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 > Knee-jerk law making > Comments

Knee-jerk law making : Comments

By George Williams, published 5/6/2006

Current anti-terror laws were unthinkable prior to September 11, so what will we end up with in the event of future attacks.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
BOAZ_David, the hysterical fear of terorrist attack that you voice should not be an excuse for our society to give up the fundamental freedoms that make our nation a liberal democracy. It is true that we all face the risk of dying or being injured in a terrorist attack, but we should have some perspective in realising that most things in our life carry risk. Australians are far more likely to die in car accidents or from alcohol related deaths than at the hands of terrorists, yet we do not ban cars or alcohol. But we do seem willing to give up free speech due to the possibility that it may be used for the purposes of inciting terrorism, which to me seems a heavy price to pay.
Posted by la1985, Monday, 5 June 2006 6:52:55 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
One more point before some right-wing lunatic jumps all over me for my last post...

Let's assume not having the anti-terror/anti-freedom laws results in a terror attack killing hundreds, well...like I hear you conservatives say many times over...

Who ever said that freedom didn't come with a price?
Posted by Mr Man, Monday, 5 June 2006 7:06:11 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
I agree that the Howard Government is often reacting to situations they have little or no control upon.

Of course (they) wanted to be seen as an informed and a pro-active bunch doing the right thing for you and I.

But in the case of legislating against terrorism, what they failed (knowingly) to address is that no one can legislate against an ideology that is fuelled by a belief of righteousness and superiority: Islam.

Fearing the possible repercussion of attacking (legislating against) the source of terror - they went for the next target instead – the symptomatic jehadists.

As long as we are duped by gutless and incompetant politicians we will continue to put our future generations in great jeopardy of Islamic manipulation and control.
Posted by coach, Monday, 5 June 2006 7:10:50 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
Con-Census 2006
You can refuse to take part in the upcoming Census.

Why?
The Australian Democrats and other sources have confirmed that the information to be gained in this year's Census may be utilised as a privacy-intrusive measure to build up information profiles about average Australians, like you and me.
Combine this with proposals of a National ID card, and the Howard Government's history of misuse of information (Children Overboard, Iraq invasion justification, AWB scandal etc. etc.) and you have good reason to refuse to hand over your personal information.

More importantly than the Census itself, many feel uneasy, frustrated and even helpless with our involvement in the illegal war in Iraq, our treatment of Asylum Seekers, the recent introduction of the new Anti-Terrorism and Sedition laws, and other post-9/11 related events at home and abroad… This brings us to this point in 2006, where we now believe that an act of Civil Disobedience is required to send a message to our Government.

Con-Census 2006 enables you and others to take positive non-violent action.

Find out more at: http://www.con-census.org.au/
Posted by BrokenSword, Monday, 5 June 2006 7:38:26 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
Yeah thanks BS

Starting with some sensible words from Sage and Boaz this debate has declined to the usual "we live in 1984" "we scared of barely used laws" paranoia.

If a loved one was blown to bits on a Sydney train would you be saying "Oh well they could have been, smoking, drinking, driving or been hit by a meteorite"?

You'd more likely be saying why didn't some bl..dy politician or Agency predict this, head it off aand arrest the bombers BEFOREHAND not after.

Thank goodness duly ELECTED politicians make laws based on hard earned experience here and overseas rather than relying on UNELECTED academic worthies using 2 month old (25 March, OLO :) news clippings as a vehicle.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 5 June 2006 9:44:30 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
The only amazing thing about the terror laws is that were not in place before Sept 2001.
Posted by runner, Monday, 5 June 2006 10:35:05 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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