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.