The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Less secure, less free: anti-terrorism laws > Comments

Less secure, less free: anti-terrorism laws : Comments

By Christopher Michaelsen, published 20/5/2005

Christopher Michaelsen asks if tough new anti-terrorism laws actually enhance Australia's security.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
Christopher you have mentioned some powerfull defaults and just thought i would let you know your article was GREAT really it made perfect sense although it's a shome our legal system hasnt yet considered a reform... once again Well Done... Idris
Posted by Idris, Friday, 1 July 2005 1:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are seeing develop, in a rather frightening way, the emergence of neo-fascism in Australia. The Liberal Party has had these roots since its early days, and only recently removed from their website the references to W.S.Kent and his Fascist connections.

On the occasion of the Centenary of the HCA, PM Howard made the statement that he was (to paraphrase) "...one of those in the group of Australians who is RESOLUTELY OPPOSED to a Bill of rights..."

He espouses 'parliamentary democracy' and yet refuses to adhere to its basic premise of dialogue and debate (Re: Terror Bills passed in the dead of night) - See Hansard.

The other scary part is that the Labour Party has also spread its butt cheeks and copped it with hardly a whimper.

In 1854, same year as Eureka Stockade (read: more Crown government abuse of its subjects), a Tasmanian Reverend - John West, who warned in a series of published articles in the Sydney Morning Herald, "...beware the power of an Attorneys General armed with the [majority] vote of the populace, hunting its enemies into the meshes of the [law(s)].

I didn't vote for Jackboots Johnny and yet if I so much as urge "...disaffection against the Crown (Charles & Camilla ?)..." I will be had up on the spurious offence of Sedition.

I implore the reader to consider carefully the true meaning and ulterior motives of our government in respect to:

1) The War on Terror,
2) Terror Legislation,
and
3) The parlous state of Human Rights and its abuse by government in Australia today.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 3 February 2006 2:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy