Mr Michaelsen alleges 'secrecy' by Government (as do many journalists).

Readers of this thread should go to www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1551.html
and read the release "Counter Terrorism Laws Strengthened" noting that this release immediately preceeded the COAG meeting of September 27th 2005, while John Stanhope's release on his website is dated 7/10/2005.

Before rushing to the keyboard, read the PM's media release and compare it to the provisions within the draft legislation as posted by Mr Stanhope.
I have done so and find no inconsistencies.

How then, does Mr Michaelsen support his allegation of Goverment secrecy?

For the record I am just a retired engineer.

Gadfly

Secrecy ?

“democracies die behind closed doors”

The government only wants the power to arrest people and detain people in secret, merely on suspicion, and send them to jail for trying to report what is happening to them to the media.

This country is becoming more like a typical South American dictatorship everyday. I commend Christopher for trying to inject a sense of proportion into this debate, stifled as it is by the government's urgent need to impost these draconian laws.

Mr,Michaelsen is correct "democracies do die behind closed doors" one gets the feeling of how it must have been in Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany, with the two most radical laws in living memory to be passed in the near future, of which one is the Anti-terror laws. The potential for abuse of both these laws is enormous, and certainly seem to have nothing in common with what is supposed to be a modern democracy. As seen in the polls Australians are not used to dealing with such harsh and draconian legislation as this, however the only option that remains for the voter is obvious. These laws should be repealed in the future, and a better alternative introduced to protect individual freedoms. I hope I don't look like anyone the AFP want, as in the case of the innocent man in London, who was shot dead, my family would be devestated.

If the author of this article, Civil Liberties Australia, and most university academics in this country ever got beyond their tiresome yackety-yak and into positions of power, then we really could say goodbye to democracy. These so-called “draconian” laws they bleat about are likely to be the only things which will allow us to retain democracy.

Kit D and SHONGA,

Please tell me more about the "closed doors" of which you complain.

If these new laws stop us being added to the list of terrorist targets such as Madrid, London, Bali etc, good for them.
Why is it the civil libertarians and all that whining crowd never stand up and condemn the perpetrators of the horrors?
Their silence becomes deafening when the attacks occur.

Will the Senate be wearing blinkers next Tuesday and allow Draconian Law to romp home first past the post. I tried to place a bet but the bookies would not take it....

SHONGA “one gets the feeling of how it must have been in Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany, with the two most radical laws in living memory to be passed in the near future”

Which concentration camp or Gulag do you expect to perish in?

Such statements make those who write them sound like hysterical schoolgirls.

Much the same for Christopher Michaelsen’s suggestion that

“In light of the latest Australian anti-terrorism Bill and the Government’s apparent contempt for the processes of democratic debate one cannot help but wonder how much longer Australia’s democracy has to live.”

Such statements are simply the infantile ramblings of a political opportunist and oppositionist.

Australia has risked far more through the actions of the likes of Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard (the government of two) than it ever will from the Liberal Party and its Ministers.
Remember Gough - who brought us the incompetence of Jim Cairns (accompanied by Junie Morosi).

That is to say nothing of a political party which submits to this Country the most emotionally disfigured and incompetent example of a walking bipolar disorder there ever was as recently as the last election.

And you think we are under some sort of threat because the current government is doing what the vast majority of Australians expect of it – we found out only a few months ago what the public think!

Anyone who objects is free to stand for public office when the time comes and see how they do - but for the left, I guess that will be after they have finished licking the wounds they received from the savaging they received in the last election

Cui bono, cui bono, cui bono; I am thinking of cutting a stencil.

Has there been any legislation in the last several years that did not factor in a political advantage for the Dear Leader, or economic advantage for his allies?

If the answer is no, why therefore should this Terror Legislation be any different?

If the answer is yes, go ahead and educate me. Perhaps I am becoming too old and jaded.

Running a nit-comb over the bill, one is instantly struck by the vagueness of the most important definitions. Yet their consequences are so far-reaching and dangerous. Is this due to ignorance or by intent?

Since even the most ardent critic of the PM would not think him a fool, let's assume that everything about the bill, idiotic bits and all, are proposed with deadly intent. I am sure the PM would approve of that observation.

Now we must ask, "Why the rush? Why the hurry to silence dissent?"

1. We are losing the invasion. History will be written by the victors. The victors will name Howard, Blair and Bush as co-conspirators in war crimes.

2. Over in the Land Of The Free, Mr Bush has exceeded critical mass in the unpopularity polls. Fitzgerald has taken the lid off the Whitehouse worm farm and the Congress compost bin. Pooologists are examining the Pentagon night-soil. Last but not least, not only is the US Treasury plundered, but even the IOUs have been swiped. In short, we hitched our wagon to the wrong star, and without Bush's power, Howard and Blair will be left twisting in the wind.

The warmongers are now the most dangerous of creatures - wounded animals. Now watch them manouver in abberant ways as the escape hatch sloooowly swings shut.

* * *

NOBODY expects the Australian Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise - surprise and fear -
fear and surprise -

Amongst our weapons. Amongst our weaponry -
are such elements as fear, surprise -

- I'll come in again.

Christopher, I too, like you fear for our democracy. And I don't think the pro-terrorism law posts here are representative of what clear thinking Australians feel about these laws. These punters hate anything that expresses even the slightest concern for our fellow human beings and civil society. Its what they do.

There may be some justification in having the laws debated more; but with emotive statements made by Christopher like this one, [quote] “This means that a simple statement such as “Iraqis have a right to resist occupation” may land people in jail for up to seven years.” Such indicates he is merely scare mongering and has not got his head around the application of the laws.

Are we at war with terrorists? Answer this question and then if so, we need war legislation to protect our citizens. When we have eradicated the threat then we can fully enjoy freedom

If democracy is so good shouldn't you people be supporting the imposition of it in Iraq? Celebrating it even?

Oh no, that would condone the actions of the evil Howard neo-con-bush-nazi-puppet.

I'm sure glad we do live in a democracy.

The current Parliament seeks to intoduce legislation, allowing Police or ASIO acting to kill suspects, where it is too difficult or risky to aprehend them for trial. This legislation would override the Constitutional guarantee to 'trial by jury' (s.80), or modify the interpretation, so that this only applies to suspects captured alive.

The inherent danger of this is that, as any citizen could be targeted, it is entirely likely that an individual could conclude that they were the subject not of an investigation by government, but were being stalked.

In this instance, it is entirely possible that an individual could if they were apprehensive as to the intentions of their supposed stalker, attempt to flee. Unfortuately this could foreseeably result in lametable, tragic, but entirely justifiable consequences. Happily, due to the disarming of the Australian population, such incidents would probably not result in injury to AFP/ASIO officers.

The other exiting possibility of this proposed legislation is the capacity for expansion of the number, identity and type of groups and individuals proscribed by law. This could foreseeably be expanded to include various classes of criminals (probably not white collar criminals), and various nationalities or faiths.

This would be an important development for the government. It would entirely prevent any possibility of a repitition of the Cornelia Rowe affair (all illegal immigrants would foreseeably be too risky to aprehend due to the possibility of their having terrorist links). It would also remove the AFP current need to wait for criminals to travel to other jurisdictions, before taking appropriate action against them.

Of course the proposed changes make me feel safer. Hitler took similar precautions in the 1930's in order to protect germans from the dangers of communism. These included the establishment of secret tribunals, extensive police powers and the detention of suspects for the public good. The important fact, is that similar concerns were raised then, however they were dismissed as alarmist, such a thing could never occur in Germany.

Arbecht macht frei.

Aaron

“The important fact, is that similar concerns were raised then, however they were dismissed as alarmist, such a thing could never occur in Germany.

Arbecht macht frei.”

Recognising the risk of repeating myself

“Such statements are simply the infantile ramblings of a political opportunist and oppositionist.”

I would recall during WWII Britain had interment camps, draconian rules concerning the use and abuse of all and every sort of resource, censorship, rationing, people executed for treason and a military force with orders to shoot on sight etc etc…

... and the (conservative) government repealed those laws when they outlived their need.

Despite all those “infringements on civil liberties” which so many “libertarians” were “alarmed about” the UK did not follow the German example.

Just as this government will not follow a similar course.

So bringing the “Auschwitz death camp gate banner” into reasoned debate reflects the emotional ramblings of the desperately under-read and under-skilled. I suggest you get back to your books – maybe the next one will deal with “jointed-up writing” and how to pronounce words of more than one syllable.

The threat to democracy is not felt by those who agree with what this government is doing. So in many ways the debate gets bogged down in political garbage.

For those who hold academics in contempt it is only the academics ( and of course sneekeepete the paragon of objectivity ) who offer some objective analysis of the issues.

It is reasonable to call for a lengthy debate on the anti terrorism laws as well as the IR legislation not only in the community but aso in the parliament; the nature of the laws makes it all the more important to give the public a chance to see hear and attempt to influence a debate on matters as important as these.

For a commnity to abrogate its responsibility at the ballot box and then say - leave it to the elected officials from here on in is a dangerous proposition - the concept of a mandate is open to abuse and that is more obvious today than ever before.

The Australian political process only offers us limited exposure to the intentions of an incoming government - they take full advantage of that - and that tendency requires close scrutiny by the community and the opposition - limited debate and public disclosure must be fought against at every turn.

If the proponents of these laws were faced with a government in power with control of both houses inclined to provide a single days debate to promote, say, the nationalisation of the medical work force or the resumption of ownership of uranium leases, there would be one hell of a stink.

The call for rigourous debate on these matters has more to do with the accountabiltiy of government, transparent processes and community involvement in decision making than the content of the bills.

There is more to threaten Australia in a government brimming with hubris than is offered by terrorism or a cumbersome set of IR regulations be that government Conservative or otherwise.

The system is being compromised and that is the threat to democracy not the bills.

Democracy is associated with public debate and participation.

A reduction in public debate is, self-evidently, a reduction in the level of democracy that we enjoy as citizens.

Col R wrote: "Just as this government will not follow a similar course". - in regard to repealing these laws.

A grandiose prophecy this. Be reminded that the 10 year sunset clause on these laws was suggested by State government premiers at their last meet, not Howard or Ruddock. See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/terror-laws-get-a-useby-date/2005/09/27/1127804477360.html

Unless Col has crystal balls, we are in no position to foretell the outcome of these laws. Surely we must be mindful not to rush toward legal despotism and disregard democracy - lest we find ourselves in a Cold war?

Ruddock, who presided over a government department that saw the wrongful detention and deportation of two Australian citizens - is also the man charged with writing these terrorism laws.

And this:

“And you think we are under some sort of threat because the current government is doing what the vast majority of Australians expect of it – we found out only a few months ago what the public think!”
A poll, conducted by ACNielsen found that 60 per cent of voters - up from 55 per cent from a poll taken in August - reject the Prime Minister's shoot-to-kill plan, while 35 per cent support it.
Not exactly a majority.

But of course this has never stopped Howard et al from declaring that he has the mandate to determine the will of all Australians, all of the time.

Last but not least, Col tries to throttle Michaelson’s plea for democracy and longer public debate about these laws.
Michaelsen: - “In light of the latest Australian anti-terrorism Bill and the Government’s apparent contempt for the processes of democratic debate one cannot help but wonder how much longer Australia’s democracy has to live.”

Col: "Such statements are simply the infantile ramblings of a political opportunist and oppositionist."

But wait, there’s this wonderful quote:

“Unless we learn to accept the rights of all to express their opinions, the best of socio- political intentions will decay into totalitarianism”. (Laurence O'Neill) cited by Col Rouge here: http://tvset.org/art_00.html
What more can one say

White Wombat, sneekeepete et al

You speak of the need for 'public debate' of proposed legislation before it goes before Parliament and I agree that 'public debate' is highly desirable.

But, your notion of 'public debate' is naively idealistic.

I suggest to you that the percentage of our population who would contribute to debate is miniscule---probably below 3%-- and that those who would contribute to such debate would be highly polarised.
Any such debate if presented through the common mediums would get a 'ho-hum boring, what's the other news' reaction.

If you want to have an effect on public opinion, get onto the Ray Martin or John Laws shows and provide nice simplistic opinions !
Both of those, and others, have had a perceptible effect on public opinion as related to the two pieces of significant legislation currently heading for Parliamentary vote. But, are those 'opinions' informed opinions? I doubt it.

I suggest it is fact that 'public debate' over any legislation only occurs after the event, after it's effects are felt by the majority, who then present their opinions at the polling booths.

Chris Shaw,
You forgot to mention the 'comfy chair' (money & greed), an essential ingredient!

Col and Gadfly, please read accompying story before commenting. We have already seen an example of these laws in the UK where an innocent man was shot dead, I suppose you two think that's ok, as long as it's not you. Of course we condem the terrorists, how stupid would you have be be, not to. What some of us are against is draconian laws that take us back to the 19 th century, with the loss of freedom which accompanies such laws. As for Whitlam and Barnard whatever they did is 35 years ago, it seems that you blokes live in the past, and that is your right to do so, however I am many like me, are concerned with now 2005 and the increasing loss of rights that Howard is forcing upon us, as shown by current opinion polls, they are not popular, do you not understand that?

Why the architects of the terror bill will be guilty of treason:

Both detractors and supporters of PM Howard agree upon one thing; he is at least the devil we know. That was the undisputable premise upon which this government was returned at the last election. Business as usual, from the devil we know.

But no PM, government or party lasts forever - they all must pass.

Who or what will follow? Who or what will inherit this blank cheque, this blunt instrument, this weapon fit for a fuhrer?

We are resigned to handing the treasury keys to successive governments, for better or worse. But this... this is different.

This mob are going to leave the farm-gate open when they go. The key will be in the ignition. The ute door will be unlocked. We will be as sheep.

I, who have five grandchildren to leave this sorry state of affairs to, wish to point out that this is no less than an act of treason perpetrated upon the ordinary people of Australia. Treason against those who will inherit this country. Treason against my grandkids.

We'll take our chances with the "bogey man", thankyou very much.
.... after all, he is YOUR nightmare.

I warned you not to eat that Iraqi cheese!

SHONGA,
Please learn from history and do not repeat the mistakes of the past. You appear to confuse your position by referring to the past but refute others who do the same. One thing history can teach us is how others have dealt with their situation in the past that have brought us to this point in history.

Quote, "What some of us are against is draconian laws that take us back to the 19 th century... As for Whitlam and Barnard whatever they did is 35 years ago, it seems that you blokes live in the past, and that is your right to do so, however I am many like me, are concerned with now 2005 and the increasing loss of rights that Howard is forcing upon us, as shown by current opinion polls..."

Gadfly needs to advise the more naive amongst us what constitutes a debate - if our notion is naive and idealistic.

I would also be keen to understand where he thinks contributions from the uninformed might fall in such a debate, or does he suggest that they have no place - I would have thought that the process of the debate would sort them out rather than them being excluded by some ones arbitrary idea of who is worthy to comment.

And yes a great deal of debate does occur after legislation is passed; however we have long been the vicitims of increasing degrees of government by executive by passing the parliamentary process - these guys are just trying to perfect the technique - the recent debate over terroriat laws is one the Gov't has sought to avoid; after wards is too late.

It is not the extreme nature of the measures that are pause for concern but, rather, that the legislation fails to define the boundaries of a "just cause". It assumes that every act that contributes, or may contribute, to some other potential act of violence is not a just cause, and ergo, is terrorism.

The world community must engage in a debate about how much injustice would justify a resort to arms. Nelson Mandella is rightfully regarded as a great man for his speech outlining why his people could no longer turn the other cheek. It was clear that conventional means would not bring about a single ounce of justice or equity for his people. The resort to arms was a just cause.

There are other just causes all over the world. The West Papuans have never had a proper act of self determination. Nor have the Kurds or the Tibetans or the Achenese. And the test of a just cause lies in the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

See http://austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/5.htm

This can provide a proper mechanism for determining whether an action was directed at a relevant target by persons with a legitimate interest and a just cause. It would obviously not sanction 9/11 or Bali 1 or 2 but it would remove the very serious threat posed by the extraordinarily broad delegated authority under the proposed legislation.

And if injustice diminishes us all then we all have a right to follow our conscience and fund organisations that are in armed struggle for nothing more radical than the rights and liberties that we, God willing, still enjoy.

My prediction is that this legislation will get most of its use on our own home grown dissenters, blackfellas, farmers, fishers, foresters and reasonable men and women who have had enough.

I am opposed to the idea of preventative detention and control orders or the sedition rules however democracy is certainly not dead or dying.

We can criticise the secrecy of the process as being unnecessary, however backbenchers are being heard and public concern has the opportunity to translate into a correction at the next election.

Another reason to continue the existing three-year election cycle.

Let me add, that the public are showing themselves smart enough to recognise the difference between propoganda and information. There was never any doubt in my mind on that.

Philo, you got in before me regarding Shonga's shonky argument about living in the past.

Democracy dying - where in this legislation does it ban free elections and the right for Australian citizens to stand for office. That's right, no where.

If the people do not like this legislation there is an election in two years time where they can throw out the current government by exercising their democratic right to vote.

Heck, Mr Michaelsen can even take his smug "non-partisan" agenda to the people, win them over and be elected himself.

I suspect though, he won't put his money where his mouth is and exercise this democratic right he so desperately wants us to believe is being eroded.

Ah, the luxury of the lobby group - able to vilify elected officials knowing full well they have no responsibility for the electorate.

t.u.s

Presently we have two major bills to be pushed through Parliament that will have huge impact on Australian society. The question is whether it's a divide and conquer strategy employed by the government to strategically get both bills through.

It's been a very secret process in relation to the Anti-terrorit legislation as it did not show up in the media until John Stanhope posted a draft of the bill online.

Hello... no one has convincingly argued the new legislation is likely to do more harm than good.

So the old question... why implement change without a reason? For starters there has been no terrorist activity uncovered in this country to date.

My only justification... the corrolary of being the lucky country is that we also have the most to protect.

Rainier “Unless we learn to accept the rights of all to express their opinions, the best of socio- political intentions will decay into totalitarianism”. (Laurence O'Neill) cited by Col Rouge here: http://tvset.org/art_00.html
What more can one say “

One can say it is entirely possible and in this case a “racing certainty” that whoever posted anything onto the “tvset.org” website was not this particular “Col Rouge” and thus not cited by this “Col Rouge”.

Others have made posts which use the same log on as I use, either because they are writing, coincidently using the same log on or alternatively, they are low life scumbags who are deliberately and perniciously using the same log on because they lack the compelling arguments and reason to engage in free debate (reference the Melbourne Age website).

The real test - Rainier will you illustrate, on this site, I have ever suggested any curb on the right of any person to free expression.

When Rainier can prove such statement originate to me, he will be in a position to suggest “What more can I say” Until that time he is doing what he does best. Merely blowing smoke to disguise his insidious, nefarious and since he seems to know most about the tvset.org site a possible duplicity, all I can observe is,

“What more can one say? Nothing - when there is nothing to say”

So bring it all on Rainier or do you lack the reason, compelling arguments and intellectual prowess to challenge me fairly?

Certainly it is true that greater injustice, insidious exploitation and erosion of democratic freedom of expression is achieved by falsely presenting statements designed to discredit others by those who care less about democracy than they do about their own malignant ego.

SHONGA – I also remember the IRA bombings I worked in Bond St, London for 3 years where the adjacent Oxford street was a continuous target of bombs. A lot more innocent men, women and children were killed and maimed there too.

Stone the crows, there go all the trendy lefties bleating about about the end of the world again. Hey, Sneaky Peter, Scooper and Mahatma Sitting Duck, you wanted Multiculturalism and you got it.

If people like you think it is OK to allow people who want to blow us all up into Australia you can hardly complain if we have to instigate laws to prevent them from doing so. That these necessary laws were inevitable and a threat to our democratic values is something that you should have thought of before you endorsed the destruction of Australian social cohesion through your fanciful social theories.

I am not so worried about these laws being misused by a Liberal party government, as much as i worry about what wil happen with these laws in the hands of a bunch of politically exquisite trendy lefties who have a messianic Utopian vision and little scruples about using the coercive means of the State to achieve them.

Of all the detrimental effects of Multiculturalism now prevalent in Australian society, including ethnic branch stacking, the creation of welfare dependent ethnic ghettoes with high rates of welfare dependency and criminal behaviour,and Muslim race hate rape packs targetting Australian girls, the severe reduction of civil liberties caused by Multiculturalism has the potential to be the most dangerous.

Redneck, I hate to remind you again, but terrorists also hate multiculturalism.

The idea that muslims are in Australia enjoying our privliges and making friendships with infidels like you and me is, for them, abhorent. They're saying "Redneck, send them back to us!"

A true Redneck would be suspicious of government no matter what party was in power. Wasn't it the Liberals who took away everyone's guns? Now they want to gaol people without a fair trial and your family and friends can be also gaoled for speaking about it!

You're not a terrorist are you? Neither am I.

Let's make a personal declaration that we shall will not be silenced. As Henry Thoreau said, it is better to be a free man in gaol than be a slave to an unjust law (or something like that.)

The IR and Anti Terrorist legislation about to go through parliament places Australia at a huge risk in relation to the kind of nation Australia becomes. Remember the legislation passed now, unless revoked, can be the underpinning of a Fascist leader in the future. Perhaps in 3 years, in 6 years or whatever; some are arguing that we are already there. It being Mr. Howard's use of wedge politics, use of scare tactics, and secrecy; that have people now genuinely believing that we have already stepped over the line.

Something that worries me is that University students are notable by their absense in political debate. In the past they have represented the moral conscience of our Nation.

Ant “Remember the legislation passed now, unless revoked, can be the underpinning of a Fascist leader in the future. “

And this legislation is being passed with a sunset clause. It is being tested through process. The nearest we got to a any “dictatorship” was 1975 when Whitlam instigated his “government of two” and the governor general ultimately held the instrument to ensure that "autocracy" ended where it should – back with the electorate.

“It being Mr. Howard's use of wedge politics, use of scare tactics, and secrecy; that have people now genuinely believing that we have already stepped over the line. “

only that minority of wallies who still think the Latham and the labor party has a divine right to govern feel that way.

”Something that worries me is that University students are notable by their absense in political debate. In the past they have represented the moral conscience of our Nation.”

I would only rely on university students to play up and protest, such has been the level of their political ineptitude of throughout time. Ultimately the worst excesses of political extremism fester in the wannabe mindsets of uni students, full of passion and no skills (acquiring passion is instant – like making coffee, acquiring skill in democratic methods of representation takes a lot longer.

David Latimer, did Thoreau have anything to say about avoiding being a terrorist bomb victim?

As for “true Redneck” maybe redneck uses such a logon to make a small jest in the nature of sardonic humour. Such things have been known to happen before and might be seen to actually flank, although not abut your last post (or do I have to translate for you).

Part One

In a dream a post-grad political student meets his favourite political writer, George Orwell, finding that this ghost of the great thinker already can read the student’s mind, telling him that he is not surprised that the world is heading for trouble again, as economic and political greed has again appeared on the agenda, even despite the end of colonialism and the finish of Soviet Communism.

The student had already learnt that colonialism and economic imperialism had simply appeared in a new form, less honest, and more sinister, some of the former prominent freedom fighters themselves becoming colonisers, aping their former European masters and grabbing most of the productive loot like the colonial overseers had done to send home to the Mother Country.

Land of Hope of Glory and Mother of the Free, the old swansong of British colonialism and the earlier free-market, has been now replaced by the Stars and Stripes Forever, carrying on Cecil Rhodes nightly prayer, that America would carry on the global role that Rhodes surely believed a Wise Almighty had predicted for the English-speaking Anglophiles, with the United States of America now top of the list, Britain and Australia, proudly by her side.

The student has learnt that social revolutions are now not seen as necessary for the defeat of fascism. Neither do people believe in the possibility of promoting individual liberty and self government by means of even a social democrat government. In fact, socialism has ceased to be a part of public debate, even Labor leaders more interested in satisfying powerful pressure groups backed by big corporates, including the mass media.

Part Two

The worried student in his dream asks the shadow of Orwell for an answer - realising it was already in his mind, but he would not have had the courage to announce it to a world so sure of itself because the neo-liberal free market was keeping even battling consumers happy, with the allowance of cheap imports from countries like China with low-cost labour, as well as dumped frozen or tinned fruit and veges from numberless other countries.

What was already in the student’s mind was that low priced imported goods meant a call from government for a change in arbitration laws to enable employers to lower worker’s wages in order to compete. The student realised then how much that globalisation as part of the capitalistic free-market, was failing - the insightly student under Orwellian influence, knowing that a major crisis in global capitalism must surely cause a return to some sort of socialism, be it right or left.

The student discerned that the likely change initially would be fascistic, with a democratic government banning all opposition for the good of the country, similar to earlier post-war Singapore with big corporates still calling the tune as in Nazi Germany.

The student feels that the best answer from an angry left out left-wing, rather than taking up arms, was at first to challenge for a new globalisation, not based on corporate power and an ersatz free market but on the ethical precepts of a genuine global democracy based on a fair go for all, not survival of the richest as the fittest

To all you bleating lefties & anyone else who goes on about freedoms
I agree with Col Rouge & Redneck. We can only protect our freedoms by destroying them first. Rouge has asked where the death camps are? you have the process back the front comeraden. First the political prisoners then the concentration camps. Then finally when we have established a police state [of the right of course, the left would only infringe on our liberties] we will be truely free.
Best wishes on your enlightened political experiment.
Adolph Hitler.

Firstly, bushbred (George) - let me just say that I think you are an outstanding contributor to this forum. Your synthesis of modest wisdom borne of lived experience, with a learned appreciation of received wisdom, sets a standard to which I aspire. You are verily a mahatma of the bush :)

I think David Latimer (with Michaelsen) expresses views closest to my own perspective on this issue. Col Rouge once again perplexes me by - while stridently (if occasionally less than admirably) -proclaiming the primacy of the individual over the social, simultaneously championing the most intrusive incursions on the individual by the State that we have seen in half a century. I've always thought that contemporary states were the embodiment of the social in extremis: i.e. the only thing that gives the rule of State law its force is the willing acquiescence to its authority by a consensus of individual subjects - by which I mean that they don't function unless a very strong majority of individual citizens arew willing to abide by laws proclaimed by their elected representatives.

It therefore seems slightly oxymoronic to, on the one hand aggressively proclaim the rights of individuals, while on the other stridently assert the rights of the State to impinge upon those rights on what seem to many other observers to be exaggerated grounds.

By the way Col, most of us have been perfectly aware of the meaning of your nom de plume for some time... although I agree there is a certain frisson in trying to ascertain whether it is your neck that is red, as opposed to your collar. On the basis of the complexion of your comments on this forum, one would suspect that the former is the better translation - in this context, of course :)

P.S. If the other 'redneck' reads this: thanks for calling me "young" - that hasn't happened in quite a while... at least since the birth of my grandson. Also, where I live I literally have cows, sheep and horses in my paddocks, and lately Sudanese refugees as neighbours and customers.

I’m with those whose concerns are chiefly about the process – the rushed and secretive way our Federal Government tried to get this proposed legislation through Parliament without due scrutiny and input from we citizens.

The Gadfly started this debate with the assertion that s/he could see no inconsistency between Howard’s Media Release of 8 September and the provisions of the Bill. One inconsistency I noticed was that the Bill runs to 107 pages but Dear Leader’s release ran to two and a half.

Control Orders got 5 lines in the Media Release. No mention of the voluntary brainwashing provision - clause 104.4(3)(l). How does a court make an order with a requirement in it that the “controlled person” participate in specified “counselling or education” when, (a) such can only be included with the consent of the person, and (b) the person is not notified of the fact an order is being sought?

The Bill provides that persons made subject of Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs) can also be made subject to a Prohibited Contact Order (PCO). They cannot contact nominated persons. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment for up to 5 years. So the person needs to know firstly there is an order in place and, secondly, who the prohibited contacts are. Seems pretty logical? Well no not really because clause 105.28 (5) of the Bill provides that a “prohibited contact order need not be disclosed” to the person who it binds. How Kafkaesque is that? 5 years for breaching an order you didn’t know was in place.

Some double standards operate too. If police ask a person for their name and address and they refuse to provide them or give false details, they are liable for a fine of 20 penalty units ($2200). Police are required to identify themselves to such persons and provide a contact work address. If the cops refuse to disclose this info/give false particulars, they face only a 5 penalty unit fine ($550). One might think that a higher or at least equal standard would be expected from those that enforce the law

I understand some people, (Yes, Col)were somewhat upset by the use of th e Auschwuitz motto for the new anti-terror laws. Of course the British government did not use concentration camps etc.

They DID however make extensive use of internment camps (eg. Cyprus), which if anything seem to have provided the pattern for the Pacific solution.

What we have here is a revisitation of the Starr Chamber of Charles I(which caused him to lose his head somewhat). A secret trial, with secret evidence, and the return of the 'pro confesso' rule to the law after some centuries. let me guess, the judges will be acting as 'persona designata'?

Sorry Col, I did try and use some words with more than one syllable, however i don't seem to be able to think of any in english. NB Two of my relatives were among the original rooineck's in the Transvaal in 1900-1901 as Australian soldiers.

David Latimer, I hate to remind you again, but what we have in Islamic colonisation of Australia is a clash of civilisations. On the Muslim side we have a civilisation which has been an unmitigated disaster for it’s true believers and on the Good Guys side we have a civilisation which is a model for prosperity and progress.

The fundamental social values which underpin both civilisations are mutually exclusive. Both value systems can not exist within a single state because there is a fundamental difference between what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. At the moment, western civilisation is calling the shots in Australia, but that will change as birthrate differentials and high immigration numbers from backward Muslim cesspit countries continues unabated.

Sooner or later, the cultural tensions will reach critical mass and the result will be terrorism, civil strife, calls for Separatism and even civil war. I hold these truths to be self evident.

Now, personally, it is probably better for the Howard government to do nothing about the growing terrorist threat to Australia from Muslim “Australians.” After all, the sooner the bombs start going off and the suicide bombers start walking into (hopefully upperclass) restaurants, the better. It is odd that you and your trendy cohorts actually oppose the very measures which will ensure the continuation of multiculturalism and Islamic colonisation a little longer. I gather that your opposition to the new laws are based primarily upon traditional left wing ritual. That is, if a Conservative government does anything at all then they must be criticised for doing it.

As for stereotyping rednecks, your analysis is not bad. There is nothing wrong with stereotyping as long as it is accurate. But I adopt the title “redneck” because so many people have called me a redneck racist that I must be one.

As for you quoting Thoreau, that is stereotypical too. The mindset appears to be, "Thoreau, Voltaire, and Waugh were considered very intelligent aned they always criticised their own culture." "I want to be considered very intelligent so therefore I must do the same "

Col Rouge, it was 1972 (the Constitutional crisis occured in 1975) when Whitlam administered the country for a very short time. He was not able to pass any legislation. I recall that Whitlam had been very big on Regioinal development, the opposite to tyrannical rule. If you have seen any of my posts you would realize that I'm not particularly happy with Labor either. A fair question is where is Labor at present? Mr. Howard does not seem to have learnt the lesson of the Whitlam years; that is, Whitlam tried to push through legislation too fast.

The provision of a sunset clause is all well and good; but Col, what if a left wing Labor Government was to gain power at the next election and was to revoke the sunset clause (Coalition Government for that matter).

Young people generally in the past have had a heightened sense of what is moral and what is not; this is now not as noticeable.
Whether Uni students have been niave in the past is a debatable point; like any area we learn as we get older. Senator Abetz was involved in student politics when he was at Uni.

It still isn't clear to me how these new laws will protect us against terrorism. Leaving aside all the party-political broadcasts from both sides of the chamber, how, either in general or in specific terms, will the legislation under consideration be effective against suicide bombers, bombs-in-rucksacks left on trains, ground-to-air missiles fired at commercial airliners etc. etc.?

I cannot see a single aspect of the bill that is designed to do any more than limit the freedom of everyone in this country. If I were a terrorist, I would simply take the necessary steps to ensure that I didn't appear on the law enforcement radar, as the July 7th London bombers were able to do.

Can any of the "lock-em-up" brigade explain how any one of these laws, had they existed at any time in the past, might have prevented any single terrorist act? The absence of such an example can lead to the conclusion that it is a cover-up for the inefficiencies in our law-enforcement agencies.

Unfortunately, the broad scope of the new legislation is far more likely to increase this inefficiency, as it decreases the necessity for them to actually gather real evidence.

"Young people generally in the past have had a heightened sense of what is moral and what is not; this is now not as noticeable."

Sorry everyone, I think Ant accidentally typed the wrong thing. What Ant meant to say was

"Young people generally in my past had a heightened sense of socialist morals but this generation is more conservative and this is a very bad thing because people actually get on with their lives rather than raging against the machine."

Hope this clears it up for everyone.

t.u.s

These posts seem to transform ideas;

Take this simple assertion that the processing of legislation in relation to anti terorrism represents an attack on democracy - all of a sudden we have references to the folly of multiculturalism and the rise of islam - some have even referred to muslim nations as cess pits.

It is about the process - or lack there of.

It is not about Islam or anything else - even Johny H assures us the muslims have nothing to fear; However the feds did not want this debated and they wanted it rushed through - you gotta ask why? - a week ago the rapid passage of the law was essential for our safety because of things only the heads of government seemed to know - now JH is comfortable to wait until Christmas - but there are those who reeeeeeally believe they might be blown to bits before then.

The laws remain unnecessary.

And as for rednecks fear of Muslim colonisation - who cares. What comes round goes round. I 've said it before; maybe its time for the Moors star to rise again and herald in another era of prosperity and glory - much in the same way as they did centuries ago - the West has had its turn and the results suggests we've not been very good at world domination - history, and if redneck ir right, fertility will decide.

What I miss however is Rednecks solution to this pending crisis - he and a few others have alluded to this tsunami of islamism looming over us - I am keen to know what the final solution to this dillema might be.

In the mean time however the question is the legislation at hand; There are too many internal contradictions in the way it has been handled and processed for a people to trust the government(s) proposing it, let alone the reprehensible nature of the content.

Any way thats enuff from the Sneekmeister; so little time, so much chattering to do, so much chardonnay to sip.

About quoting: Sometimes one reads something or hears something and I remember it, and where it matches what I want to say, I quote it. Maybe it means that I am not smart. Oh well!

Did Thoreau have anything to say about avoiding being a terrorist bomb victim? asks Col Rouge.

Brilliant question!

Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 and examined the morality of government. His idea of disobedience was not violence but not paying taxes. He was opposed to Texas (formerly part of Mexico) becoming a slave state.

I have not read them but in "Economy" (1854) he writes: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root".

In "A life without principle" (1863), he says to fellow Americans: "Do we call this the land of the free? What is it to be free from King George and continue the slaves of King Prejudice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? ... We are a nation of politicians, concerned about the outmost defences only of freedom."

The "Clash of Civilisations" was a paper by Samuel P. Huntington. If anything, the theory is refected by the break up of Yugoslavia or US invasion of Iraq against Saddam.

But this is what Huntington said of Japan vs America: "The economic issues between the United States and Europe are no less serious than those between the United States and Japan, but they do not have the same political salience and emotional intensity because the differences between American culture and European culture are so much less than those between American civilization and Japanese civilization."

Huh? Thoreau (after 150 years) makes a lot more sense.

My conclusion: The only place for Huntington's theory is in terrorist propaganda.

I guess this is the sort of problem we should be concerned about.

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

The upside is that they didn't actually shoot him.

Christopher Michaelson has the posed the question of whether the Howard Government’s new Anti-Terrorist laws presage the end of "Australian democracy"?

Let’s get real! Democracy is an ancient Greek practice, being the 'Kratos' (rule) of the 'Demos' (people). By this standard, Australia has never been a democracy but rather, what the social critic Castoriadis called, a “Liberal Oligarchy”, the rule of the privileged few supposedly “representing” the rest of us. At best democracy in Australia has been an ideal of popular empowerment towards which people aspire but its reality is more elusive than ever.

The question Michaelson should ask is do the new laws represent the end of Liberalism in Australia? That is, are we at risk of losing those civic freedoms and rights ceded to the general population against arbitrary state power by the ruling Parties since Federation (beyond the right to mere biological existence)? Clearly, the answer is yes!

We are moving from a liberal parliamentary regime to parliamentary authoritarianism. The latter is a half-way house to dictatorship and has precious little to do with protecting us from terrorism.

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of “representative” Governments for somebody else to rule instead of us (including those who voted for them). This new legislation just makes that process a little more efficient for our rulers. The nakedness of this power play is being concealed though by the extraordinary “secrecy” provisions surrounding anyone being detained or monitored by the state. Gosh, imagine how the masses would feel if they knew it was their mother or next door neighbour ASIO had under surveillance! What if they knew it could be one of them?

Democratic freedoms cannot be protected by Governments "from above". We, the Australian people, have to fight for them over and over "from below". Against our Government, just like at the Eureka stockade, if necessary.

Indonesia a Democratic moderate Muslim country:

Vilest of Animals in Allah's Sight Are Those Who Disbelieve
Written by Pete Fisher Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Surah VIII 55 certainly spells out the mind of so many Muslims that walk in our midst in America, Europe, Canada, and Australia.
We hear from our politicians and liberal news sources about how peaceful this religion is supposed to be. We have seen the PC world take over and decide for us all that even to speak against Islam is as bad as speaking against a race of people simply due to the colour of an individual. Yet the president of Iran calls for Israel to be "wiped from the map."

The issue is not race. Islam is not a race; it should be like any other religion where one can freely study and contemplate the tenets and make a personal choice to adhere or not. Theoretically people should not be born into Islam or forced to follow Islam as I have been corrected many times by some Muslims over the years. But how can one argue with the words of the Koran? It is contained within the writings of Islam: world domination and eliminating the infidels is accepted and commanded.

What prompted me to write this was the recent warning in Indonesia to Christians in particular that followed the beheadings of some local Christians. Three schoolgirls who were walking to their Christian school were attacked. One girl who escaped the beheading was severely injured. This is not a new issue in the region, where similar situations have been ongoing for a long time. If this were an isolated incident, I would shrug it off as just that. Yet the echo of Islamic assaults on people rings on every continent inhabited by humans

Cont:
So many of these incidents go unreported and unchecked due to the local media being controlled or paralysed by the Islamic government where they take place. One can ask the Copts in Egypt, or the Assyrians in Iraq, the Sudanese, the Russian schoolchildren who died at the hands of these Islamic "warriors." One can ask the Pakistani Christians who have seen their churches destroyed after clearing the bodies of their children who were murdered inside them. Ask the Persian people who have a large underground movement to remove themselves from Islamic rule. One can talk to Christians world over in Africa and the Middle East, Indonesia, they can talk with Hindus in India who have seen the blood of Muslim swords end the lives of their families and the rage of Muslim soldiers as they burned a temple to the ground.
One can talk with a Muslim woman in Palestine or Saudi Arabia who has never been allowed to read or write. Never allowed to drive a car or walk to the store without male escort.
You can talk with the Muslim girls who were raped by a brother or uncle, and taken outside and stoned for bringing dishonour to the family. Discuss in detail of the imprisonment of those who were found with a bible or simply exchanged religious knowledge with a Muslim and were deemed a danger to society for trying to convert a Muslim. ... "
At http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17640

How the anti-terrorism legislation exacerbates survival.
Man invented God who Created Man.
This appears to be a paradox, but it is not. It is just the old conundrum of the chicken or the egg, or who created God? Nothing extraordinary about that!
What is extraordinary is the use of the paradox to destroy our civilisation, our environment and all those other species not invented by man or created by god in her image. By inventing god, which unfortunately for mankind, our gods are not necessarily spiritual, they can be capitalism, free trade or humanism,(we are all into beliefs) or accepting that God created man, we, as homo sapiens, abrogate our responsibilities for taking the actions necessary to preserve ourselves let alone the biosphere in its present form.
With beliefs, we can be distracted and place considerable energies into a whole range of issues, such as, democratizing islamic states, space exploration, growing GDP (particularly tourism but not health and welfare in Africa), and terrorism (the best distraction to date).
The Outcome:- Gaia will still exist, albeit in an other form, not conducive to life on earth as we know it. Michael Bell Gordonville NSW

In 1950 the Lib/CP Govt passed into law The Communist Party Dissolution Bill. This vicious attack on our civil liberties was designed to "protect" us from "the threat of Communism".
In 2005 the Lib/Nat Govt will attempt to pass into law a bill concerning "the threat of terrorists".
Both are based upon fear. In 1950 fear of Communists and in 2005 fear of Terrorists.
Dr Evatt challenged the CPDB in the High Court and won. The High Court declaring the Act unconstitutional. Those who were determined to undermine our civil liberties continued on their nefarious course by trying to get the same powers by referendum. It failed!
Here in part is the majority decision delived by Mr Justice Williams.
"The outstanding character of the Act is that, the enactment in its main provisions "prohibits no act, enjoins no duty, creates no offence, imposes no sanction for disobedience to any command, prescribes no standard or rule of conduct". It operates to dissolve the Australian Communist Party and to forfeit its property to the Commonwealth, and to make other bodies of persons who were in the prescribed period or are likely to be tainted with communism, corporate or unincorporate, liable to be dissolved and their property forfeited to the Commonwealth, and to make persons who were in the prescribed period or are communists liable to be deprived of important contractual rights without creating any offence the commission of which will entail such consequences, and indeed without proof that they have committed any offence against any law of the Commonwealth, without a trial in any court, and without such bodies or persons having any right to prove that they have not done anything prejudicial to the security and defence of the Commonwealth or to the execution or maintenance of the Constitution or of the laws of the Commonwealth ...".
The attack on our civil liberties designed to protect us from Terrorism is the Communist Party Dissolution Bill under a different name.
Where is the present day Dr Evatt to fight for our civil liberties in ths day and age.

Hey. Guess I'm new here. Want to post on something "controversial"

Okay, here is my take on things.

1) There is a problem with the Muslim community, and by muslim community, I mean pretty much only the Muslim community. You don't see many other minority groups posing a threat, like the Vietamese and the Chinese, and these people experience racism. So the Muslim community represents a, let's say, unique problem.
2) This problem is probably solvable, but only if the Muslim religion undergoes MAJOR changes. Clerics can no longer preach anything remotely resembling violence. Speeches should be monitored. It is regretful, yet possible, that some parts of the Koran need to be taken out. It's drastic, but a drastic problem needs a drastic solution
3) Yes, this might erode democracy, and it might infringe upon a person's right to free speech. But I also have a right. I have the right NOT to be blown up. And that is a very important right which needs to be preserved.

People might say this is racism. It is not. I'm half chinese/Japanese/ and half European myself. But the religion of Islam, while having it's good qualities such as a ban on alcohol, has its fair share of "unique" problems which pose a moderate threat to us. A tough stance needs to be taken against ANYONE who preaches violence. Unfortunately, we will have to come down hard on the Muslim community. But in the long run, it's better for us, and better for them.

Oh, when I meant Chinese and Vietamese, I meant to say that these groups do NOT pose a threat. They came here, were persecuted, yet managed to pull themselves up to become good law abiding citizens, who aren't any danger. I say that if these minority groups can do this, so can others, but all have had to, and all need to, undergo some changes. That's all I'm saying.

I am seriously concerned about the latest proposed laws, being to provide the army for events or unrest, beyond the capabilities of the civil power (Sen Hill, Sunday with Laurie Oakes).

This suggests that the army would be available to deal with any widespread industrial unrest arising from the industrial relations laws. This resembles the actions taken by the Commonwealth in the 1930-1940-1950's when the armed forces were used to break strikes. this culminated in the death of unionists in Townsville, shot by an American shore patrol for refusing to return to work.

Where exactly is this government seeking to take this country to? Is it possible that unions deemed to be excessively militant, or non-union protest groups could be deemed to be terrorist organisations? If so, what level of danger would they have to represent to the civil or military powers that be in this country, before they were listed as verboten organisations?

Would mass protest be sufficient (eg SEQEB Strikes) for these organisations to be blackbanned, and for their organisers and members to be arrested and held without trial for 14 days? (thanks to the present Parliament usurping popular sovereignty, life could very easily become nasty, brutal and short [Hobbes]).

Ant “Young people generally in the past have had a heightened sense of what is moral and what is not; this is now not as noticeable.
Whether Uni students have been niave in the past is a debatable point; like any area we learn as we get older. Senator Abetz was involved in student politics when he was at Uni.”

And what is a conservative voter –

Someone who has learnt better from the excesses of their youth.
Someone who knows what is really heinous and what is really moral
Someone equipped with what Uni students lack – experience of real life.

As for socialists – they are the “dreamers” in rabid pursuit of the pointless – like the emotionally traumatised, they are unable to move forward in terms of personal development

Is this democratic debate or call to war?

-----

The Australian 04nov05

Holy war is being urged by Muslim preachers in Australia, reports Richard Kerbaj, who visited mosques and heard voices shrieking with angst and passion.

A VOICE explodes through the speakers at Lakemba's nondescript Haldon Street prayer hall in Sydney's southwest during a Friday qutbah (sermon). About 400 men are huddled shoulder to shoulder, seated or kneeling on the floor of the hall, above a gym. A few stare blankly ahead, others have their eyes shut and faces cupped with their palms, almost in a trancelike, meditative state.

It's October 21, the middle of Ramadan, and Sheik Abdul Salam Mohammed Zoud, who has been living in Australia since the mid 1990s, stands on a platform at the front of the room reading his sermon in Arabic.
"Ramadan is not a month for indolence," he screams through a lapel microphone, drawing on Koranic parables about the importance of annihilating al-adou (the enemy) and stressing the Koranic obligation of jihad (spiritual struggle or holy war) during the month of fasting. His voice can be heard clearly in the car park outside.

"Ramadan is a month for jihad upon oneself and jihad upon the enemy, a time when followers must become more disciplined in adhering to the message of the Koran, and more willing and prepared to topple the enemy of Islam: the West".

Listeners nod approvingly as Zoud praises mujaheddin guerilla warriors engaged in holy war who are waging bloody battles against Western troops across the world, and implores Allah to grant them victory in their fight against the enemies of Islam.

Allah yinsur el-mujaheddin fe-Iraq (God grant victory to the mujaheddin in Iraq), he screams, his voice crackling as he defies his own vocal range. He then repeats the message three times screaming it louder and with more intensely.

Twice at the end of the 35 minute oration in front of the men, who are mostly in their 30s and 40s, the sheik exclaims : Inshallah (God willing) dark days will descend upon America soon.

Hey Col

"Someone who has learnt better from the excesses of their youth.
Someone who knows what is really heinous and what is really moral
Someone equipped with what Uni students lack – experience of real life."

I have learnt from the excesses of my youth - not ashamed but lucky to have escaped relatively unscathed.

I am aware of what is really heinous and what is really moral - although I remain flexible on moral, I believe that controlling others by either wealth, stealth or might is heinous.

Equiped with what Uni students lack I used to be a Uni student and now I'm old - guess I am doubly qualified.

Does this make me conservative?

Eagerly awaiting your response Col Rouge.

BTW - Col are you all knowing and all wise?

;-)

Scout “…I believe that controlling others by either wealth, stealth or might is heinous.

Equiped with what Uni students lack I used to be a Uni student and now I'm old - guess I am doubly qualified”

Ah the wealth and might of the unions who first demand, through intimidation union fees which they them deploy in pursuit of their own political agenda – that sure is heinous. The stealth of the socialist who cries crocodile tears for the disadvantaged whilst squirreling their ill gotten gains away – Graham Richardson’s bodgie printing company or some sly boot who gets a nice “commissioner of bulldust” role for services to the party.

I would observe you likely fit the profile of the emotionally traumatised dreamer more than the conservative.

The events of the last few days have highlighted the fact that the police authorities both State and Federal have sufficient powers NOW to handle the threat of terrorism in Australia. Why then is the Federal Government wanting more powers to handle situations where the present laws are sufficient? In the 1950's Menzies had to have laws to protect Australians from the "Communist threat" which were denied by the High Court and Referendum in which Dr Evatt took a leading role in defeating both of these Menzies' attacks on our civil liberties.
Now Howard has to have laws to protect Australians from the "Trade Union threat" (New IR laws) as well as new laws to protect Australians from "Terrorist threat" which as mentioned above are not required to allow the police authorities to act against any terrorist threat.
Like Menzies with his "Downward thrust of Asian Communism" this Government firstly creates an atmosphere of fear and then declares they have to protect us by new laws which basically are designed to take away our civil liberties.

SAS

Col "I would observe you likely fit the profile of the emotionally traumatised dreamer more than the conservative."

I confess to being a dreamer and take it as a compliment - I don't believe you know enough about me to know if I have been traumatised or not - but then why would you leave an opportunity to sneer at someone with whom you disagree go by?

Back to topic

I would like to submit the following article from the Age regarding the necessity of the ramped-up terrorism laws.

The crux of the article is that arrests were made of alleged terrorists with the existing laws
- had they been made with the new laws would we even know about it?
If we did, would we be allowed to discuss it?
Would there be a fair trial?

Read on and decide for yourselves fellow posters all.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/proof-new-law-not-needed/2005/11/09/1131407697997.html

The anti-terrorism legislation is just another excuse for more power for those who will no doubt use it for other reasons...........

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

Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, and Exile

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

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

We have just remembered 30 years ago a statement made by Gough Whitlam that Sir John Kerr ended democracy by his sacking of a government placed there by the will of the people. Did democracy cease that day? According to Pickering in the Sun Herald it did. I have his original pen cartoon hanging on my office wall. We constantly have the doomsday prophets proclaiming it's death. Obviously it died 30 years ago if you were to believe the prophets of Whitlam's day.

According to leftwing views anything done by the Liberal right means the sky has caved in; but funnily enough the left are still able to give their failed prophecies.

Scout
“but then why would you leave an opportunity to sneer at someone with whom you disagree go by?”

You Invited my response – and whine when you get it.

I guess there is just no pleasing some people.

As for
“The crux of the article is that arrests were made of alleged terrorists with the existing laws
- had they been made with the new laws would we even know about it?
If we did, would we be allowed to discuss it?
Would there be a fair trial?”

Why do you think we would not know about it?

What makes you assume we would not be allowed to discuss “it”; particularly when omit to define exactly what “it” is or even which “it” you are referring to.

How does the ability to arrest and detain someone influence the outcome of a criminal trial which is held under the auspices of a different set of individuals and laws concerning process and conduct?

Felix – exile – the only people likely for “exile” from Australia are those who were born as aliens, who have been found by the courts as behaving as aliens, despite possibly acquiring citizenship by application and thus have a land of birth to be “exiled” to.

As for your disparaging analogy of John Howard to the Dickens Beadle – like dear Mrs Thatcher said and as I often quote

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

I observe it did not take long for your “debating well” to run dry of your own political argument.

Philo – absolutely right – the left whine and whinge and yet they are the worst in office, meddling and interfering in the freedoms of individuals in the name of a faceless “society” (of which the individuals who comprise it are the first to suffer their meddling incompetence) -

Bracks Anti-Vilification Laws an example.

Col, Col, Col – so easy to bait. I just keep reeling you in. So eager to cast personal insults you are oblivious to the fact that your maligning of others not only reveals you as a bully but undermines any validity to your arguments. But keep ‘em coming, nothing like watching you hang yourself each time you let loose with some irrelevant vitriol.

As to your question “Why do you think we would not know about it?” If you had bothered to read the link I provided there would be no need to ask.

As I am a generous and helpful person here is an extract which I hope you can decipher.

“The arrests this week were subject to full public scrutiny, and the same will be true as the cases are processed through the courts. Subject to the normal laws relating to suppression of matters involving sensitive information — both for security reasons and in order to ensure a fair trial for the accused — the public will be entitled to know what is going on, and those representing or supporting the accused person can publicly present their point of view.

What is wrong with this sort of process in a free society? The contrast could not be more stark between this and the clandestine and blatantly unfair procedures associated with control orders and preventive detention orders — where still, after all the promises about a review on the merits, the bill entitles the subject of the order to get a "summary" of the prosecution grounds but does not entitle them to see the prosecution evidence.
……….In the absence of a strong case for saying that the powers exercised this week are defective, proposals for preventive detention, control orders and sedition offences are too vague, lack proper procedural protections and are open to abuse.”

Thus our democracy is threatened.

If you find this too hard to understand, please let me know and I will provide a simple translation of this extract.

Cheers

hey everyone. i think this site has lots of excellent opinion (if such a thing exists) and potential. and for now, i'd just like to add a recommendation to another forum. the other forum is http://www.resist.com.au/forum/
cheers all!