These new laws are totally unnecessary. The purpose of the new video is to spread fear amongst the population. Who gains from this?
Obviously the government, as can be seen from some of the comments above in the sense that people are already alarmed and are calling for tougher laws and backing the new ones.
Do the terrorists gain? Only slightly. They spread terror with bombs, not videos. It sounds like a typical beat-up. Treat it with caution.
I support Christopher Michaelsen's views. feralx

Chrismic

You obviously misunderstand my position.

I believe those who support this country but waver in their social responsibility deserve the right to fair trial etc.

I believe those who ferment treason or participate on attacks this country deserve a bullet.

I am not particularly interested in fancy notions of “fair-play” or “open justice” for people who have declared war on civilised society. As I suggested originally – send in (I think the term is) a “wet” team and forego the niceties, expense and risks of a trial.

If you think that is barbaric – too bad – better barbaric and talking about it than dead from being struck by the expanding body parts of a suicide bomber.

Oh and on the matter of people who might have recently migrated to a country and then expect to disregard the prevailing social conventions of that country –

the “price” of immigration is assimilation.

Surrendering ancient religious or social or ethnic beliefs which set people against the hosting society is not optional – it is a mandatory requirement for you and your children and your childrens’ children - otherwise – find somewhere else to live.

Ouch, Col Rouge. I guess you'll be abandoning your culture and learning the didgeridoo then? Attaboy.

Chrismic

Though I don't necessarily agree with your points I think they are well made.

While I think the proposed security laws should be made they can be toned down as they go through Parliament to reduce the damaging effects and risks (of isolating/victimising Muslims) that you refer to.

I think that in the inter-Party horse trading over wording of the security bills the ALP will insist on changes that the government will accept - otherwise the government will appear too rightwing (even inflamatory) on this issue.

It seems highly likely that all major parties will support passage of these bills.

So while rational debating (we've seen a few lapses, from the extreme right) on this site won't stop this process, it can at least make those in AGs, who draft the bills, think twice.

Plantagenet

Honestly, this article is a long awaited up-to-date publication.

Just from the States, I witnessed both “anti-terrorist” paranoia actively cultivated in NYC by particular local politicians, and deliberations of a practical prevention of recently known devastating tragedy of New Orleans, much sustained by all the variety of long-term developments, multiplied with most recent privatization of vital services there.

To me,has Australia possessed a place as propagandist rather then significant terro goal, the separating the homeland security issues from foreign affairs/interests, as a clear attempt undertaken by Christopher, sounds rather naïve than substantiated with any means historically. And rejecting the possible terro-occurrence does not make any eventual victim of a probable terroact much happy anyway.

Speaking of “integration of Muslims” triggers a very question of a de-facto racist notion of “Australian multiculturalism” that is practical segregation and apartheid between various groups of population in accordance with race/biology/religion.

It should be good to analyze practice of an employment (and possibilities to be qualified from ANY non-specially-religious university)in Australia where, a practically acquainted one could hardly argue, non-Anglo-Saxons have been destined to FAMILY BUSSINESS and some sort of guinea pigs activities at laboratories (read newspapers) at the bottom of this FREE DEMOCRACY predominantly.

Such a situation as understood from media very much sustained London blasts, and resent preparations by UK local Muslim activists to arrange own inquiry into a reality of a “British democracy” their people-the A u s t r a l i a n Q u e e n subjects experience in the UK, like it or not, is a logical step.

Nothing can forgive terror, but in a state established by land-grabbing where, as understood from works by prominent experts in a field, production and creativity have been sacrificed to please a higher metropolitan sovereign, problems are much more explicit and urgent, and pure police-style-solutions-as-usual in this case at least could hardly serve this country properly in a long-time period.

MichaelK

I have to assume that someone has attempted to translate your piece (originally in Arabic?) into English.

Would it be possible if you could post a clearer translation so we could more easily understand the large number of interesting concepts in it?

Seperately, this month's special heads of government terrorism summit provide's an additional opportunity for horse-trading on the wording of the future terrorism bills (laws). It would be unfortunate if Western Australia's odd suggestion that policemen sign their own warrants (permissions) becomes standard Australia-wide.