Sorry to break in, but if it means that there is a worry about the fear of terrorism turning our country into a fascista democratica, you could be right on the dot, Darryl. An example recently concerns school curriculums deciding to negate the importance of literature as a subject.

Indeed, this could suit both Howard and his mentor Bush right down to the ground as well as Tony Blair, especially the rotten records of both the Brits and Yanks in the Middle East since WW1

Earlier in current Gulf War Two, Tony Jones on Lateline had an interview with an Iraqi Shia who had left Iraq to get away from Saddam's Sunni Baathists, but surprisingly predicted to Tony Jones, that none of the Iraqis would ever welcome the British with open arms owing to the way they had been treated when they refused to accept the India-style Dyarky democracy that the Brits were trying to land them with. The result was the British calling in the RAF and bombing the Iraqi rebels with mustard gas killing ten thousand.

So it seems the Iraqis like other Middle East Arabs have long memories, and it is doubtless the reason our present powers that be would rather have our young ones not be told about them.

Indeed, it is a fact of history also, that it is really good literature that can really expose the shortcomings of our pasts - so necessary to plan for a better and fairer future.

Nice comments Bushbred! Indeed Winston Chirchill also advocated bombing the Kurds from the air with mustard gas. "It would cause a lively fright amongst the natives".

The most cursory examination of history over the last 200 years would futher show and leave no-one in any doubt whatsoever that these anti-terrorist laws have nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with preparing the apparatus of the state to deal with the coming economic tidal wave.

I disagree with Daryl Melham’s politics and I don’t share his concern about the Government’s anti-terror policies and proposed policies. I would not have commented except he posed an interesting question and made what I believe is an unfounded and unfair statement.

The question is “Were they supporting the enemy?” in reference to an anti-Iraq war involvement in 2003. Will demonstrating bring prosecution down on the heads of demonstrators/political dissenters? The demonstrators concerned made up a minute percentage of Sydney’s and Australia’s populations. There were certainly not enough of them to make any difference to the Government’s resolve. So why would they fall foul of proposed terrorism legislation? Demonstrations are merely a nuisance – an immature expression of conspicuous passion – look at me; I care; aren’t I good! Nobody cares about demonstrators, except for a feeling of contempt (in this particular case) for people objecting to Australia helping to bring down one of the cruellest dictators in history.

The statement was “By targeting and alienating Australia’s Muslims, the government is ….”. If Mr. Melham is referring to decent Muslims in general, the only fitting retort is, rubbish! The fact is that the only terrorists Australia is currently concerned with clearly identify themselves with Islam. It would be wrong for ordinary Muslims to be targeted, and to suggest that the Government is in any way culpable is arrant nonsense from an Opposition backbencher who knows he will never have to make any important decisions himself in government.

I agree Bushbred. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that the RAF did use mustard gas on the Iraqis in 1920h, see http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/041903_our_last_occupation_gas.htm . Its not so outlandish because it was widely used up to 1918 in WW1. Just looks like a case of the victor rewriting or suppressing the records to alter history.

Turning to Daryl's piece given the complexity and large amount of fine print in the Federal Government's terrorism proposals it requires the opposition - the ALP - to analyse the proposed legislation and make its defects (some seem obvious) known to the general public.

The more likely scenerio is that the ALP Premiers (at the Federal-States Anti-Terrorism Meeting Caneberra 27 Sept) will basically rubber stamp the Governments Proposals. Opposing terrorism laws is indeed seen as being "soft on terrorism" due to public fears being boosted by the Governments terrorism scare advertising campaign - just see all the adds on TV now.

After 27 Sept it will be a fait accompli that Kim Beazely (with his record) and thus the ALP, will agree with the legislation (with some cosmetic objections). In any case Federal Labor has played its cards so poorly that the Senate will not cause a review anyway - so the proposals will come into law.

Plantagenet,

Thanks mate for your substantiation, actually I got mine from an essay by Dr Aileen Keating former Australian journalist in the Middle East, and published in Dissent a tri-yearly magazine recommended by the School of Humanities, Murdoch University. WA.

PS Also trying to get the real truth out, mate, does not always make you popular.

Also thanks to Jellyback, hoping there are many more of us, but me I'm going on 85, but still firing like Black Jack McKewan, leader of the old Country Party. Never vote for Labor, and never for the Libs, the way they are all carrying on, especially about bi-lateralism, been wondering these days who is worth voting for.

Cheers'

George C, WA - Bushbred

Brushy..85 ? good on u mate.. keep it up.

<<Under the guise of being tough on terrorism, the government is bringing in divisive and flawed laws and compromising our justice system. By targeting and alienating Australia's Muslims>>

The Victorian government already imposed divisive laws with the RRT2001 and since then the Muslim community contributed to alienating itSELF by attempting to silence 2 pastors engaging in free speech which was not in any way attempting to stir up hate.

We have Islamic groups in Melbourne who wish to see us under a Caliphate, and we have been promised that 'Melbourne' by name will be attacked.

I think that most don't realize there is in fact a war going on, but its not the battlefield type. It is a clash of civilizations. Incompatable ones at that.

We are not Arabic speaking because of specific battles at specific places, at specific dates which saw Europe saved from Ottoman domination on the one hand, and Moorish on the other.

Human nature being what it is, will always seek to rule others, specially those not like themselves. So, I don't mind a few protective laws which assist the authorities to keep us safe.

Thanks Bushbred

"Geat minds think alike" :)

Oh Boazy (if I can call you that) Yes its also fortunate that the Barbarians pushed the Romans out of Western Europe or we'd all be speaking Latin?

Yes the guy in the head-scarf mentioning Melbourne is significant.

What the real problem with the Federal Government's anti-terror laws are is that its very likely they won't be sufficiently discussed and reviewed before they go into law:

- the ALP can't currently get its act together to mount a decent campaign to get the Government to fully justify the laws.
- the Government's Senate majority means that there will not be the usual level of debate or amendment there (as Barnaby is fairly conservative he'll likely vote yes)
- the Governor General is unlikely to knock back the legislation because he's dependent on Howard and even more conservative.

So the anti-terror laws (even though they deal with a crucial subject) are being rammed through on a wave of fear without standard democratic practices being present.

All I can say is, Thankyou again "multiculturalism", not only does most of our crime come from within a couple of specific ethnic groups (what percentage of those particular groups I don't know exactly, but it must be quite high, considering that combined they are no more than 10% of Australia's population, at utmost, and by my first hand experience as well as looking at the actual violent/drug/gun crimes committed in the local areas where these particular groups live in southwest Sydney, I guage about 80% of all the most violent/pointless/group/drug trafficking/car reburthing crimes mostly involving organised ethnic gangs-according to former police commissioner Peter Ryan- are committed by these two or three particular ethnicities, and I strongly point their ethnicitiy out because they do, they operate racially, they attack for racist reasons, and they steal from the wider Aust. society because they are racist gangs like the KKK or Neo-Nazis and they have no respect at all for anyone who is different. I know first hand because I grew up with all of these people and at times intermingled with them)so that millions if not billions are already being spent there, not to mention the huge human cost of innocent Australians being racially attacked for the past 20 years, now we have a doubling of ASIO's budget as well, because now some of these middle eastern racist kkk gang/thug types are starting to be affected by "hollywood" and want to immortalise themselves, just like those "Columbine idiots".
Tell me, who thinks that it was all worth it. Certainly not the regular Australians who have lived in the "multicultural trenches" for decades now. I saw this coming years ago. Pauline Hanson said that multiculturalism would lead us down the "Yugoslavia path". Well? Is this what is happening? Who laughed at her? The leftwing "Chomskyites" and "Pilgereans".

Good on you, Daryl and Online Opinion, for writing and publishing this article. Those who believe that ASIO is not already profiling and targetting protestors and dissidents need to review carefully the history of ASIO, the precedence that has already been set in terms of "suspecting" anyone who disagrees with the Government of the day. The recent deportation of an American peace activist points the way for the future and thousands of peace activists, such as myself, are aware of the risk of protesting. Actually these latest moves are good in terms of the increased awareness. I recommend two sources of valuable information about this issue: Jenny Hocking's book "Terror Laws" published by UNSW Press in 2004, and the website "Activists' Rights". Perhaps it is time for Australian activists to take some lessons from Ghandi about the longer term effectiveness of civil disobedience. There is a limit to how many people ASIO can detain and interrogate, and the growing numbers of Australians who recognise the march of Howard's fascism will eventually strangle ASIO's and Howard's power base. Let's not forget that the main power comes from numbers, and John Howard is thankfully becoming his own greatest enemy.

Leigh,

What an odd comment. Conspicous compassion? That's why people protest? What about being motivated by a passionate opposition to whatever it is you are protesting against. Were the civil rights marches in the US, supported by millions a shallow display of conspicuous compassion? Were the anti vietnam war rally's in this country also a display of conspicuous compassion? What a ridiculous comment. If you want conspicuous compassion, think Princess Di, think David Hookes, think wearing a coloured ribbon of some description to show you care, think shaving your head or wearing a bandana to cure cancer or a sticker because you gave blood. That's conspicuos compassion. Taking on the establishment because you think what they are doing is wrong is not conspicuous compassion. Risking a fine or time in jail is not conspicuous compassion. The government represents the status quo and the only way to change the status quo is to let them know that what they are doing is wrong. Invading Iraq may well have been about removing a nasty dictator (revenge for daddy's humiliation), but the official line was WMD. That's the problem. Our government lied to us. Does that not worry you? I feel no contempt for protestors, civil disobediance makes democracy work. The only people i feel contempt for are people like you who seem to think that the only way to feel safe is by continual and relentless government regulation of individual freedoms.

Daryl

Thank you for your article.

I can see what you are saying but it really does not disturb me. I think Labor will jump up and down for the sake of jumping up and down - as any opposition should. Even so, I cannot see Federal Labor making too many dents in the new Howard Government proposals. I don't feel that I am losing my rights.

Daryl, aren't we lucky that Lithium Latham/Looselips Latham/Hurricaine Mark is not heading up Government with regard to such decisions? With him in charge, we probably would not have had any anti-terrorism laws.

Bushbred

I always enjoy your posts even though they are way above my intelligence, knowledge and understandings. It is always a privilege to read your work. If my WW2 Dad was alive, he would be your age. Thank you very much for what you have done for this wonderful country - any chance of you heading for Canberra?

Cheers all
Ka

PLANTA
we always write from a perspective of self interest :)

I and you are the product of certain historical forces, and I'm rather glad it turned out as it did. We can speak of how things may have been if National Socialism or Marxism had triumphed.

Now, we see the mixed blessing/curse of economic rationalism/capitalism/democracy warts and all. Still, I think we have the best chance to shape it under a democratic framework.

I don't think it was the Barbarians who pushed Rome out of Western Europe, but speaking latin would not be such a biggy, as long as we are able to practice our Christian faith, and to propogate it, which would not be the case under Islam. ('Practice ok,until u die out, or convert, but propogate NOOOO'.

Do a search on "Draft Afghan Constitution" and see if there is anything about how the Christians are to be 'dealt with' .....

Even in relatively liberal (some states) Malaysia, there is quite a stir going on about Malay Muslims embracing Christ, and thus committing apostacy by Islam.

As to the article though, I think its a bit like the horse has bolted.
I think along with these measures (which can be reviewed in time) we must adopt stricter immigration and citizenship conditions along with striving to define 'Australian identity' in terms of Anglo European-ness, with a non marginalizing approach to minorities. (though by default they may 'feel' a bit that way until they assimilate)

Boaz

As the kids are finally asleep I can at last reply.

Regarding immigration - criteria based on ethnicity or community values is always a can of worms because it is frequently too restrictive - prompting too many justifiable exceptions.

eg a computer executive from Shanghai arrives with his family and $5 million, speaks no English, no knowledge of Australian culture, but starts a small international computer software company that employs 8 rapidly assimilating Chinese-Australians. I reckon a good result but should we have let him in on ethnicity-Australian knowledge grounds?

On Islam. I have no problems with Muslims if they get rid of any "old country" sectarian passions. In Australia's history other groups have (largely) made peace eg. Croats and Serbs through assimilation (usually a key ingredient). I don't think its useful seeing Islam as a monolithic force internationally.

If "National Socialism or Marxism had triumphed" it would be a sad, sad world. Both creeds were grounded on "false gods" depending on extreme dictators eg Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Their similarities were greater than their differences.

Like most posters on this blog my contributions don't consistently fall into any political category (I hope) - though my head is conservative (I've been in a couple of very conservative professions) I try to keep my heart on the left. Over to u Boaz.

While some members of the parliament seeks to hide behind their excuses, the truth is that none, I state none really had the guts to stand up for what is constitutionally appropriate.
John Howard, on 26 September 2005 finally admitted that constitutionally he does not have the powers to detain any person for 14 days. Well, I have been writing for years explaining this extensively. Including in one of my books;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

When a real terrorist finally does end up killing people then he probably will walk free from the Courts because of the unconstitutional legal provisions. While the Parliament may ignore it all, any terrorist would benefit from my writings to get of charges. As long as we got cowards of politicians who are afraid to speak up because of the political consequences, and so use appeasement for John Howard, then it will be those cowards who ultimately will have to face reality if a terrorist walks free. After all, if they had done their job in the first place to ensure that legislation was constitutionally valid, they could avoid it.
In my view, every legislation (Bill) presented to the Federal Parliament must in its heading show within which constitutional power it is provided. Now, no one knows and it is left ultimately to the Courts to find some backdoor way to try to make it constitutionally valid. Surely, common sense ought to prevail that constitutional justification must be address from onset.

The terrorist are the very politicians who ignore constitutional validity and by this allow the general community to be terrorized until some day it is discovered there never was any legal justification for the legislation!

How then can those allegedly seeking to act against terrorism but in fact by their ignorance themselves become terrorist upon the general community make our lives any better.

Any parliamentarian who even seeks to make out that past so called anti terrorist legislation was acceptable obviously lack to understand what the Constitution really is about