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.