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]).