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.