed.

10. Insurgency / terror activities will have achieved their goal.

Alternatives: Address possible grievances within the liberal democratic framework. Establish contact with dissaffected groups. Use pre-existing criminal intelligence tools to identify those who are actually plotting crimes. This will be assisted when the marginalised group is brought into a more trusting relationship with the rest of the community, leading to better intelligence and members of that community informing on offender.

Our current laws are sufficient, anything else is just accomodating those responsible for terrorism. Racist activities or comments about a group will be used to justify anti-community activites.

Perhaps it is only a coincidence that the bombers of Bali and the towers were Muslim.
The bombers did not discriminate, they included all in their vicious killings.
Maybe it is 'racist' to nominate them as "Muslims" but the facts are they were .
Australians have been targetted, Australians have been slain as the holidayed and if muslims take offence because we call a spade a spade, so be it.
When the so called moderate muslims call a jihad on their murdering brethren, we will be right behind them.
But we must be sure they are being dinkum.

Infan:These insane islamic, barbarian, uncivilised butchers don't care who they kill as long as some of any other belief are killed along with the moslems.
As I u/stand they have two answers. 1.allah will sort it out when they (the murdered moslems)reach paradise. 2. They (the cruelly slain moslems) will be considered and judged as martyrs - so whacko the chook an eternal X-rated paradise, unless you are female then you only get to watch.
hamlet: So the West have their own murdering insane butchers - so? At least these western killers do not have a "holy?" book that instructs/commands the murder of those of all other faiths, male-female-adult-or child. numbat

[Deleted for having absolutely no relevance]

[Deleted for having absolutely no relevance]

To the Islamophobes: instead of projecting your ignorant hatred via your keyboards, why not get another perspective by watching 'Compass' on ABC TV tonight at 10:05pm:

An Islamic History of Europe Part 1
Sunday 23 October

Reporter Rageh Omaar travels to Spain and Sicily to explore their forgotten medieval Muslim empires and their legacy today. In medieval times these were the most prosperous, enlightened and civilized parts of the world, where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived side by side in productive harmony and had a significant influence on the European Renaissance.

Producer: BBC Manchester

A number of individuals have fallen foul of DIMIA - a supposedly regulated Agency. Despite the adverse publicity generated against DIMIA, positive change does not appear to be happening. Vanstone and previously Ruddock have been defending the indefensible.

What confidence can we have in ASIO when under the proposed new legislation people can be taken in for interrogation at the whim of an Agency. Any evidence against an individual can be very circumstantial. It gets to Monty Python proportions when a person does not have any information; when the authorities believe they do, they can be held.

Mr. Howard is talking about increasing the size of ASIO substantially; making it even more scary with ASIO Officers doing their duties with very little experience in dealing with complex issues.

This happening in an Agency that is not accountable.

The medicine is worse than the disease. We have not experienced a terrorist attack on Australian soil like USA, Spain, Bali or Britain; yet, we will be subject to laws that can ruin innocent individuals. Those individuals will not be able to defend themselves; at least some victims of DIMIA have been able to make public their tribulations.

The new proposed Anti-Terrorist laws have been drafted in secrecy, have not been able to be reviewed in an open arena; consequently are likely to be poorly administered. Government Agencies that cannot be openly audited having unbridled powers are a recipe for disaster.

We need protection from rampant politicians.

mahatma duck: Most others of any faith, especially Christians & Jews would/will live in peace with islamics. Islamics won't and are not interested UNLESS all become moslem.
Do not know about hindu but neither Christian, Jew or buddhist have a manual/holy book which teaches and encourages members to brutally murder those of other faiths as moslems have in their blood thirsty koran.
mahatma try asking moslems to live in peace with other faiths which they havn't been doing in any country they presently reside in.
mahatma are you moslem? In your letter you sound as if you could be.
numbat

Normally, I am happy just to have my say and let others have theirs without comment. But Ranier and mahatma duck have really crossed the line. Ranier wants to re-educate the 'racism' out of me, mahatma duck insults me by calling me a racist. These people and others who yap about the loss of rights that will ensue from anti-terror law are less precious abouth the rights of others who dare to differ with them.

Ranier: put up the evidence that racism is involved in my undenied criticims of a religion which has adherents of ALL races, including my Anglo/Saxon group you have so much trouble with, or shut up.
Point out where I said Aborigines are not ordinary Australians or shut up.
Point out the racism in my only other mention of Aborigines where I suggested the same opportunities for them as enjoyed by other Australians, or shut up.
Point out how my looking for differences in races would remove the racism from me rather than doing as I now do and concentrate on the simlilarities, or shut up.
Point out why, as a racist, I enjoy regular trips to Asia, love the countries and the people, or shut up.
Tell me how I managed to grow up not knowing I am a racist after spending the first 30 years of my life in a town of 7,000 people among people of all many races, including the Aboriginals I lived a few minutes walk from, or shut up.

mahatma duck: like all ducks, you swallow any old rubbish and spread it as pure crap. I and other "Islamophobes" spread "ignorant hatred via (our) keyboards", but your bigoted insults to us are, of course, "peace and love".

Get over yourselves, both of you.

Leigh,

“like all Muslims, he is unable to rebut any criticsm or questioning of some of his statements”

Not sure where you have been, there are few Australian Muslims (including myself) answering question and responding to criticism from fellow posters. Please check some of my last postings.

“With Muslim terrorists, we know where we stand. With so-called moderate Muslims, we will never know. Where is the real danger?”

Interesting statement, weren’t Australian Muslims born and living here, going with you to school, to work, on buses for the last 40 years? Didn’t you see them at shopping centers and in parks on weekends?

Didn’t you see Muslim girls in tears in Centennial Park after the Bali bombing tragedy?

Peace,

Leigh,

You want evidence from me that you’re an ignorant racist? I think want you really need is a psycho- therapist who can also teach you how to read your own written statements.

But perhaps you've already tried this out? (without luck?)

That you lived only ‘a few minutes’ from ‘Aboriginals’ suggests this was about spatially organizing avoidance and surveillance and petty gossip rather than social interaction.

Indeed everything you’ve said in this forum so far illustrates how benign your racism is and how ignorant your are about your own position of privilege.

So what does it mean to be white Leigh? That you don’t even have to think deeply about this everyday must surely tell you something? So you travel to Asian countries and enjoy it. Whoopee do! So do pedophiles and drug pushers.

So you want me to shut up every time I encounter racist thinking and blindness? Ha!

You were the first poster to dive in to chide Irfan, a lawyer, for his appraisal of laws that will (from his personal and professional experience) unduly target sections of our community and especially our fellow Muslim citizens. I truly hope that one day you’ll discover how silly you sound and how much more there is to this world than the one you cling to.

In other words, get a life.

Irfan is a legend and should be treated that way. I know this because I have met Irfan and can tell you, that Irfan is a man of principal. No, I am not Muslim. I am Pagan.

My hat is tipped to Irfan Yusuf for standing for his fellow Australians. Where I disagree with Irfan, is that I believe that the major parties in government, will use these anti terror laws to quell political dissent. Become effective in creating electoral opposition to the majors and expect to get lifted by Howards blackshirts.

Leigh,
I wouldn't concern yourself with Rainer he is unsure of his national identity. note his statement, "I don't consider myself to be Australian or culturally Australian." Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 15 October 2005 3:24:22 PM. His view of the predominat culture in Australia exhibits extreme bigoted racism.

Ant,
Could I remind you that the Hilton Hotel bomming was a terrorist attack. Quote, "We have not experienced a terrorist attack on Australian soil like USA, Spain, Bali or Britain; yet, we will be subject to laws that can ruin innocent individuals."

I believe survelliance of an individual or group that might engage in terrorist activity would be happening before any arrest is made. Police will not be walking the street and arresting innocent individuals. Ifran don't be depressed, you have Tony Abbott and John Howard to support your credibility. Walk tall mate!

Oh yawn, now it’s the indomitable Philo and those corny urban philosophies about everything and nothing much at all.

What the hell, just for the hell of playing this childish tit for tat - here is a little pearl from our cultural Philo(stine?)

"Culture should not be focused in race or even religion; it is about national cuisine, language, and dress, national or local practices".

Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 10:52:26 PM

How profound and deep is that!

So what are these unique Australian "national cuisines, languages, and dress, national or local practices" Philo?

C'mon Philo, tell us all what these national traits are? You keep writing about what being 'Australian' means - but provide absolutely no evidence of what this is culturally? C’mon, be fair and fairdinkum cobber!

I’m sure every Muslim and non white person (wanabe ordinary Australians) reading this discussion would be grateful to you and Leigh if you provided some guidance on what this national culture is all about. From this we could also start to understand what the underlying rationale is of these new Terrorist laws - and then I can try to be just like you! (Urrgh..

Leigh,
Poor Rairner does not understand that people across the different race boundaries [different genetic stock] in Australia share a similar culture, i.e. Australia is made up of many different nationalities but most of them share the same cultural heritage i.e. food, dress, and social practises. Similarly with religion it is not race based, as it is not restricted to any one race or culture.

Though Australia is predominantly Christian in religion, yet if you were to attend a Korean Church the language would be in Korean, the dress would be very much Korean national dress, and if they served food it would be a typical Korean menu. Though much of the present culture of Koreans is adapting to the typical Aussie style.

Of course in the Koorie mind they do not consider themselves Australian, or at least Rainer doesn't. Obviously he prefers to eat kangaroo and native berries and native yams, and river cod and tell the dreamtime stories; this is his cultural choice. No one denies his right to practice his choice of culture. That he wishes to cleanse the land of evil spirits by smoke maybe his religion and peculiar to his culture, but that is what I call a cultural practise peculiar to his people.

My quote, "Culture should not be focused in race or even religion; it is about national cuisine, language, and dress, national or local practices"

Philo I'm fully aware of the Hilton bombing, that’s why I stated there had not been a bombing in Australia like in USA, Spain, and Britain etc. The Hilton bombing would appear to be a random event. The other bombings have been by a ideologically driven and recognizable net work of crazy bastards (clearly the Hilton bombers were a pallet short of a brick also).

I was appalled to read in the news today that Mr. Howard had been contemplating that terrorist suspects could be shot. He was altering that view in today’s news to those only trying to escape custody.

It just proves that John Stanhope has done a great service for Australia by posting the original draft of the Anti-Terrorist laws. It has allowed a semblance of debate to take place. Innocent people need the protection of the law.

Once laws are in place they are available for governments of any colour. Some may believe that Mr. Howard will use the laws in a responsible way, fair enough. However, what if we have a government in 7 years time that uses the laws to the letter, those professing Republican views would not be safe then. Not much of a birthright for our children and grandchildren. Just making a negative comment about a government will get you in strife; free speech is under attack at present.

Thankyou, Philo. It is very difficult to deal with an embittered, nasty piece of work like poor old Ranier. Notice that he failed to provide the evidence I asked for, but merely continued his onslaught against me. I don't take it personally. He does it to everybody who doesn't hold his opinions. Fortunately, most people still feel that even people who disagree with them are entitled to have a say in a democracy. Ranier is best ignored.

My wife also wonders why he calls men foxy ladies.

So I take it that Leigh didn't watch Compass last night - a pity, since he could have only have learned from it. Part 2's on next week.

Also, it's hardly bigotry to argue against the bigoted intolerance, xenophobia and racism of others. Who was it who said that there is none so blind as he who will not see?

Congratulations Irfan on a courageous, well argued article.

Rainer, may I apologise on behalf of reasonable white Australians for the crack about you and your diet by one of the posters here who denies being a racist.

Clearly there is a lack of understanding about what constitutes racism. It's pretty simple really, it's about ascribing certain characteristics to a person purely because of their race, religion or ethnic background. It is even racist to ascribe positive attributes, like all Asian's are brainy or all Jews are good business people, or all black people are great dancers.

Mind you, I am not free from prejudice. I can't quite shake the belief that racists have very small brains.

When some of you children get your ego under control you may be able to see the larger picture. Laws proposing to deny Habeas Corpus, to remove the right not to be detained without court appearance, to give anonymous bureaucrats the right to charge,try,and imprison anyone who makes known the fact that you are in secret detention- My God[and I hope yours too]- This is a Hitler Wish List.Anyone who isn't terrified by the potential for the destruction of our society[flawed tho it may be] inherent in these proposals is not paying attention.If I can leave you with a quote from William Pitt [Prime Minister of Britain in early 1800s] "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Guess tyrants havent changed much in 200 years!
Nimrod.

I usually watch Compass but after last week's version of'Pollyanna' I changed my mind.
"An Islamic History of Europe", I believe ,following the blurbs, it was about the flowering of literature and beauty in Islam, following various conquests. If that is what it all was about, I have one question......Where did it all get to?Why is there nothing coming out of Islam now besides hate and death?
Isn't it time Islam stopped living in the past? Isn't it time it encouraged the creativity of its people and added some lustre to the world ?
Why not?

mickijo - and others suggest all the sophistcation and scientific advances attained under Islam now count for little.

My gues is they had their tunr at being top dog for a while now its the turn of the West - for a while - the Chinese were once the pre eminent community on the face of the earth for a while as well - they look like making a come back pretty soon - they're in space as well now.

The greeks were boss of the wash once, the Brits, the Spanish even the Vikings and the Dutch had a go;

I really dont care that much; I guess those previous dynasties died a natural death or were thrown over when enough people got sick of them - in much the same way as might be happening now - bring it on I say; we need a bit of a change.

These terorrism laws might represent in sense a rear gaurd action to halt what might be the evolutionary transition from a dominantly Judeao/Christian model to another form.

If we take a long term perspective to think what we have got is (a) as good as it gets and/or (b) going to last forever is a bit silly.

First I apologize for taking this discussion off topic, but perhaps I did not. What often happens here is I and others find ourselves combating the racism that underlines those who purport not to be racist, to be fair minded and of course, ‘real Australians’.

And as I suspected would happen - Neither Leigh or Philostine explained what their culture is - and it’s because they can’t. Why?

Because their ‘perceived’ privilege in this country ensures that never have to explain their ness as a cultural characteristic and this is fundamental to understanding how they try to maintain their dominance in discussions about multiculturalism and racism.

When social commentators such as the eminently qualified Irfan Yusuf critiques laws or social phenomena that further entrench xenophobia - it’s seen as attack on their privilege.

Because they share a common language of racist thinking they confuse this with a common sense of all things racial. It is not.

If there’s a shared culture in Australia, it’s a culture of racialised hate thought that is considered virtuous, desirable and is mostly held by white Australians - but I’ve witnessed with people of color as well.

But invariably, this ignorance is projected at us who they consider not to be ‘ordinary Australians’, not worthy of the right to Habeas Corpus. (see Nimrod’s post)

Their “spaghetti and dim sim, kangaroo’ understanding of multiculturalism is so pathetic that it’s simply not worth discussing here in depth.

For me the importance of what Irfan’s article is the protection of our civil society, our common humanity and the need to take a broader perspectives that questions whether these laws will have a dire effect on our democracy and civil liberties. I know they will from my own and people’s history.

Philostine, I’m not a Koori so you’ll have to guess again. That you could resort to well known stereotypes of Aboriginal people to attack me sez more about you than it does me or about the culturally rich and wonderfully resilient Koori peoples. I’ll let your words of condescension speak for themselves.

Thanks Mahatma Duck, enaj, and others.

1700+ people die on our roads every year. Do we lock up people with drivers licenses or people who teach how to drive. Read the draft bill *carefully*, read all the expert advice. These laws breach human rights conventions. The only way to stop terrorists is to stop them *wanting* to carry terrorist acts. Currently murder & mass murder are illegal. Conspiracy to murder & being an accessory is also illegal. These laws are only about causing fear. Who's to say somebody doesn't call the terrorism hotline & make an anonymous accusation about you or a family member. After you have been cleared & released you arn't allowed to tell anybody or you WILL be locked up for 5 years. NO THANKS this is UNAUSTRALIAN

Over the last few days I've become steadily disenchanted with the proposed laws.

Yes Muslims would be held under suspicion the most. Howard merely had to point to London and he thought Australian would embrace his (UK) ideas. He underestimated his electorate.

The atmosphere of fear that these proposals have created (blanket advertising etc) makes is less likely that a friend/relative of a potential bomber will be comfortable talking to the authorities. This type of information is the best opportunity to headoff a violent action or any need for a violent reaction.

But the necessary goodwill in the community has turned to fear and often resentment.

I'm coming to the conclusion (it also helps lifting one or 2 insights from Sneekeepete) that greater utilisation of existing laws (there are around 30 security Acts) where appropriate and increased funding for the security agencies (already announced) is the way to go.

It seems the proposed laws where largely launched and calculated to drive a wedge in the ALP - seperating the leadership (Beazely from the left) and the Labor Premiers from their support base.

Therefore the laws when passed with some more cosmetic haggling may well make a terrorist incident more possible - although Howard and Co will be able to crackdown on the bombers with much more "resolve, resolution and other popular leadership qualities".

Australia has become a haven for the people of the world who dislike the lifestyle and opportunities of their own nations. However when they arrive here they make no attempt to assimilate to the Australian wway of life. They bring their racial hatreds with them. Yes Muslims are going to be viewed as a threat, we see Muslim men, women and even children priding themselves in the fact they will become suicide bombers, Muslim youths have gang raped girls in Sydney. They are flocking to Australia and yet have no interest in becoming Australians in the true sense of the word. They should embrace Australia or go back to where they came from.

The Flashback that never happenned:

This country has become a haven for the people of the world who dislike the lifestyle and opportunities of their own nations.

However when they arrive here they make no attempt to assimilate to the Aboriginal way of life. They bring their racial hatreds with them.

Yes white Australians are going to be viewed as a threat, we see white men, women and even children priding themselves in the fact they are invaders, white youths have gang raped our girls in our homelands.

They are flocking to our country and yet have no interest in becoming Aboriginal in the true sense of the word. They should embrace Aboriginality or go back to where they came from

Rainier

If I'd read your post as a new chum on OLO I would have thought "what the f..."

However, as an Anglo (but with olive skin - woman think its sexy!) I take your point that oppression is a matter of pain and perspective with new kids on the block being "new" in the eyes of the beholders who preceded them.

Up till at least the 1950s Catholics of any hue were held apart and in suspicion by many sections of the Australian community. Certainly my mother was told never to marry a Catholic. The early ANZAC days in Melbourne in the 1920s had seperate Catholic services/parades and Protestant ones.

One might argue that religion is something one can cast off to assimilate.

But religion is deeply important to Middle Eastern (including Jewish) cultures particularly when they feel isolated in the Australian community.

Regarding assimilation, if Howard by implication holds himself up as a model to assimilate to, no wonder the assimilation concept can be easily discounted. Coerced assimilation never works nor is it desirable.

Fellow Human,

You might or might not be a Muslim. That's the one of the things with anonymity: you can say anything you like.

Back on the subject,

I just find it amazing that ordinary Australians are supportive of these laws.

We know by now that we are dealing with 1 way tripper (ie no hostages, no demands). Whether the suspects are external (US example) or Internal (UK example); why does the new law need to penalise those who criticise the government for example? This is not alikely scenario unless in a civil unrest (economy crash, depression, chaos).

I suggest the perfect anti-terror measures should be:

- Foreign policy review: being brave does not mean go and ask for trouble. Every body else is fighting terrorism without causing their capital cities to be named.
- War in Iraq: regardless of good intent, Mr Howard's decision to take the country to war cannot be taken in that “Middle Eastern” overnight approach. And Yes, the Iraq war made us more of a target.
- Break the circle of distrust with the Australian Muslim communities as a first line of preventive defence. I can’t see how more spying can bring a 100.0% result (remembering a war on terror is like a pregnancy test it is 100.0% or zero).
- Invest in infrastructure monitoring, emergency department, alert and messaging systems across major capital cities.

Plantagenet,

Liked your posting with one comment:

Religion is important in the Middle East but it is not a form of identity. People of different religions see each other and co-exist. I lived in Egypt until the age of 29 and we had Coptic Christians friends. We attended their weddings in churches and they came to dinner functions at Mosques.

My observation in Australia is a little different: religion, ethnicity is a form of identity (I have been here for 10 years now).

This could either be because the country is so young or just discfuntional management of multi-culturalism.

Peace,

rainier: No one, that's no body on or in this forum has threatened to shoot, stab, throttle or drown any other person just because they are from another race. Get a grip on yourself petal. numbat

Leigh,

I am an Australian Muslim since 1996.
I contributed 171 comments (including this one) mainly explaining views across the board on Muslims and Islamic religion (Boaz david, Philo) and also commenting on nation building matter such as taxation, laws and liberties, technology, etc.

Not sure why would you doubt I am a Muslim but only you can understand whats going inside your head I guess.

Peace

I am about to publish another book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP & Why not voting
A book on CD about ELECTORAL AND CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
ISBN 0-9751760-1-3
After I already published on 30 September 2003;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
But no one has to guess how many lawyers ever bothered to offer their assistance to hold John Howard and others legally accountable.
Irfan Yusuf might be a lawyer and no doubt his comments are correct but what is actually doing about it?
Howard could be the first charged under the so called anti-terrorist legislation for "treachery" (Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth)) having invaded a "friendly" nation Iraq!

If we really do want to fight terrorism then let us do so who instigate terrorism by unconstitutionally invading a "friendly" nation!

We gain nothing by pounding upon Muslims/Arabs as it will not resolve a thing.
We as Australians must work together and pursue that these unconstitutional proposed draconic anti terrorist laws never are implemented.

See also my website www.schorel-hlavka.com for further details.

Don’t fall for the political stirring but use your common sense!

We, the people, decide if our constitutional rights are to be changed, not some group of politicians who are mainly interested to protect their political hide.

sneekeepete, I have often thought that as all the main civilisations appear to have a limited shelf life, the western one could be in decline.
I just hope it lasts me out, if civilisations are to be recycled, I sure do not want to know about them.
A good word about the Western era. Sure there was oppression , slavery and other very nasty effects but with Western civilisation has also come humane recognition of human rights, inventions, medicines etc. We all know about them.
If this society is overcome, is the world going to retrogress back to the swamp of medievilism? Where life revolves not around the wonders man can do , but around a book written by in an age that has passed?
For the progress of humanity, I sincerely hope not.

mickijo,

the proposed legislation being supported by the likes of yourself represents the end of legal doctrines dating back to the magna carta which are designed to protect our liberties. so celebrate the heralding of medievalism which is being conducted with your support.

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers.
The unprecedented danger is for us to forget that we are heirs to the greatest and best civilization the world has known, and, as in the 1930s, our inheritance is under threat.
Meanwhile, the media waffles on about 'insurgents' in Iraq, 'rebel forces' in Nalchik, Russia, 'Asians' raping and rioting in the UK, 'militants' in Southern Thailand, Kashmir, Philippines, Bangladesh, Trinidad, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, France etc etc. But why are they rebelling? What are they insurging over? Did I miss something about Trinidad and Bangladesh having troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? I'm aware the very concept of "the enemy" is alien to the non-judgmental multicultural mind: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. But the media's sensitivity police apparently want this to be the first war we lose without even knowing who it is we've lost to.
This is a global war between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not about a "Clash of Civilizations" or "East vs. West," it is about Islam vs.Infidels. The head honcho of Islam declared war on ALL non-Muslims over 1350 years ago. But apparently we're supposed to believe that if we do not resist the jihad, the jihad will go away.
Here's the sequence: Islamic jihadists mount a major attack against non-Muslims. Officials begin investigating, whereupon Muslims begin to protest the "climate of fear" created by the investigation, and say they are struggling to understand why the attackers did what they did, and that they feel unfairly targeted by law enforcement. Rumors of hate attacks and 'Islamophobia' begin to circulate. We non-Muslim/racist bastards are to blame for everything and Muslims are the victims. Never mind about 'Operation White Meat', kufaar and najis (filth), we are the racists.
CONTINUED.....

The number of Infidels won over by past masters who use personal charm (that liquid-brown-eyed sincerity, that soft-voice of sweet reason, the whole Waleed Ali/Keysar Trad shtick that has been trademarked in all countries) is disturbing.The multiculturalist's form of "tolerance" involves tolerating the appalling intolerance of others--even when it impinges on their own rights of free expression. In other words, perfect for self-loathing, masochistic dhimmis and the ever-more dominant minority whom they love to placate. (Some posters here fit that description).
So-called "Human Rights" groups did nothing about the persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic lands, mass murder in Biafra , or the mass murder and mass slavery in the southern Sudan, or the mass murder in Darfur, or the Arab enslavement of blacks in Mali and Mauritania, the mass murder by Arabs of Kurds, or the cultural and linguistic oppression by Arabs of Berbers, the destruction of thousands of churches, and the attacks on Christians, in Indonesia, or the persecution and attacks on Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, but freak out when some Infidel suggests that we do something about 5th columnists in our midst.
Irfan Yusef's latest smokescreen about the Shoot to kill laws is just the tip of the taqiyya/kitman iceberg.
In any war there is 'friendly-fire' - accidental killing of innocent people. It's unfortunate, but in 'the fog of war,' it happens. War is hell! The regrettable incident in London which resulted in the death of an innocent Brazilian is one such case and no doubt more mistakes will occur. But it would be the height of stupidity to stop defending ourselves because we didn't want to make mistakes. Jihadists mean business and we must respond robustly, not passively with a wishy-washy response-lite.
Islam at its core is lethally militaristic and institutionalizes homicide. Anyone who has read through the Qur'an/hadith/sira is aware of this, since it is these tomes that are the source of Islamic ideology-- including its militaristic and homicidal characteristics. Anywhere Islam is permitted to set up shop the problem of militant Islam automatically follows. That should be obvious to anyone who studies the news.

Irfan, you say

'the proposed legislation being supported by the likes of yourself represents the end of legal doctrines dating back to the magna carta which are designed to protect our liberties. so celebrate the heralding of medievalism which is being conducted with your support.'

I may sound like pastor Niemoeller of Nazi Germany......
First they came for the Jews, as I wasn't a Jew I wasn't concerned, then they came for the Jehovah's Witnesses etc.

But I prefer our version of medievalism to your religions any day if they ever happened to become a majority in this country.

Terrorism aside something needs to be done regarding your co religionists day to day behaviour. You know what I'm talking about.

I'd rather not have these laws at all, the only reason we have them is because imported large numbers of muslims from the 70s onwards.

One could argue that nature abhors a vacuum and some other nutjob religion or ethnic group would fill the immense gap left in violent crime, welfare fraud and terrorist potential if the incumbents ever left. It probably would, the Russian Mafia come to mind but I doubt whether they'd be as nasty.

Since I commenced a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® in 1982, I had a common streak flowing through and that was that most people contemplating suicide and even murder could not find someone that would listen to them.
When they felt hopelessly alone, then they wanted to end their life or even kill as many people as they could when doing so.
This trademark, I view, underlines much of suicide bombings.

Time and again, people would afterwards make known to me that it was not that they expected me to resolve their problems, but the fact that I was available for them to “LISTEN” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whenever they desired to have someone to listen to them made the difference to them why they didn’t proceed with what they had contemplated.

In my view, many a person disillusioned with what society is about, and feeling lost in it, then see it as some (albeit twisted) HONOUR to become a suicide bomber.
Others may do so out of revenge for those dear to them having been unjustly killed.
To fight terrorism we must ignore the colour of skin, the nationality of a person and even religious following, as we must see the person as a unique person for themselves. We must learn to “LISTEN” to that person. Then and only then may we combat terrorism/crime as many who may be guided otherwise no longer will be tempted by becoming some suicide bomber or commit other criminal acts.

Some people contacted me, even decades later. To let me known that they made success in life, and have followed my teaching to “LISTEN” to others.
Anti terrorism laws that are “and for any other purpose” can be used just against people opposing some freeway, some health issue, etc. and have nothing to do with the real cause of terrorism, rather may create more terrorism instead!
Try to listen to the grievance of your fellow humanbeing, and even if not resolving them, it may avert problems.

Gerrit

What you have posted is very true. Its counsellors (like yourself), teachers, public servants, friends, loved ones, police and ASIO case officers who do much of the listening.

Their objectives are sometimes different, but in the end they want to avoid a death or violence.

The issue becomes complex though when foreign terrorist organisations (using a religious label) persuade young men to NOT listen. In that case existing powers to detain are already there.

What worries me is when politicians bignote themselves by talking tough, splitting political opponents (Labor) and then proposing to pass the legislation on a day (Melbourne Cup) guaranteed to get less democratic debate.

The implications of the proposed laws for liberty, freedom of speech and alienation in the Moslem community are frightening. The government is taking advantage of Federal Labors loss of power in the Senate to ram through the laws.

Nobody wants to create a situation where young alienated men stop talking and start hatching bomb plots. Sadly a tragic outcome will not damage the Coalition's future electoral prospects and legitimacy to govern, quite the opposite.

it is all this name calling and racial intolerance that is the real problem in australia at the moment. The fact of the matter is that the terrorist threat in australia is highly overestimated, for whatever reason that may be, political or otherwise. we are only on a medium alert, the second of four levels and this has not risen again since sept 11. the real question we need to be asking is whether these anti-terror laws, such as the shoot-to-kill laws, are really justified in the current environment. even the govt and australian intelligence agencies state that there is no specific threat to australian security from terrorists at the current moment. So is it really worth going down the path that we currently are with these laws? if the reform of criminal law continues impinging on australians rights at the current rate it wont be long before we forget altogether just how much we have given up. its a snowball waiting to be rolled down the hill.
perhaps these particular laws wont have much affect on the muslim community at all. perhaps they will. but i have not doubt that the laws passed in six months, or two years time WILL begin to impact on the way of life in australia. whatever that way may be.
these laws are not justified at the current time. it is this which we should be debating, not who has the smallest brain.

Irfan, Australia has never needed this type of law until now. If the majority of Australians agree such laws as necessary given today's threats of terrorism, do you consider the majority of Australians are a bunch of cowards/chickens or worse? Please share with us your very honest opinion on this.
I do not KNOW that these laws may be unnecessary, I do not KNOW if they are nothing more than scare tactics but I do know I want my Australian children and their children to be safe from possible radical Islamic harm and if it takes drastic laws to combat that harm, so be it.
And I can see nothing "racist" in that. The ignorant racism has come from the various inflammatory Islamic clerics who should never have been permitted to set foot in this country.

But the thing is, Mikijo, how will these laws PREVENT terrorist acts?

If some nutbag wants to blow themselves up THEN THEY WILL DO SO NO MATTER WHAT THE LAWS ARE.

We already have laws against murder, and plotting to/attempting to murder. We already have laws against working to bring down the State (Treason). I'm people who do not report that they know of crimes being plotted are then also in trouble, they are "Accessories to crime". You can even be an "accesssory after the fact", if you know the truth and do not report it.

I just do not see that things like preventative detention, which you cannot even tell anyone about, or properly inform your lawyers about, will in ANY way stop those people determined to harm others. Also, how does this even work? As some clever person in the Australian Newspaper commented, "are we going to have as part of our WorkChoices a right Guaranteed By Law to fourteen days off from work, no questions asked?"

Bad laws do not prevent evil acts. They just stop good people going about their lives free from harrassment.

About 10 years ago, a man contacted me contemplating suicide but in a grand manner. He just wanted to blow himself up using a gas tanker and so destroy some city buildings in the process. As he made clear, killing himself would make no impact but to kill hundreds if not more innocent people would certainly draw attention and canvas why he did so. The man explained to me that he was dying of cancer anyhow and so has nothing to live for, after a court made orders against him basically robbing him of his pride and glory.
I LISTEN to him carefully and my first issue was to explain that as much as he demanded his rights were catered for so should he consider others and not contemplate killing others and for that neither himself.
I taught him how to do his own litigation, and he successfully battled in court. The very orders that had nearly driven him into the deep end, so to say, were set aside.
His cancer turned out to be a misconception.
Today, he is still alive, but the better for it.
Because of the danger to the general community, I had no choice but to warn a Marshall about the possible destruction of building but refused to disclose the identity of the person. At least they were forewarned.

He was Caucasian, Christian, and well educated!

What he needed at the time was simply someone to LISTEN.

For me to report his identity would have resulted that he would have mistrusted me and could have denied it all and then execute what he had contemplated.
Likewise, at other times, I am faced with people contemplating suicide/murder where to notify the authorities I can if anything achieve worse.

Call them criminals, would be criminals or home grown terrorist or else, but after all often something is going haywire that causes otherwise perfect citizens, often well educated to loose it all.

Anti terrorist laws, I view, may only make things worse and more likely result to people resorting to terrorism, if anything as a challenge

The only Terrorist attack to date in Australia, Well that is not true, define Terrorist? Excluding urbane anarchistic terrorism - Well in the early Seventies a Palestinian attempted to Hi Jack an Aircraft in Darwin Air port.
NT policeman by himself stormed the aircraft and brought the terrorist out in a body bag. Liberalism and the wet hanky brigade with the Fifth column terrorist supporters did not exist then to a certain degree where as now they promote anarchism and are Achieving this goal and loving it.
I hope that is not too Offensive Irf, Not as detailed as my other post’s, but whatth Irf commandith happendith and remove. A real hero .Truth hurts mate. And there is a lot more to be said in a public forum,and it will be said.
I often wonder Irf, there is not much editorial difference between what comes out of Lakemba Mosque web site, and what appears on the National Socialists web site, Exchanging a few Ideas maybe, just a few name changes or: Your not working along side with them are you? Chomsky killed the linguistic manipulation, so it is out of date and tired, be more Original please.Propaganda wars ended years ago, Most people are not that shallow anymore! well maybe some.

Having read the websites of Muslim extremists; I personal do not see their problem is depression leading to suicide. It is not in the same strain as persons depressed with their life. The bommers see themselves as valiant heros for the cause of Allah. Does the smiling assain Amrosi [spell]suffer depression or is it his pride in his superior religion?

Quote, "Nobody wants to create a situation where young alienated men stop talking and start hatching bomb plots".

I would suggest you study the character, wealth, intellectual qualifications and family life of those who have been involved. The most common influencial factor has been their Islamic religion. Therefore it is most likley that terrorists in the same vein will come from Mosques.

However these laws should have a limited time before review, because we are currently at war with terrorists. Once any threat of terror no longer exists the laws should be removed. I do not believe there will be indiscriminate arrests, as survelliance and evidence should be gained before an arrest made, so that a case against them can be established.

In WII anyone who had a German surname who lived in Australia was closely monitered. We initially have suspicions of a most likely group to threaten National security. At this moment it happens to be radical Islamists.

Philo

Over my quote, "Nobody wants to create a situation where young alienated men stop talking and start hatching bomb plots".

Yes looking at the most relevant case, the 4 London bombers, on which the laws are implicitly based. They appear as generally quiet lower middle class, and religious. Three of the bombers were from Leeds a dreary Midlands city and the other from Buckinghamshire (away from the "action". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693739,00.html

They look generally pretty ordinary by most standards. Your right that highly religious people (like them) often see themselves as intellectuals - which is also conducive to alienation. Its no surprise that they spent much of their time talking and praying at mosques.

I don't see what you're problem is if these guys or their relatives had reached out and talked to a counsellor, social worker, or Security Service (MI5) contact before the four set off their bombs? This is a pretty standard and humanitarian way of dealing with "explosive" personal problems.

As to your expectation "Once any threat of terror no longer exists the laws should be removed." There's always a "threat of terror" and no politician would risk removing the proposed anti terror laws. As Gareth Evans (not out of political contention) found out quasi intelligence analysts (like him) can be overly optimitic and embarassingly wrong.

I don't think there will "be indiscriminate arrests" either. Thats a straw man.

As I've said in my post above the proposed laws owe much to their "put a wedge in Labor" value. The current laws are little used (as Ruddock has stated). Therefore you could conclude that these laws are underutilized - is that some measure of the true terrorist threat? Howard has raised the ASIO budget mainly to utilize existing laws (all 30 Acts).

Creating fear will make it that much harder for ASIO to prevent terrorism because fewer will want to talk BEFORE a bomb goes off.

Yellow_Spewman.
What's all this bollocks about you and other Muslims "answering question (sic) and responding to criticism from fellow posters" ? A few weeks ago on a different thread I asked you a few questions after answering yours. All you came up with was moral-equivalency waffling on completely different subjects (a bit like some other posters on this thread bringing up the subjects of Aboriginals and "what do you think a 'proper' Australian is?" etc), anything to cloud the issue. Remember? I wrote: "In a previous post I invited you to PROVE ME WRONG after you said that I "made it up". I threw down the gauntlet and you picked up a bogey-encrusted handkerchief. You have all the debating skills of a squirrel and the vegetable-cunning of a potato. I'm still waiting for your refutation (no ridiculous tangents please) of the original issues." -- Is your motto 'When in doubt obfuscate'?
Still up to your old tired tricks I see. Here's another one: "Didn’t you see Muslim girls in tears in Centennial Park after the Bali bombing tragedy?" (Oh, the humanity) The only Muslim girls in tears I've seen had bruises and cuts on their faces (probably had the s**t kicked out of them by their husbands/fathers/brothers - see Qur'an 4:34, 2:223, 4:15, Tabari IX:113, Ishaq:496 and Bukhari, vol. 7, book 72, no. 715), or perhaps they were unhappy with having to wear a sack on their heads for the rest of their lives 'cos some dark-ages-neanderthal said so.
WAR!

mahatma dork.
Islamophobia means an irrational fear of Islam. Is it irrational to notice and ask serious questions about Muslim shenanigans worldwide? I won't give examples because of the 350 word limit on posts here, suffice to say, EVERY country on this fair planet, except maybe Iceland and Greenland has the 'Religion of peace' either preaching hate against Infidels in mosques, genocide, slavery, forced Islamization, persecution of non Muslims, bombings, matyrdom operations, calls for a global caliphate and sharia law, rapes, murder, honor-killings, terror cells, FGM, violent "immigrant" gangs, death-threats, calls to assassinate polititians, violence to homosexuals and prostitutes, forced marriages, destruction of churches/temples of non Muslims, whitewashing of history in universities/media, riots, beheadings, school sieges, theatre sieges, 'plane hijacks, arms, people and drug smuggling, religious vilification lawsuits, Christmas carol/Nativity play banning, banned sculptures/books/cartoons/films/paintings/ice-creams/pictures of pigs, taqiyya/kitman, money laundering, “morality police”, dhimmis, blood money, floggings, violations of Religious Freedoms, kidnappings, jihadi training camps, hate education in schools and madrasas, massacres of tourists, apostacy laws, rise in extremist Islam, economic mis-management, corruption, war etc etc. So those of us that have noticed these things happening and have bothered to study the Qur'an and sunnah and history (without resorting to believing Saudi-funded/BBC-apologist-propaganda whitewashes of history such as An Islamic History of Europe Parts 1&2 on TV) are projecting our ignorant hatred eh? Why don't you get another perspective and update YOUR ignorance by reading some Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Andrew Bostom (The Legacy of Jihad) and Robert Spencer?
Or are you only capable of watching the telly?

Irfan,

unfortunately, it is obvious that racial profiling will take place. This is in no small part due to the continued refusal by members of the Islamic communities, both here and around the world, consistent refusal to condemn, and indeed continued support for, terrorism. This is the inescapable fact that underlies the non-palatable truth. Unfortunately, the muslim communities have failed to realise that to live peacefully amongst the various ethnic groups making up this nation that it is necessary to refute the hard line minority within their own community.

The fact is that jews for instance were victimised for millenia, whilst living peacefully among the goyim in Europe. This is despite the fact that no jew attacked them, and if they had it would have been condemned by the majority in the interest of self-preservation.

If the muslim community continues to seek to aggravate their non-muslim neighbours, history has shown that far from self-preservation, they will achieve self-immoliation instead. This aggravation includes any support, or failure to condemn, terrorist acts by correligionists worldwide. Choose wisely,

Aaron.

Aaron

“Unit 101 was an Israeli special operations unit founded and led by Ariel Sharon on orders from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in August 1953. It has drawn much criticism due to deaths of innocent civilians, in particular the Qibya operation, which left almost 70 civilians dead.” http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Unit+101&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Unit%20101

Secondly

“On November 28, a Belgian court will decide whether Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be tried for his alleged role in the slaughter by Lebanese militiamen of untold numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut in 1982.

At the time, Sharon was in charge of Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. On October 3, an appellate court grand jury convened in Brussels to begin determining whether Belgium can invoke the mechanisms of international law to prosecute a sitting head of state from another country.

HISTORIC SUIT

On June 18, survivors of the Sabra and Shatila massacres filed two civil lawsuits against Sharon in a Belgian court. The complaints describe the events leading up to the September 15, 1982 sealing of Sabra and Shatila by the Israeli army during the invasion of Lebanon, followed by authorization from Sharon, then Israeli Defense Minister, for a unit of 150 Phalangists -- a right-wing Lebanese Christian militia -- to enter the camps.

In what Sharon has termed a "mopping up" of the camps, for the next two days the Phalangists proceeded to rape, kill and injure thousands of unarmed citizens within the camps. The presentation of facts in the complaint is supplemented with testimonials from 22 of the plaintiffs and 12 witnesses who survived the massacres but lost family members and suffered injuries.

The complaint alleges Sharon is responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes for his role in the massacres.” http://www.merip.org/mero/mero101101.html

Food for thought

Skid Matrix v1.0

I can understand you comments on bad practices by few Muslims but unless you are a robot, why would you shoot yourself in the foot by trying to compare women positions in scriptures?

OK then, here is the Islam position on women rights revealed 1,400 years ago to pagan Arabs:

Surah Women (4) you refer to consists of 177 verses talking about women rights: to maintain their maiden names, to have their own financial entity, to be treated well by their husbands and supported (financially & emotionally). In case of a divorce, she has the right for arbitration (to correct her husband) and supported if divorced until she finds another husband (4: 1-12, onwards). The rights went as far as ‘men should not date women in secret but reveal’ the relationship (in marriage).

The part 4:15 (explained 4:16 and followed in 24:2-10) explains the punishments for adulterers, abusive women (and men). This is a peace of family law/ legislation.

According to your mentally challenged posting re ‘Judeo-Christian’ cocktail, here are the only women rights in OT, NT:
- The ‘right’ to have a master (her husband) (the Hebrew and Arabic used stronger words ‘yasud’ ie to dominate and enslave).
- The ‘right’ to marry her rapist (her lucky father gets 50 shekels though).
- The ‘right to be kicked out of the house and isolated in a kiosk during PMS and after child birth for 30 days (60 days if she gives birth to a female).

FGM is neither Islamic nor Arab but a Central African custom. We have seen FGM victims in Christian and Jewish Ethiopians.

Hoping version 2.0 will be specific and deep.

Aaron,

People with fear of Islam have many options: visit Australian Muslim websites, go to an open day mosque (there are 26 in Sydney receiving in some days 1500 non-Muslim visitors), knock on their next door Muslim neighbour or colleague at work. There are also DVDs, documentaries, or get a ‘meanings interpretation of the Quran’ from any bookstore.

If none of the above works, nothing else will.

Irfan I see your point. But I wonder whether or not protest groups are the main target. Let's face it most people who want to march in a protest march against say nuclear vessels visiting our shores or refugees being jailed don't want to be shot to death or imprisoned or risk imprisonment for seven years.

Herein lies the one reason that terrorists are prepared to do the horrible things they do - they have nothing to lose, they are fanatics.

There is as belief in some cultures that too much order leads to anarchy or is indeed a form of anarchy in that the law is virtually given the nod to do as they please to maintain order. Paradoxical hay? Saddam Hussein kept law and order using forces that were anarchistic. I think the terrorists know this and their actions are having the effect that they want and need. John Howard may consider that he is being tough on terrorism but he is actually capitulating. He is in certain ways taking up the methods of the Middle Eastern rulers to keep order.

I also think John Howard and the Liberals are in a no win situation. Let's say they do nothing and an attack happens. Who do you think is going to have to wear it? Yes something needs to be done but we must not give in to the culture of fascistic control that other cultures use to maintain order.

Look at Iraq. The place is loaded with soldiers to keep order and prevent terrorist attacks and yet they drive a cement mixer into the middle of a hotel complex. I don't think we are any safer from terrorism because of these laws especially since being shot is a good thing to a fanatic. I do think, however, that the more vocal are under threat from their own government or at least feel that way. No John Howard isn't anywhere near as hardcore as Saddam Hussein but his laws to protect us are becoming too similar to the ways Saddam protected his empire.

Fellow Human

I haven't been to mosque open days but have been to islamic webpages and worked with moslems in 4 countries, had neighbours in 2.

Won't go into detail but I can't say I'm impressed.

Regarding FGM, here's what Nida ul Islam, a true blue Aussie Mossie site from Lakemba has to say about it....

As for female circumcision, there is a popular assumption that female circumcision has no place in Islam. There is no basis for this suggestion, because female circumcision was practiced during the time of the Prophet and he approved of it according to many narrations. The Messenger of Allah said to a woman in Madinah who circumcised women: 'When you trim do it slightly and not excessively' [xxvii] Aisha narrated that Allahs Messenger said: 'When the two circumcised parts meet, a ritual bath becomes obligatory. According to hadith and other similar narratives, the Prophet describes both the male and female sex organs as khitaan, which means, location of circumcision. Some scholars such as the Shafiee, and a narration from Ahmad hold that it is obligatory. The majority of the scholars hold that it is only recommended. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Maalik, and some of the Hanbalees. From what has been said, we see that female circumcision is voluntary and not mandatory.

The site doesn't seem to be working that well anymore I have a about 20 or so of the fruiter articles on file. It's all very interesting.

Carnifex,

I wish I knew the relevance of your post to our proposed anti-terror laws. But if you wish to do something statistically stupid (like superimpose one paragraph from a magazine on the cultures and understandings of 1.2 billion people across over 60 nations), be my guest.

Seriously, and with all due respect, there are some real wackos on these forums.

Off topic –
Islam is one of numerous religions in this world.
Islam has no exclusive rights to terrorism or bad practices.

If you focus solely on one possible threat – invariably you never see the true threat sneaking up from behind.

On topic –
When fear and terror raises its head, governments tells us that security and a little fascism is ‘the price of freedom’.

Has it occurred to anyone that ‘the price of freedom’ is also living with the risk that there are those who may commit violence for self-serving purposes?

Consider the phrase ‘you can make some of the people happy some of the time, but not all of the people happy all of the time’. This speaks volumes as to what democracy and freedom actually mean. It seems strange that many people cannot see that they want to keep their cake and eat it too.

Democracy requires sacrifice. What that sacrifice is – fascism or risk – is perhaps something that has not yet been realised or discussed. Maybe it is time for us as a people to mature a little and understand that we cannot have a utopia, as no significant group of humans want the same thing.

The best we can ask for is more tolerance, greater acceptance – and more commitment to avoid marginalising or disenfranchising anyone – of any kind – from the society we choose to build.

Nice article Ifran.

Nice post Reason.

I revsisted these posts after an absence - oh my it has degenerated; its now little more than an undergraduate pissing contest: stop all this nonsense right now - Cup day is looming and not one tip mentioned; I nearely fell off my perch when I read a reference to FMG - How the hell did that topic get spliced into the thread.

Again I must add all this brou haha over a littel terorrist threat - get over it; the Windies are here - there is cricket in the air. This is Australia home to the Mulsim, the cricket player, home of Phar Lap ( a bit like the Finn Brothers, Russel Crowe and Sam Neill NZ born ) get focused on the Australian way of life and get off this topic.

When some one talks about Sacrificing, run like hell, another terminology that means they want to control who you are , what to think, and what to do. Fascism or Islam: both the same
By the way, when Left labour parties brought in the new religious vilification laws, how many Moslems stood up and or marched in the streets protesting for the rights of Christians or Jews etc, answer NONE. Let’s not forget to mention about our UK Moslems when Labour brought in Vilification laws, and how Islamic leaders wanted the Quran exempted from scrutiny: I wonder why that would be.
If you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about, like if you do not rape women, you will have nothing to worry about, or if you do not rob banks, or Murder someone, No problems at all, unless you’re the victim.
Treason and Sedition charges ought to be stacked on the books once more then a lot of the lefts garbage and incitement would be taken care of. Sick and tired of the contempt for Australian society.One more step closer.

All-, you say that if we don't break the law we have nothing to fear from the proposed Anti-Terrorist legislation. Your confidence worries me, with the legislation as it stands, innocent people can be taken in and held with no need for official justification. DIMIA is a supposedly regulated Agency; yet, there have been numerous stuff ups perpetrated against innocent people. A bureaucrat with unbridled power, and not being accountable, is a frightening prospect.

Whether our politics are left, right or brindle, nobody is safe from these bureaucrats. Whether we are innocent or guilty is immaterial, there are no safeguards. The laws need to be drafted very carefully so they are Constitutional and provide watertight safeguards for innocent people.

Skid Marx:

"mahatma dork.
Islamophobia means an irrational fear of Islam. Is it irrational to notice and ask serious questions about Muslim shenanigans worldwide? I won't give examples because of the 350 word limit on posts here, suffice to say, EVERY country on this fair planet, except maybe Iceland and Greenland has the 'Religion of peace' either preaching hate against Infidels in mosques, genocide, slavery, forced Islamization, persecution of non Muslims, bombings, matyrdom operations, calls for a global caliphate and sharia law, rapes, murder, honor-killings, terror cells, FGM, violent "immigrant" gangs, death-threats, calls to assassinate polititians, violence to homosexuals and prostitutes, forced marriages, destruction of churches/temples of non Muslims, whitewashing of history in universities/media, riots, beheadings, school sieges, theatre sieges, 'plane hijacks, arms, people and drug smuggling, religious vilification lawsuits, Christmas carol/Nativity play banning, banned sculptures/books/cartoons/films/paintings/ice-creams/pictures of pigs, taqiyya/kitman, money laundering, “morality police”, dhimmis, blood money, floggings, violations of Religious Freedoms, kidnappings, jihadi training camps, hate education in schools and madrasas, massacres of tourists, apostacy laws, rise in extremist Islam, economic mis-management, corruption, war etc etc. So those of us that have noticed these things happening and have bothered to study the Qur'an and sunnah and history (without resorting to believing Saudi-funded/BBC-apologist-propaganda whitewashes of history such as An Islamic History of Europe Parts 1&2 on TV) are projecting our ignorant hatred eh? Why don't you get another perspective and update YOUR ignorance by reading some Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Andrew Bostom (The Legacy of Jihad) and Robert Spencer?
Or are you only capable of watching the telly?"

Absolutely nothing irrational about that.

Yikes :(

On 7-9-2002, I filed a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the Australian electoral commission failure to check with people held in detention as to their right to vote. He refused to investigate. On 9-9-2002 I requested the JSCEM (Standing Committee on Electoral Matters) involving all political parties to investigate the same. They refused.
Now of course, that it is known that Australians were in fact wrongfully held in detention it shows that their bias conduct not to investigate ASSUMING that everyone held as a “suspect” was “guilty” of being unlawfully in Australia it underlines how we assume something (remember the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION) without any evidence or bothering to check the facts. Had they then investigated my complaints then many Australians wrongly held could then have been released.
Now the anti-terrorist laws are designed to convict people where by jury it cannot be achieved!

Letter from Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

QUOTE
It is evident from those enquiries that the SCC would not offer a viable alternative to the scheme of control orders that we have established under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The SCC was established to provide for a trial—without a jury—of a criminal offence where there is a fear that a jury might be subverted by a terrorist organisation or organised crime. It sits with three judges instead of a single judge and a jury.
END QUOTE

And further;
QUOTE
First, we are often dealing with those who are engaged in the preliminary stages of some terrorist activity or in the indirect facilitation of terrorism—for example, fund raising through fraud, training, encouraging or otherwise supporting terrorist activity. In such cases, an ordinary criminal prosecution might indeed be possible, but going the extra step and making a specific link to a terrorist motive is very difficult. Even where such prosecution is possible, it might not be for an offence that carries a sentence which would guarantee the public sufficient protection.
Secondly, information about suspected terrorists may not be admissible in a criminal court, or may not be of a nature that would satisfy the criminal standard of proof. On the other hand, individual pieces of information or intelligence taken together can paint a convincing picture that the person is involved in activity which is likely to pose a threat to our security. In these circumstances, the Government needs to take action to protect the public.
END QUOTE

There is a lot more and even lawyers in the UK are complaining that those accused are denied of justice.

All this system can achieve is to score wrongful convictions while those really intending to commit terrorism may very well get away with it.
How can the scoring of convictions under the pretended argument to protect the community really be so, if innocent people can be convicted which does not serve the safety of the community at all.

Even judgments are to be kept secret so we the people will be denied why people are imprisoned! The outlawed STAR CHAMBER COURT system

Hey Irfan,

Thanks Maaaaaaaaate!

A muslim calling others wackos? Just take a quick glance at your religious beliefs Irfan!

Obvious that little cut 'n paste did hurt a little there. Not as much as the cut job it was describing mind you. If you bothered to read my post you'd see that I was responding to your fellow mossie, Fellow Human about FGM.

FGM cases have been seen in aussie-born MUSLIM women there's even a toothless government 'task force' to deal with it.

Like it or not it's part of your religion. It's your responsiblity as a muslim to stop it. Like it is with the welfare abuse and crimininality that is rife amongst your co religionists. Which I've seen and experienced in the 4 different countries that I've lived in. I also mentioned this to FH but you don't mention it even though it's very much part of the problem like the terrorism is.

But instead of an active hands on approach what do we see? Crappy, feel good TV shows and websites about how with it your average aussie mossie is.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
I note you believe many Australians are wrongly held in detention centers had a right to vote. however I believe they loose or should loose such priviledge, because they are acting against the best interest and security of the community even if there on suspicion.

Quote, "Had they then investigated my complaints then many Australians wrongly held could then have been released....Now of course, that it is known that Australians were in fact wrongfully held in detention it shows that their bias conduct not to investigate ASSUMING that everyone held as a “suspect” was “guilty” of being unlawfully in Australia "

How many were Australians and should have been released?? I suggest you come up with a figure above ten which might have a small influence upon an election result. How many??

Philo
Under the new laws some of the truely great men of the 20th Century (Gandhi) would be incarserated for life. Martin Luther King would also have been spending time in a Detention Centre. They have provided examples of what can be achieved for all people through peaceful means.

Perhaps those crazies involved in terrorist acts should look at people such as Gandhi and King before involving themselves in hideous acts of violence.

To those that justify racial profiling on a pragmatic basis...

The terrorists who have killed Australians overseas are of "Indonesian" appearance.. and male..

So can women and non-Indonesian appearnace people be spared?

All- all vilification laws apply to all people - not just Christians, or Jews. You have been reading too much of that clap trap on the extreme-right blogspots in which you comment. The only ones complaining about their right to vilify people are the religious right and the wanna-be Nazi boys. And who is this left that you keep slagging at. Hitler reckoned that if you haven't got an enemy create one. I think more than ever we need the lever that the unions, Labor, Green, Democrats, "wet Liberals, liberals, non-violent socialists etc supply to balance this nation’s political scales.
I suggest to you All- that you crawl back under the log that David Boaz lured you out from under (i.e. QC Faras website). I think Opinion On Line is more intended for discussion on new and interesting ideas not airing old, old irrational grievances. If you want to attack the left, then state one leftist idea that Irfan has in relation to Liberal's new laws and if they contain an ounce of sense well - let's go. Or is it that you have been suckered so far to the right that everything is left?

I don't belong to any political party or organisation. Indeed, it is from the Liberal’s and others problem of raising sensitive racial matters that I started to think that the idea of racism is outdated and that cultural suprematism is a more appropriate way of explaining supposedly racial matters. I try to read primary texts and steer clear of propaganda. I advise you All- to do the same.
I think some leftist ideas and ideals that have their roots in Marxist thought are really good. I also think, following Voltaire, that we need to concentrate on the six basic freedoms: freedom of the person, freedom of speech and media, of conscience, civil liberty, security of private property and the right to work. Of course, it is a given that these freedoms must be exercised with responsibility. (continued on)

(continuing on) For instance: Some fanatic All- has started a stalker site called "lefty watch". He or she posts photos of socialists on the web, I think, in the hope that someone will beat the crap out of them or even do them in. Regardless, it is an attempt at intimidation – the mainstay of fascism.
All- I think certain folk on the right are irresponsible fanatics and should be sent to Auschwitz for a tour to see what their silly nonsense leads to. I don't regard my thinking as left or right just up in the air (following Camus and WPA). You sir, All-, are clearly suckered. All- rethink please:).
Reason: I am little unsure what you mean by either "fascism or risk". The risks of allowing fascistic control to seep into our nation's thinking is a hell of a lot more risky than upholding truly democratic principles and soldiering on regardless of threats (I acknowledge that this is "keyboard courage") but I do exist in society, use public transport, fly in airplanes etc.
Irfan: I can't really compare my experience with people of “middle-eastern appearance” but it is similar, when I go shopping with a friend of mine who has the tattoos, piercings and purple mohawk, we always have an escort around the shops and security always insist on checking my friend's shoulder bag.
I am of normal appearance, indeed, when I was getting checked into prison once I was told that I was the first person through without a tattoo. I love to rub this into my tattooed mates. I say to them: “ I might be a criminal in the eyes of the law but at least I don’t look like one”. I also know some folk who get the old "empty your bag onto the car bonnet please sir" on a regular basis. I have never been checked. Must be my happy disposition and innocent boyish looks. Always appearance and a sub-culture bias seem to be the unconscious motivation for this special treatment. So, Irfan, and the rest of us, be concerned - very concerned.

Carnifex,

Islam 's point on female cirmusition is:

a) its optional
b) if carried out to be made a symbolic thing and not a mutilation.

Islam = the Quran.
Hadith is a summary of good advices but following it is not a compulsory and the opposite is correct.

The hadith refereed to on this site was by Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) when Muslims who migrated from persecution to Abbysinia (ethiopia) asked about female circumsition, the translation of the meaning of arabic is "if you do it don't exagerate" (Ektaa walaa torhek).

Circumsition for men is different.

FH

I know what it says.

Trouble is, it's here in Australia to australian born muslims. I would love to stop it all over the world but I can't. I had enough difficulty trying to stop muslims lighting their BBQs on extreme fire ban days when I worked for the NPWS.

The midwives and nurses I've talked to say that's it's often more than just a snip.

Irfan, I know that this is not about the anti-terror laws but it's all part of the problem as to why so many despise your religion and makes it much easier to push draconian laws through.

Your article 'Tax Fraud & Communal Stinginess' great, expand on it please. This is exactly what many muslims have related to me in previous years, long before any terror attacks. Unfortunatley many told their stories with pride.

Rancitas,
Interesting Ideas, but your knowledge on Fascism is some what clouded, and confused with Nazi’s. Not the same but similar.
Like all other Mind Conquering regimes of the propaganda type is to create confusion, Marxist Ideology is not a singular academic philosophy, it is a combination of many and is for the purposes of Egoism makes them God.
You are mistaken, I do not have such a blog, but the Ideals in contrast to terrorism laws, makes the mind grow fonder of introducing The Act of Parliament of the Conscious Enemies of Civilization bill of 2005, that should encumber any Pathological Ideology , meaning any who step out side the boundaries . If you do not promulgate lies and deception or act in a manner contra to civil behavior you are safe, if you threaten that principle, shake in your boots.
There are Truths .

Piho

It does not matter if one or ten voted did or didn’t make a difference, it is the constitutional right to vote and to be a candidate.
Consider this an Australian national held unconstitutionally/illegally in detention to stand as a candidate in the last election. Would likely have had a considerable impact, if the candidate would claim, say;
“I stand for election to free not just myself but other Australians held unconstitutionally and unlawfully in detention”.

The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the
Declaration of Independence, was that "every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-
They are born within the realm of Her Majesty, and are therefore native-born British subjects.

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. GORDON: One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth is qualified to become an elector

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.

And

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-
They are born within the realm of Her Majesty, and are therefore native-born British subjects

And further;

Hansard 30-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON:
a greater share of political liberty is experienced than in any countries the world ever saw

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates

Mr. O’CONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. O’CONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
And
Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.
Mr. O’CONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. We are now dealing with the prohibition against the alteration of these Constitutions. We are dealing with a provision which will prevent the alteration of these Constitutions in the direction of depriving any citizen of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And

Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-Why should these words be inserted? They would be a reflection on our civilization. Have any of the colonies of Australia ever attempted to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? I repeat that the insertion of these words would be a reflection on our civilization. People would say-"Pretty things these states of Australia; they have to be prevented by a provision in the Constitution from doing the grossest injustice."

The proposed anti-terrorist laws are unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES where it purports to detain people without DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
It would appear you have a particular agenda, not openly identified, by your attempt at undermining the present issue of national security. We have declared war on international terrorists and such groups are identified so it is those who are sympathisers and adherents to the practises and beliefs of these groups who will be watched and checked. Our liberal open door policy has leaked persons into Australia who threaten our society, it is these who are of interest who might find themselves imprisoned.

Philo wrote:

"We have declared war on international terrorists and such groups are identified so it is those who are sympathisers and adherents to the practises and beliefs of these groups who will be watched and checked."

There is a problem with this statement. War is, by definition, particularly when a declaration is involved, between at least two states, or at least between a minimum of two political entities, functioning as 'states'.

It is for this reason that war was never declared between the US and North Vietnam, it was called a counter-insurgency operation.

War was never declared in Korea in the early 1950s, it may have felt like war, tasted like war, sounded like war, looked like war, but, it was not 'war'.

What ‘political entity’, functioning in a state-like manner, are we ‘at war’ with?

The last time that I heard any declaration of war was made by Australia was September 1939. And therefore Australia's conduct at that time was according to the laws of war. This included the internment of enemy aliens and the attribution of prisoner of war status on captured combatants.

If the west were 'at war' then David Hicks would be a prisoner of war, accorded the rights of a prisoner of war. But he hasn't been, he has been classified as an "enemy combatant", therefore the state holding him is either breaking the rules of war, or not in a state of declared war after all.

Australia and some other self-proclaimed champion states are actually involved in an international police action against terrorist groups, in which sovereign governments have been overthrown, because we did not like them, without war being declared, against the principles that our government has committed itself to in the United Nations. These actions are being carried out on this basis deliberately, so that the rules of war cannot be applied and individuals held responsible. The 11th of September attack is seen not as an act of war, but a criminal act of terrorism, so why do you say we have declared war?

Philo,

You seem to ignore that “security” does not come about with police being able to detain anyone and keep them in secret for 2 weeks or even 12 months irrespective that they may have nothing to do with any terrorist issue.
As Mick Keelty, Australian Federal Police on Lateline 31-10-2005 makes clear anyone who cannot give a satisfactory explanation could be detained. Satisfactory explanation to whom?
Today the concept of “terrorism” in your view may be someone bombing a place, but to the police it can be anyone who may be committing a crime or anyone they “THINK” who might be committing a crime. Like the person shot not once but 7 times in the head in London!

Our constitution does not permit arbitrary detention as it requires a “JUDICIAL DETERMINATION” and this is by due process of law in a State Court.
The best way to protect ourselves is to ensure that the law enforcement authorities are operating within constitutional and other legal powers! The moment you allow any law enforcement agency to deny people their “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” then you are not a bit securing the general public rather endanger it.

I for one have no problems with law enforcement authorities to use laws appropriately, I do however have a problem with laws that are unconstitutional to be used as to purport the law enforcement agencies can use those powers.
If in the end, some innocent person is killed by a law enforcement officer and then it is found that indeed the legislation was unconstitutional then do you really think that John Howard and his cronies will take responsibility?
It is like the putting people in detention! Since 2001, I made clear I support people to be deported if they are in breach of Australian law, and have never stated otherwise, but I deplore the unconstitutional manner refugees/asylum seekers/overstayers/detainees are detained in an unconstitutional manner!
My issue is that if it is unconstitutional it can’t be accepted.
Our best security is to ensure we conduct matter in a constitutional/legal manner!

There is a war going on, a new different type of war. Islam is out to enslave the world. Muslims are unhappy and sick, and they want you to be also. This is a new type of war, because we live in a new type of world. Communication technology, immigration, economic globalization and the doctrine of “multiculturalism” have provided the basic ingredients – all of which are part of the normal pattern of change and are somewhat benign. However, add a very violent and intolerant religion and the mixture will explode.

Consider the news. Riots in France, as we speak (under-reported because the media doesn’t want to blame Islam). Consider the Copts in Egypt. Iran wants to kill 4 million people. Look at the bombings in India. Most of all consider the beheading of 3 Christian girls in Indonesia. What do these events have in common? Who can it be?

How dare Irf complain? How dare they blame others for any small, sensible reactions to their hate and violence.

Irf doesn’t want to be inconvenience at airports because of his “strange” Muslim name? Well, tens of millions of non-Muslims are inconvenienced every day in airports, public buildings and even in their children’s schools because of people that pray and worship to Allaah and his wretched prophet.

Why didn’t he say that if a terrorist attack occurred, it probably would be caused by those same people with “strange” names. Is a little honesty too much to ask? Does Irf think not hurting his feelings is more important than people taking some precautions to protect their lives and families?

So we have lawyers and activists here playing word games about rights and laws, saying we have to “listen” to the terrorists. Perhaps Mr. Schorel-Hlavka would care to explain his position to the parents of the three girls in Indonesia. I sure they would greatly appreciate the finer points of his arguments, especially about the “otherwise perfect citizens” that murdered their daughters. How disgusting!

Riots? terror? war? Folks, it will get worse, much worse. You haven’t seen nothing yet.

John AKA Kactuz

Kaktuz,

"One ring to rule them all"
"Lord of the rings"
"The Book of Daniels"

Above references are fantasy stories rather than self fulfilling prophecies.

People like you are those who can't survive without an enemy.

"tell me Lord when to release the nukes on communists, Muslims, Chinese, japanese, etc" is not a prayer but a self-inflicted paranoia that requires immediate medical help.

I find it ironic that all those anti-Islamic posters on this Forum and the Islamic extremists want the same thing.

Both groups want people who are not of the same beliefs as themselves off what they see as their territory.

Islamic extremists want Westerners and Christians out of what they see as Islamic lands. The Bali bombers want to limit contact with what they see as the decadent 'Christian' west in Indonesia. The more moderate Islamics in Indonesia see this as a crime, which of course it is.

Meanwhile, those who hate Islam want people of that faith removed, or repressed, in the West, with the ultimate goal the deportation of Moslems back to Islamic lands. Sounds like a certain European country's 1931-1934 plan for Madagascar.

Or the imposition of Western values, such as democracy, onto ME countries.

Democracy can work in Islamic counties, Indonesia and Iran are examples. Unfortunately, Iran's form of democracy doesn't suit the USA.

Both sides are have carried out extreme violence to get their point across.

It is unfortunate for both sides that their wishes and desires are not going to be met, and the more one side pushes, the harder the other side will get its its resolve There will be a lot of resolve hardening, and not much justice.

Because I urge people to act within constitutional provisions and other legal provisions does not mean that I somehow condone the use of violence. It is because I deplore the use of violence, I urge people not to respond in kind with violence.

Because I seek to contain the spread of violence, I urge people not to take the law into their own hands.
Because I seek to contain violence, I seek government not to abuse and misuse powers to unconstitutionally apply legislation that does more harm then good.

Legislation rammed through the parliament for political reasons never can be deemed to be for the sake of the security of the nation!

Anti-Terrorist legislation that are unconstitutional are no laws at all, they are ULTRA VIRES, and provide absolutely no protection, other then to be abused by law enforcement agencies and perhaps justify their actions, if they killed an innocent person.
What is the difference for the Brazilian man being killed by 7 bullets from the police versus being killed by a terrorist?
He is still death, but he was killed by the very people who were to provide the security!

Since 1982, I have been dealing with people contemplating suicide/murder and know to well that each and everyone had their justification, so they viewed, to do what they contemplated, yet time and again, I persuaded them to look at the situation in a different light.

It is often that the abuse and misuse of powers by a government authority is what causes further problems.
This is why we must seek to combat terrorism by pursuing that government authorities at all levels act within constitutional and other legal provisions, so they do not give any incitement to revenge actions.

In 1992, there was this man who announced wanting to take over Australia, hang all lawyers/judges, etc. Now, he talks about how to change it all by seeking to become a member of parliament as to change the legislation causing so much unjust to so many.
He is prove it can be done by peaceful lawful ways.

Hamlet,
The problem in the minds of terrorists is democracy. I have written letters of protest to the Indenesian Embassy on treatment my friends were receiving at the hand of their military in West Papua. The fact is the Indonesian Government does not seriously attempt to outlaw Muslim terrorists because they pander to the Muslim population to stay in power. Islam in Indonesia overides the equality of justice for all citizens.

You say, "Democracy can work in Islamic counties, Indonesia and Iran are examples. Unfortunately, Iran's form of democracy doesn't suit the USA." Does Iran have a secular political Party or only various Islamic Parties?

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Why are both political Parties agreeing on the legislation being put at the moment? Police each day are risking their lives with gun toting criminals. I suggest you begin to take some interest in the rights of the Police to have protection from criminals, rather than bleet about one possible wrong identity being shot in London. Do you know how many police have been shot in the last 12 months in their line of duty. I imagine that does not interest you, you have more sympathies for criminals

Mr. Schorel-Hlavka,

Let me tell you what is wrong with your thinking. You in your mind build a little word and fill it with something called “people.” You make up “rules” and you apply them to “people.” In your world all “people” play by the same “rules.” In the real world, some “people” don’t follow “rules.” You “urge” this and “urge” that, which is about as much good as farting in the wind. You are very willing to give some people – criminals - the benefit of the doubt. You see evil as justified by (fill in the blanks) and as being nothing but “revenge actions.” Terrorists and criminals love people like you!

To you, the most important thing about this is not justice or even the safety of the people. It is that it makes you feel good about yourself. You are the great defender of downtrodden-down, oppressed humanity that suffers under intolerable laws. Pat yourself on the back again, or better, pin a metal to your chest.

I have seen your kind so many times before. People who yell “human rights” from the top of a pile of bloody, innocent human bodies, always ready to defend the criminal and forget the victim.

The difference between Jean Menezes (o brasileiro morto em Londres) and people killed by terrorists is so simple that it is unimaginable that anybody should ask such a stupid question. The first was a mistake and the British apologized, as compared to deliberate murder.... Duhhhhhhh The fact that you should even right such an absurd statements shows that you are morally bankrupt.

You ignored my statement. Do you think that the vile murderers of the three girls beheaded in Indonesia were really “otherwise perfect citizens”. Do you think we should “listen to them"? What manner of man are you, anyway?

Kactuz

OO hamlet, you are such a little Chomsky you –you! Your, camouflage is loosing it’s effect as you so righteously put in your second last post ay, the real Hamlet’s View of the world not the Touchy feely Humane rights view as you so espouse before and after.

Kactuz

Despite 96 of my family members having been executed during WWII by the Germans, I decided in 1967 to go and find out why Germans did what they did during the war.
My family were generally full of hatred towards them, I learned that to try to understand why it was done was far better. Nothing could bring back to life those murdered, but by trying to understand why was it being done, perhaps in future I might be able to avoid others to do likewise.

Seeking revenge is not what is going to resolve anything. We have the Courts to deal with matters in an appropriate manner.
The STAR CHAMBERS COURT system was outlawed precisely as to avoid people to be convicted without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

To deal with criminals in a proper manner we must have legislators who are willing to allow a proper debates about what legislation they propose and to ensure that the legislation will have the proper effect.
I for one cannot see how legislation that will basically be a licence to SHOOT TO KILL can make it safer for the general community!

If there is a real situation of some so called “terrorist” I rather would just use the term “criminal” having a bomb and is about to detonate this, then more likely a policy of SHOOT TO KILL may spur the person to detonate the bomb, whereas if a negotiator was enlisted more likely there is a possibility to avoid any killing.
After all, a SHOOT TO KILL strategy could be an on the spot killing and so a bombing where the bomber is in the midst of numerous other people, while a policy to negotiate would enable the are to be cleared of innocent bystanders.
This is just one of numerous examples that we must act appropriate, if anything to try to minimize the death of innocent bystanders.
Detaining people who may have done no more put happening to be on their way to work for 2 weeks or more in secrecy is not going to make us any safer!

Gerit - your posts are always erudite, however, I believe your wise words are lost on the likes of Kactuz, but don't let the inhumanists deter you. I read all of your posts but I don't even bother with any posts that incite hatred (when I see certain monikers I just don't bother). Fact is posting racist/bigoted or derisory posts are a waste of their authors' time as any discerning person will simply skim over their rants.

Peace

Mr Garrit,
I am afraid of your confidence in our Justice system; we would have a greater chance of seeing pigs fly in battle before our Justice system does any justice, surly that is Orwellian.
The execution of your relatives in Germany is an interesting perspective on this matter. If you are not familiar with my arch enemy Karl Marx and associates, read some of his work. i.e., publications to news papers, and letters to family and friends. You would be forgiven in most cases, if you cover the date and the signature that the hatred of Jews, etc you would be forgiven if you thought it was Hitler, OOO no, the Jewish question apart from Islam, was the bastard child of the one and only Marx. So do not draw a simplistic conclusion on that matter that is a source and where Hitler drew his Inspiration and his Ideas, Mussolini was the bastard child of Fascism, or Modern day Leftism to day.
We are not dealing with civilized minds when we refer to the Islamic Murderous barbarians, Terrorism is almost a term of endearment, and I would agree with you if the Bill was referring to Australia 30 years ago, realize before that, and way back Cultural Marxism was not on the agenda when they were making this country what it was up until 20 years ago, That killed us, and that’s killed European or the Anglo sphere. Be assured, it is all down hill from here. International Murderous barbarians are a small problem to the Anarchistic Barbarian’s within our societies and those that destroy the will of the individual intellect and espouse to the utopian Social Justice system and that would be total self nihilism, we have made great inroads into that. Hay Miss Chomsky

Scout

I welcome and appreciate your comments, and they prove that my writing is not a waste of time, neither did I perceived to be so.
I do not and cannot expect to have everyone to agree with my views. After all neither do I with others, and we all are entitled to our own views, provided we do not express them in a manner that causes undue harm to others.

There are a range of political leaders/judges/members of parliament, etc, who correspond with me, at times seeking clarification of my writings, etc. The fact that they do in itself underlines they are interested in the subject, even if in the end they may or may not agree with me.

I deplore drug trafficking, but deplore also capital punishment, as once the population accept the killing of another human being then more likely will they for their own reason accept the same when it suits them to kill.

As my wife makes clear (what I am on about), “You could sit with your worst enemy at a table just calmly drinking a cup of coffee even so you know he might try to kill you”.
I experienced time and again, that using “words” to disarm a violent person was the best weapon.
As many made known to me (including in non-volatile situations such as in Court proceedings), they fear me because I remain so calm, and use “words” that are very simple to understand, that they are looking for what I might be hiding,

I try to calculate what are the rights of my opponent before I seek to react, so as to ensure that whatever I do is appropriate.

I view, that many, so to say, would-be-suicide-bombers may be avoided to go that path if just we showed restrain, and try to understand their reasoning, and then try them to understand our reasoning why such kind of killing is not appropriate. It has worked for me for decades, and I for one stick to that.
Hot heads that pursue otherwise might just cause more harm then good.

Just out of interest,

If I am unfortunate enough to witness or be in a position whereby I may have witnessed some part of, or part of the preparation of a terrorist attack, I can be arrested on that basis, and held incommunicado for 14 days. This would mean essentially the loss of my employment (as I could not explain to my employer where I was, or following my release I could not state where I had been), particularly in light of the workchoices package. Interestingly, as the actions by AFP / ASIO etc. would be lawful, as would those of my employer, I would then be without access to compensation for this loss, despite it being foreseeable.

Is this an entirely unplanned, accidental consequence of these proposed laws, or is this an additional form of duress, with which to force confessions / information from people scared of losing economically? I am not sure whether this would be covered by income protection insurance, so the possibility is real that this could lead to foreclosures and business closures.

Aaron

Gerit,

I take it from your post that you have read Patapan's article.

The fact is that it was foreseen in the convention debates that at some stage any government may attack basic, fundamental rights, although it was felt that no government in this country would ever try top deprive any person of their liberty, sans judicial process (which was defined in the debate)

Alakhem shalom,

Aharoni

Gerit, I appreciate your thoughtful and considered response. I am sure that you are not easily deflected, my words were more for the reactionaries who see in simple terms of good and evil. We are both aware that the world is more complex than that. Good to see that you practice what you preach and that is you do indeed LISTEN. Thank you.

Irfan's article makes me reflect that I am fortunate to be fair, blond and blue-eyed - unlikely to be targeted for suspicious behaviour. Not so many of my friends whose appearance does not fit the accepted caucasian "norm".

Now, even though our security level remains at moderate (as it has done since 9/11), by the most incredible coincidence we are informed by our PM that there is a specific terrorist threat. Who believes in coincidences? Who believes the proponent on 'children overboard', 'core promises' or 'never, ever GST'.

Irfan and other muslims have every right to be concerned. Until we receive detailed information regarding this 'specific terrorist threat' I will remain sceptical.

(formerly Trinity)

Peace

Scout, while I do actually share your sense of cynicism about these amazing (and politically beneficial) coincidences, we did have some detail this morning.

Some people in Sydney, discussing with associates in Melbourne, about possible targets. Perhaps a wire tapp..or.. maybe even that 'thing' which you don't believe I had any part of :)

Gerit, I'm quite amazed at you. You went to Germany to find out 'why' the German people did what they did to the Jews ? As far as I know, the vast majority of German people had no clue what was going on at all.

For goodness sake man, have you not heard of Hitler ? and 'megalomania' ? and history.... Look at the beginnings of WW1 and the aftermath, the mood of the Germans, put yourself in their position. I think (now with the benefit of some better reading and hindsite) that if I was a German after WW1, I would have felt VERY VERY disgruntled over the outcome. I now understand that it was more about various alliances and attempting to maintain geo-political advantage that it began, with the Serbs right in the thick of it, rather than some 'evil' aspect of German behavior. WW2 was different.

The Jews were used as scapegoats for Germany's ills, and a megalomaniac orchestrated this. What is to understand apart from this ?

Gerrit, just read the books of Kings and Samuel, Judges, its all 'been there done that' in terms of human/tribal/national behavior.

I tend to agree with your emphasis on due process, but I would not worry if someone was detained for 2 weeks without trial etc, it may mean the difference between a few trains being bombed or not.

Some of the London bombers were linked to or part of the group of Muslims already detained (and then released) prior to the event. So, there 'is' evidence that 'such' laws will make us safer.

I urge you to consider these words:

vehu mekholal mipshaenu meduka meavonoteinu musar shelomenu alav uvakhavurato nirpa-lanu:

Shalom

What did I learn from my trip to Germany?

I lived amongst the Germans for about 1 year, and actually became engaged to a young lady there. Her father planning to immigrate, and wanting to know if I was the right person to marry his daughter and have the lot (house, etc) decided he was going to test me out. Where else but in a pub. And, I generally do not drink alcohol, as I prefer coffee. I was no match to this man, and so used my wits to get him to talk. He was drinking, and I was listening. His mates joined in, and every time I was given a pot, I nicely moved it over to one of his mates. They talked about the war, how they were forced to do things or face deportation themselves, if they were lucky enough not to be shot, and how it wrecked their lives. The ongoing nightmares they had from these killings. Sure, there were some who proudly announced how they slowly killed enemy soldiers with their bare hands, but then, I heard similar stories about the Dutch adventures after WWII in Indonesia doing the same!
We lasted until deep in the night in the pub and finally I had to take my future father-in-law home. The next day he announced that I was accepted.
I never forgot the girls of my dreams but held that while I had learned the hardship of the other side and what they had to go through, I could not see myself to be married and having to participate in possible future pub get-togethers considering the number of my family members having been killed. We parted as friends!
I feel no resentment towards the Germans, I lived there for about a year, and later served in the NATO at the “IRON-CURTAIN”, but it is another thing to have this in a family environment.
I understand that what they told me about how Hitler came to power, and this appears to me now to be replayed in Australia!
We didn’t learn any lesson of WWII.

I am totally opposed to the detention of anyone without DUE PROCESS OF LAW and without judicial determination.

The police have currently ample of powers to arrest anyone who may in their view be involved in a criminal event. However, they cannot secretly keep a person from family, friends and legal representation as they require to follow the rules of law.

As Aaron pointed out in his example, if he was to be detained and lost his job, then it would serve him no good, and neither would have served the general public.
All we would do in that event is to create the likely hood that some person wronged and perhaps lost everything (Due to nonpaying of mortgage due to detention, etc) may also turn to revenge and join the brigade of suicide bombers, etc.

It is nonsense to argue that a change of a word in legislation, that was already on the books for so long could possibly be the difference between life and death. Our “intelligence” services with their WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION have spend their credibility.
Now we are to have them to dictate Parliament what upon their (distorted) intelligence (obviously directed to the political views of the Government of the Day) they are to legislate. If one word could make the difference, then why was this not attended to while it was being argued for 18 months, instead of this sudden urgency?
Why then rush through about 1200 pages of Industrial Relations documentation without proper time to peruse it? After all, if one word makes such a difference then 1200 pages should be properly considered. Our representatives denied even to have each a copy of the very bill they are to vote upon! To me, this is legislation by gunboat diplomacy, so to say!

The UK with all its legislation could not prevent its bombings, because no amount of legislation can ultimately defeat a terrorist. Not police versus general community, but police combined with the general community will more succeed to prevent criminal plans to be executed without the need of draconic anti terrorist laws.

Well Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
You may be attempting to drum up hysteria over innocent people being secretly imprisoned or loosing their employment, but no one is listening. David Hicks is of white Anglo-Saxon appearance, and a most likely suspect; being an accomplice of violence against Australian troups. It is the likes of him that such intelligence will be gathered. Anyone who has spent time overseas in Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan among Muslim training camps will be the focus of these laws. Persons not associating with such persons who are going about their everday life will not be under any suspicion.

At the rate of your protests against these laws you might raise some level of suvelliance, in case you have association with such suspects. Calm down, and stay away from outspoken Muslims against Western Culture.

Here we had this extraordinary rush to push legislation through both Houses of Parliament and in the evening obtain Royal assent, and the question many lawyers ought to ask any client who may have had his place invaded subsequently by ASIO and/or Australian Federal Police is what time did it occur, and on what date.
Now, say for argument sake that the police were waiting upon the Governor-General to give Royal assent so then the could immediately put the new legislation in working they might just have overlooked that the giving of Royal assent itself does not validate the legislation a bit.
Indeed, protesters in the Albert Park demonstration in Victoria, when then charged with trespassing, found all charges to be dismissed because the essential requirement to turn a Bill into legal enforceable legislation is not the giving of Royal assent but in fact the publication of it in the Gazette. And, the Gazette must then be available for sale over the counter to the general public!
This is why after 4 years, I am still having this protracted litigation as the Gazette containing the proclamation had not been published in the Gazette until the earliest on 9 October 2001 in Canberra and as late as 22 October 2001 in Tasmania. As such, the writs issued on 8 October 2001 were ULTRA VIRES!
The same error occurred with the sacking of the Withlam government where the proclamation was read of the steps of Parliament House and then Malcolm Fraser was appointed as interim Prime Minister. No one seemed to realize that the sacking would not be valid until after the proclamation had been published in the Gazette and had been made available for sale over the counter to the General Public.
No one can act upon any Proclamation unless and until after the Gazette containing the proclamation is published.
Reading a proclamation from the steps of Parliament House was a worthless exercise!
If after more then 100 years they still do not even master a proper system to validate legislation, then it is well overdue they learn it.

I am afraid of your confidence in our Justice system; we would have a greater chance of seeing pigs fly in battle before our Justice system does any justice, surly that is Orwellian.

Posted by All-, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 3:25:50 PM

On 17 November 2005 I was twice convicted by a magistrate for “FAILING TO VOTE”, with the magistrate making clear he was not going to give me a reason of judgment.
I appealed the convictions successfully, even having published on 6-7-2006 my latest book that also included my entire case before the Court;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

Then used this subsequently as evidence for my appeals on 19 July 2006.

It must be made clear, that each and every constitutional issue and other legal issues I raised were and remained unchallenged by the lawyers acting for the Federal Government –despite a 5 year long legal battle, including;

*Australian citizenship is not a nationality as we are and remain British nationals.
*The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to define/declare citizenship.
*Section 245 of the CEA1918 us unconstitutional as the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused in April 1897 to give any legislative powers to make enrolment and voting compulsory. The 1915 planned referendum to give the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers to make voting compulsory was then aborted!
*The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional.
*Religious objection to vote includes secular objection to vote.
*The purported 10 November 2001 federal election was unconstitutional and was therefore NULL AND VOID, hence no one was then elected, neither John Howard.
*The purported 2004 federal election was unconstitutional and hence NULL AND VOID
*The Australia Act 1986 is unconstitutional.
*Etc, etc, etc,

Considering that I used about 650 MB of material on the CD, comprehensively backing up each and every constitutional and other legal argument it was therefore plain that unless the Government lawyers could defeat each and every issue I raised they had to loose the case.

AND FURTHER;

I belief in JUSTICE and despite a 5-year legal battle succeeded in the end in totality!

Now, I am campaigning for John Howard and his cohorts to be charged. The rule of law must be enforced against politicians also!

The road to JUSTICE might be extremely hard and with untold obstacle courses but I for one persisted in the fight of JUSTICE, also because to many people relied upon me that when they contemplated suicide/murder I always made clear that the way to go was to pursue JUSTICE through the Courts.

While John Howard may continue to parade as being the Prime Minister, and others may hang on ignoring the Court having allowed my appeals (unchallenged), I am in the mean time collecting more material so as to eventually pursue those who committed criminal activities.

See also my website www.schorel-hlavka.com.

In November 2005 I wrote “AUSTRALIA IS BURNING” and in December we had the riots in NSW.
Lets not kid ourselves, Australia is, so to say, on a powder keg and it is merely a matter of time before it all blows up in our face, unless we take appropriate action before hand.
Our youth grows up learning it is all right to lie, as politicians show the example time and again. We have politicians involved in the worts atrocities committed in Iraq. We have prisoners held by the military occupation of the Coalition of the Willing (Including Australia) handing over prisoners to be executed, this, despite that Australia is against the death penalty.
Now Australians abroad facing death penalties may be executed as we lost any moral stand to oppose the death penalty.

For our kid’s sake, lets reverse this trend and hold politicians and judges accountable for their criminal or other illegal conduct.

It wasn’t that “Pigs fly” but simply that because I was smart enough to publish a book just before the Appeals were due to be heard, they could not burry it!

It is sad that JUSTICE is hard to obtain, but I proved it can be done!