On the bright side:

1) Back Door Man is available at

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10296/20010907/www.dot.net.au/_galconv/back%20door%20man.mp3

courtesy of your friendly Australian Government.

Doom and Gloom much?

Freedom of speech has little to do with laws, and everything to do with what people are prepared to do to claim their own freedoms.

2) Sedition - for a far more optimistic take on sedition laws, see

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/344535725451

by people who were heavily involved in the Vietnam protests in the 1960s and openly supported the victory of the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese. Sedition/treason laws were never used against them, despite the fact that they were clearly and directly advocating the victory of a declared enemy of the Australian government.

You'll also find people there who were involved in the 1996 'Neither!' campaign, which rejected both major parties, and advocated a "1,2,3,3" vote that would deny them preferences. More detail about that time can be found here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/1995-96/96cib14.htm

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

I totally agree with Henry. We do not have freedom of speech in Australia, more so, since Howard took the reins of power.
The independant public broadcaster ABC, denies any personal comment, or having a personal view by its staff, when communicating with the public, particularly to do with any criticsm of the Howard government's policies or its not acting in the interests of the people.
The ABC has been punished severely over the term of this government, financially and by verbal tongue lashing.
By punishing the ABC, Howard has also punished the Australian people, by denying them the quality of service to which they have become accoustomed.
Australians own cultural interests have been torpedoed, by the actions of a government intent on erasing truth from our speech and language

Dear George,

Your paper comprehensively failed to identfy the most significant challenges to freedom of speech in Australia:

1. draconian defamation laws that reinforce the power of politicians and talkback 'personalities' (such as Alan Jones and John Laws, who seem to be regular users of such writs)

2. proposed changes to cross-mdeia ownership laws that may serve to further concentrate mass-published opinion (and, consequently, mass opinion).

Your paper also comprehensively failed to recognise the principal defect in your statutory Bill of Rights proposal: a statutory Bill of Rights can be amended.

People of Australia, George Williams and other people who support a statutory Bill of Rights are selling you a lemon! It is far less than we deserve! Human rights are not and should not be a matter of grace and favour of governments.

Yours, The Skeptic

When you have right wing religious bigots running the country, what else can you expect. We're now a religious dictatorship, with our countries soldiers being sent to fight religious wars around the world, what's different to the crusades or any other god inflamed situation.

Look at how many articles are being put on this site from the religious right and how they've flooded it with their macabre and despotic statements. It won't be long before these forums will be censored to fit with the messages the religious fascists demand. But that's god for you.

I still believe that I have the right in Austalia to call George Williams a ratbag.

Anyone who swallows the nonsense he preaches - particularly about a bill of rights - while perhaps not being ratbags like George, are certainly gullible and not fit to be away from their mothers if they believe Australia is as bad as they like to think

George Williams writes:
"When it comes to freedom of speech we are in danger of losing our sense of perspective, as well as our sense of humour."

Is thats so.
Well George you could have a few drinks and then write like Mel Gibson speaks.
See how other people's sense of humour is regarding your sense of humour in speaking freely.

Its interesting that in an article about the diminishing protection for free speech in Australia, no mention is made of racial vilifcation laws. In particular, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which prohibits ridicule of people on the basis of their religion. The author seems to save his concern for smear merchants and terrorists - both darlings of the political left.

The fundamental problem is that no rights are absolute; all have limits and all must be balanced against other rights. A bill of rights, legislative or otherwise, would allow unelected judges to make determinations on the extent of our rights rather than the legislature. As a keen observer of US politics, I am horrified by the extent to which the American people and their elected representatives are observers in deciding important legal and social issues. I believe a bill of rights would lead us down the same troubling path.

Mr Williams,

I agree with you in principle, yes the implied freedom of political communication is in trouble, particularly with the latest appointments to the High Court. However, should this give rise to an American style Bill of Rights?

The reason why a Bill of Rights was not included in our Constitution to begin with, was because the Founders of our Nation (mostly Lawyers) felt that the common law provided better protection to basic, fundamental rights and freedoms, which could be protected in such a way as to allow for adaptation and change over time. This approach was clearly adopted because of the American experience at that time, where express rights had been strictly construed, normally in favour of businesses. The brilliance of this approach was summed up succinctly by Sir Owen Dixon (then Justice Dixon of the High Court) in the Communist Party v Cth ((1951) 83 CLR 1), where he held that the 'rule of law' was implied in our Constitution.

But what of this protection; which only exists where strict legalism can protect it; today? We have laws which acheive what the Commonwealth failed to achieve in 1950, and one must ask what has changed? Would a reversion to strict and complete legalism save this country? I believe that it can and should.

I also note, that Singapore provides express protection to a right of 'freedom of speech and of expression' but in practice, restricts speech to a similar extent to Maoist China. Therefore I see no benefit in a 'Bill of Rights'.

Olmert has now clearly stated that his only goal is to demolish the entire population of the south of Lebanon - some 1 million people, their homes and their livelihoods, in the vain hope of stopping less than 3,000 "soldiers" with mickey mouse rockets.

That to the world is acceptable as we sit by and watch Israel doing exactly that but then we lambaste Mel Gibson for words. Did the words cause the deaths of civilians, destroy their homes, smash their livelihoods? I don't think so but his drink driving could have.

We see our papers full of anti-muslim bile and hatred even though it is us bombing them and their nations into oblivion and Howard is silent.

One word against Israel or the IDF committing war crimes and we are the most evil people on earth.

Leigh, let me tell you, with all your scorn for human rights - I would support your human rights with every breathe if you were in Gitmo Bay without charge, a refugee in a refugee prison, in jail without a trial or hurt in any way.

Human rights are not handbags to be put down when we don't like someone.

Marilyn,

Are u on drugs? Hezbollah fired 20000 rockets before and killed 8 israeli soldiers and captured 2. When u get surrounded by these islamic psychos, Israel has no option but to defend.

Where r u when they send peaceful rockets and push israel to sea?

Wake up or Blow up

The author is correct!

Australian's have never had to spill blood on home soil on mass to protect themselves. Australian's are lazy and apathetic on politics, regarding anything like this as pure paranioa and conspiracy.

Consider how journalists interview Government membes since the Sedition law came into affect as well as the letters to the editor that no longer appears. No more do you hear a journalist ask the government hard hitting questions due to the fear of being imprisoned, such is the cowardice of my fellow Australian's. American journo's go to prison every year and become heros while Australian's cower and weep.

Australian's are losing not only the right to question their governments, we are losing our rights to hold a job over a peasant from poorer nation, our right to know how to vote and to do so actively.

Remember, first they took away the guns, then they took away the right to defend our family...now look around you.

That's 2000 mickey mouse rockets less than 5 foot long that have a range of 25 km. Can someone tell me how that sort of rocket managed to get to villages 35 km into Israel?

Compare that to the 450 Kg bombs, the 1,000 Kg laser guided bombs and the bunker buster sent by the US to bolster the apache gun ships, the tanks, the armed forces to the tune of 10,000 invading Lebanon illegally today, the navy lobbing bombs into Beirut, blockading the ports, and the airforce dropping bombs from 35,000 feet. It is just like Iraq only we were the aggressors. At least get some facts straight.

Then show me all the demolished town and cities in Israel compared to what all commentators call total destruction of towns and cities all over Lebanon.

Talk about disproportionate force from the IDF who commit one series of war crimes after the other with the US and the fundamentalist lunatic armageddonists in the US backing them.

And what does that mean? They believe that all the Jews should be in Israel for the second coming.

They are total nutcakes but in Australia we must not mention that. Only muslims are lunatics and killers in Australia aren't they?

That is why George and others are complaining about our lack of free speech, it has been hi-jacked by the fruitcakes on the right.

I refer to David's memory of the Vietnam war, he states that the protestors were not charged with sedition, for wanting the troops to lose.
Howard,s sedition policies were not law then [60s&70s] duh!.
I was a protestor, and if David had been on the ground, he would have known that the people did not want our young Australians in Vietnam, supporting an American agressor and invader. The people wanted them to be safe at home. Also David would be aware that a lottery system was in place for the compulsory selection of candidates to be sent to Vietnam.
I am pleased that the US was defeated and that they were sent packing with their tails between their legs. I hope the same happens in Iraq and Aphganistan. There is no justification for mudering innocent people, no matter who is the invader of a legitimate State.
David is just like any other conserative, who think they have a god given right, to be the devil when it suits them. Liberal minded people are disgusted with this hypocritical stance.
Left, right and centre are all about marching to someone else's band tune, all sociopathic power structures, eventually fail, and i cannot wait for this to happen to the current regime in Canberra.

Sarah10, I also mentioned Treason laws, which were in place then. If you had read the link I provided (which was not written by me, since I was not born in the Vietnam era), you would have seen these words:

"The government didn't dare use charges of Treason or Treachery so introduced a "Defence Force Protection Act" specifically targetting us, with a penalty of only 2 years gaol which could be imposed by a magistrate."

"In fact that was never used."

In fact, if you had read the link, you would see that the site I am promoting is not conservative, but advocates revolution, and is very pleased that the Vietnamese won their own independence from the USA.

The point I actually made was that some protestors at that time were doing things that fell within the _exact boundaries_ of treason laws as they stood at the time.

Yet they were _not charged_.

Which goes to show why the depressing pessimism of the author should be rejected. Instead of moaning about how little free speech we have, instead of waiting for the government to hand it to us, we need to take it.

Free speech is up to the people, not up to some Bill of Rights presented to us by our 'generous' rulers.

In relation to the Vietnam War I think there were few people who wished to see the US and allies defeated. The war was fought on the basis of the now discredited domino theory; another example of poor intelligence or intelligence being used in a political manner.

Theoretically we are in the Middle East at present to help create democracy in Iraq; instead we have created a situation where it has been stated that civil war is about to occur. Iraq has not been able to create the infra structure to maintain a peaceful nation.
Australia has been at the opposite end of the continuum with a proud history of human rights; however, from having a proud history Australia is slipping towards the poor side of the continuum. Mean legislation such as “Work Choices”; sedition laws; and now about to be legislated for, an anti indigenous law. It has been stated that “Under the guise of promoting economic development for indigenous Australians, the Federal Government wants to ram through new legislation this Tuesday that actually jeopardises future generations of Aboriginal livelihoods. It's quite possibly the most important law you've never heard of.” (GetUp)

The new communication legislation is being sold on the basis of allowing technology to be created in a deregulated environment to benefit the consumer; previous legislation has favoured big business; how can we believe that the communication legislation would be any different. This would create the situation where media empires will be able to exert more pressure on public opinion than it already does.

In relation to the Israel/Lebanon situation we could reasonably expect some moral leadership from the Coalition Government; instead we have complete silence.
It is in the last ten years that we have heard that torture is morally permissible under some circumstances; and pre-emptive strikes are permissible. Malaysia and Indonesia have made it clear that they are unhappy with the concept of pre-emptive strikes and the Howard Government has had to pull it’s head in.

Thank you George, for bringing the issue of tightening restrictions on freedom to our attention again.

Dear Websters,

Not all religious psychos are Muslim. Indeed, some are people just like you. From today's 'Australian' comes the following report:

Mr Hagee [Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas], called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a "miracle of God" and suggested that a ceasefire would violate "God's foreign policy statement" towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ's return ushers in a 1000-year period of grace.

"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching ... Rejoice and be exceeding glad - the best is yet to be," Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

President George W. Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for "spreading the hope of God's love and the universal gift of freedom".

Dear ANT

'In relation to the Israel/Lebanon situation we could reasonably expect some moral leadership from the Coalition Government instead we have complete silence.'

I am in agreement however you must give Howard some credit. He is the first Australian PM to speak in favour of a Palenstinian state.

One other point you seem to have overlooked. The Canberra Opposition has been so quiet over this outrage also. Why hasn't it taken the Government to task. Why has Kevin Rudd suddenly become 'media shy' on this burning issue? I've seen not one pronouncement from the normally 'media tart' Kevin. Why not?

One can suppose he and Labor hope they are 'Seen But Not Heard' on this issue. Eh

Keith the opposition is doing what it did before the last election - roll up into a tight little ball and hope no-one sees its underbelly. The problem with taking an even-handed stance is the same here as elsewhere - disagree with Israel and you're an anti-semite regardless of the validity of your argument.

The notion of freedom of speech being taken for granted is the biggest crock of poo out, just like the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Our democratic system is supposed to be built on these tenets, but they are mightily corrupted, and so is the whole system, which is at best a crude approximation to real democracy.

Never mind about what is legal or illegal - much of what is legal is essentially forbidden anyway. Actual legality has been well and truly usurped.

In private enterprise, many people cannot or dare not say things publicly that go against the interests of their employer, not even as private citizens not connected to their work. This is a huge diminution of real freedom of speech.

In the public service, which is supposed to uphold the dictum of free speech as a matter of principle, the situation is no better.

As a public servant, I ran into awful suppression. I always spoke on my own behalf (mostly in letters to the editor) and never connected myself with my employer. I never advocated views that were out of line with my employer and I never once infringed my department’s code of conduct or went against the directive of a superior. But I still had my right to express myself severely compromised because, I was told, I could not espouse views that might be to the dislike of anyone with whom my department deals!

I should have earned the reputation of being genuinely concerned about the things that my department dealt with, to the point that I was willing to be involved in them extensively outside of my work arena and in the wider community. Yeah, right!

Now I write under a ‘spewdonym’, which means I don’t get recognised for my efforts, except by a few who know it…. and I continue to feel highly suppressed and aggrieved.

For me and no doubt many others on this forum, it is not a case of “being seen but not heard”, but rather; being heard but not seen (or not recognised for your efforts and concerns).

Alchemist

It is the left wing secular bigots (Victorian Labour Party) who have charged two men under religous vilification for saying that Islam posers a threat to our nation and that Christians should love muslims in retaliation to their violence. Your views seem extremly narrow.

It is amazing that private schooling can't teach people to spell.

Dear David,
I am sorry i mis-read you. I tripped on my anger, i am passionate, as so many others who wish to ventilate their opinions and views.
I agree with you that we need to exercise our right to freespeech. I used to get very upset with ABC presenters, who were obviously not exercising their rights, i have changed tack now, due to the pressures put on them by an iron fisted regime, which has used fear to mould their compliance with more and more tools to make them feel less secure in their jobs, as this regime is doing to other Australians.
I am pleased that you are talking about revolt, against such a revolting regime, which puts business before people.

Thanks for saying it, Sarah10...it's awful rare for people in this sort of forum to change their minds or admit mistakes.

I would suggest that the ALP is not a great deal better than Howard's current government - the ALP is just as good at getting people to shut up and do what they are told. (Not that you have directly talked about the ALP, but a lot of people just focus on 'Howard' when they talk about these sorts of things, instead of looking at the system he rose from.)

I think its important to focus on that system, rather than the party that runs it - I agree with you that the system is set up for the benefit of profit and business, not what people need.

If any sort of revolt is going to succeed, part of that is going to be teaching people to replace fear with hope, and a sense of power - one of the reasons I reject the pessimism of the original article.

If you have time, take a look at Last Superpower
http://www.lastsuperpower.net

It's full of people who want to put people first and chuck out the bosses. Good chance you won't agree with a lot of opinions, but we need and welcome reasoned debate from just about anyone there.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

The Albert Langer episode must go down as one of the blackest in our country’s history, in terms of what our core values are supposed to be. Likewise with the whole Pauline Hanson saga.

The implications of these are huge.

Firstly, we seem interminably stuck with compulsory preferential voting, which is the dirtiest rort of our democratic system, in that it means that your vote can and very often does count for a party / candidate for whom you never wanted to vote, or even specifically wanted to make sure your vote didn’t trickle down to.

This system greatly assists the two major parties in remaining entrenched and strongly works against smaller parties, and against alternative political movements and directions…. It helps keep the political dinosaurs, that are taking us rapidly towards the economic, social and environmental precipice, entrenched.

Very few people seem willing to say anything about this. But awareness and concern is surely very widespread.

And the extraordinary history of suppression and perversion of Hanson’s efforts to broaden our political perspectives will be looked back upon as something in the realms of burning witches at the stake in medieval times.

How many times did you hear people say; “I’m not a Hanson supporter, but I think the way she is being treated is disgusting”? I was never a strong supporter, but I did realise early on that her views were very much more moderate than what they being made out to be.

So now we have a situation where new political movements or even differing political views are just about impossible.

All-considered, free speech, unfettered political views and the right to uncompromised political choice, are so suppressed that we may well be closer to a totalitarian regime than to a true democracy.

Hi Keith
I'm in agreement with you in relation to the Opposition; under the leadership of Mr Beazley, "Opposition" is almost an oxymoron as far as International Relations is concerned.

However, I'm really pleased to say that some Canberra Church leaders have proclaimed the need for an immediate cease fire on 31 July ( http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1576#comment )on behalf of Lebonese and Israeli people. I thought this was a brave move on their part, individually and institutionally. Institutionally, as the Coalition Government has threatened charitable organisations with having to pay tax should they try to publicly try to provide moral and political leadership in the community.

At least the ALP is providing leadership in relation to "Work Choices"

Keith Antonysen

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html

There are ugly posts on blogs all over the world supporting the Israeli's early position that Qana was a fraud perpetrated by the Lebanese.

This now takes on the children overboard flavour with this information that the video released was two days old, had no evidence that any civilians were ever used and says pretty clearly that the IDF lied through their teeth. This takes on Haditha as a deliberate massacre of civilians I think and the tragedy is that it was Israeli "intelligence" that was largely relied on to blow up Iraq.

The tragedy is of course largely for Israel because who on earth will ever trust them again when it comes to their outdated intelligence systems?

Not only that the Olmert government is lying to the entire northern population of Israel, sounding alarms when none are needed and then using that to blow up the entire Lebanon.

One woman’s experience in the Iraq war lead to sexual abuse, imprisonment & dishonourable discharge, for her. Did any one hear of this through usual news outlets?
http://www.suzanneswift.org/
“Spc. Swift's arrest on June 11 sparked a national outcry from all walks of life, both military and civilian. Veterans of military service and those who believe in basic human rights have organized to demand that the Pentagon protect the dignity of our soldiers and implement the changes the Pentagon's Joint Task Force on Sexual Abuse in the military recommended in a report to Congress in 2004.” [end of quote]

Something Bush & Co. wish to discourage, make dishonourable, is the conscious objector, found at
http://www.iraqpledge.org/nov18.htm

News we not see on regular news outlets..

Historic times we are living in! We put people who are seeking a safe haven from war and persecution in concentration camps. We accept with minimum comment, laws controlling our work status, that gives us a living. We accept laws of sedition. We accept each law that is currently passed.
Why? Well for me it appears we have become a very selfish society. It has nothing to do with the immigrants over the past years. It is how we Australia make sure we look after "me". "A colonial supermarket".
Botany Bay repeats itself. Historic times!

Yes Kipp when we look after ourselves we look after only one person out of 20 million; the man at the top.
We live in a hierachy of power so we look after ourselves according to the power alloted to us. The people at the bottom have little power, the people in the middle have some and the man at the top is looked after by all of us when we look after ourselves.
The PM is the only one not out of petrol,. not out of water or even suffering under increased interest rates when he has a mortgage on The Lodge.

Hmmm, stodgy ol’ Ludwig really is on a different wavelength to everyone else on this thread. Oh well, he will continue holding a conversation with himself then! (:>|

So, along comes the internet…. and forums such as OLO become the new tool for public expression. Wonderful??

Yes, to a fair extent.

One of the big advantages is that your message gets out to a potentially very wide audience and in an unedited form (unless you is a rude twit dat uses naughty language or slander).

As a former long-time writer of letters to the editor of various newspapers, I was frequently disgusted by letters being edited, sometimes grossly inappropriately or not printed at all. It also became apparent that certain subjects were pretty much taboo. Debate was also difficult, with usually several days between letters, and readers not having the letter that was being responded at hand.

One taboo subject was compulsory preferential voting. After numerous attempts with several newspapers, none of my letters on this subject were printed. Very interesting that was. My main subject of comment on this forum – population growth as it affects sustainability, was also not well liked by editors, although early on I did get a good run locally (?until the big end of town told the editor to shut me down?).

But with online forums, we still have the same old problem of lack of free speech, as expressed in my last post. These forums also promulgate the situation of being heard but not seen - it is much easier to get your message out there now, but no easier to be recognised for it. That’s not the fault of this sort of outlet or the administrators thereof, it’s just the nature of the beast.

But at least the message is getting to where it can be appreciated….. and hopefully the powers that be will now see just how different that message is in many ways to that in the highly compromised vehicles of letters to newspapers and magazines, talk-back radio and the like.

Ludwig,
You are right.

Dear David,
Thank you for your reply and acceptance.
I do not mention the ALP, as i do not support them, they are too much like minded with the coalition, and they are also led by a man with no integrity.
I agree that Australians fears need to be addressed, fear is a natural ingredient of the human recipe, and necessary for survival, flight or fight, and fear of real or imagined things in our habitat.
Fears and superstitions are just as prevalent today as they were thousands of years ago. For instance a large percent of todays people believe that there is a bloke with a beard who lives in the sky above us. This in itself is an accepted form of madness, but a very effective tool for the manipulation of people's fears, by those who have nothing to lose, but much to gain.
Reality has become a weasel word, just as truth is. Lies can be converted to truth just by using repetitive messages to a god fearing audience using the very best of technology for broadcasting them on a regular basis, such as regulated times of every day.
In our "real world" technology is used for capturing our attention, via television, radio and other goodies, much like our very young, being soothed by their mother's familiar voice, which has the effect of them feeling relaxed and comfortable.
Reality and truth become co-joined.
In the comfort of our homes, we see the world through our own eyes, or so we think, in our comfort zone, we are seduced and cajoled, by the use of the full range of emotions, for our reassurance, to be sold anything from goods to consume, to feeling that no harm will come to us from outside forces of evil, and that we do not to need to think about anything, because what we are watching or listening to, is the truth including news and current affairs.
Freedom of speech, who needs it?.

I, like most Australians support "freedom of speech/expression/the right to protest" in all it's various forms, but I am becoming increasingly disturbed in the manner in which these freedoms are being expressed.Recently during a protest march in London against the Israelies,some of the most horrendous placards were being carried by masked protesters, To quote some of them; BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM;
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM ; PREPARE FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; YOUR 9/11 IS ON ITS WAY; ETC ETC, to quote some of them. One photograph showed a London Bobby standing next to a placard (not intentionally I'm sure).
Unless this right to make a group's views known has some strict control it will surely be seen in Sydney as well as London.The wearing of masks and displaying placards of the type seen in London should be strictly banned in this country

The Australian Press Council hasn't done nearly enough to support free speach and a free press in Australia. There opposition to such laws as those that prohibit interviewing asylum seekers in detention centers and criminals in prison has been minimal.

(further to my last post)

But whether the powers that be view this in a positive way and change their way of thinking accordingly, or whether they ignore it... or move to suppress it, remains to be seen

The question I ponder is , the removal of which liberty will cause enough anger in enough people to effect a change in direction ?
We don't have much protection from oppressive governence other than what we're prepared to do ourselves , Considering that we're all fairly wealthy by world standards the fear of loosing what we individually have is enough to keep us subdued .
If only we had an opposition in the federal parliment that opposed .
The Howard government have no challengers . I call it the Howard government because that is what it is , John Howard plus a bunch of compliant obedient seat occupiers , About as close as it gets to a dictatorship without being allowed to call it a dictatorship .
Of course all is the product of a biased electoral process .
Ludwig is correct about compulsory preferences , the votes mostly just roll back to the two larger parties . Thats the whole idea .
What makes the rort work so well is compulsory attendence .
With our compulsory voting system there is no need to please the individual , one individual is also every individual , no need to give you a reason to vote , This is what is missing .
It doesn't matter how ticked off we are we'll still turn up & vote & the compulsory preference system will roll the votes back to where the major parties want them to go .

Fifty years ago people would not have been bombarded with mass media from every direction all of the time as we are now & back then a much much larger percentage of the population would I suspect have clearly understood what it takes to have food for the table & material for a roof over your head . As well as vivid reccolections of the tyrany of nazi germany , imperialistic japan & growing communism .
A bit different now . big brother , australian idol , footy show , today tonight , etc etc . get the picture ?
Times have changed , perceptions of what is important have changed & importantly , understanding of the importance of politics to freedom seem to have waned .
Legislators would be far more responsible if they thought that those who are annoyed with them may outnumber those who are content at the polling booth .
Isn't this the way it's supposed to work ?
Voluntary voting is the only fix now . Won't happen though .
Once a power is assumed it's unlikely to be given up freely .

Have you ever wondered what has happened to asylum seekers when they have been deported to their country of origin?

There is an article in today's SMH ( http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rejected-refugees-sent-home-to-die/2006/08/07/1154802823160.html ). The article quoted an Afghan father who stated: ""My children died so that John Howard could win an election," Abdul is quoted as telling the Edmund Rice Centre, which has spent the past three years interviewing more than 80 rejected asylum seekers in 18 countries. It has released its findings to coincide with the Government's migration bill, which has divided the Coalition. The bill would ensure all asylum seekers landing on the mainland were processed offshore, out of reach of Australia's legal system."

Human Rights have been taken from refugees from a country the Coalition Government has acknowledged as being dangerous; Australia has sent troops there after all. It is a pity that a little compassion and humanity cannot be transplanted into Coalition politicians just like it is possible to do with organs.

Jamo

I agree on all points except optional voting. That won’t help us put our vote where we want it to count. The only answer, and it is very simple, is to implement the optional preferential voting system at the federal level, which we have in some states including Qld and NSW. But as you say; “once a power is assumed it's unlikely to be given up freely”.

I too wonder just what will really spur the community into action. It seems that pretty drastic things will have to happen and a whole lot of strife ensue before we get ourselves together and stop the erosion of our personal rights.

It is rather depressing for me to witness such a lack of concerted effort or will in the general community to address things that are really starting to affect us in a big way – fuel prices and water provision. We are seeing some action, but there is still prevailing apathy, or so it seems. Or is it a matter of relying on government to fix our woes, even though judging from many posters on this forum, people generally blame governments for the mess in the first place? It is perplexing, but it helps me understand why we collectively allow the progressive restriction of personal freedom.

continued

But above all, I am critically disappointed in the awful lack of interest on this forum in something as horrible and purely antidemocratic - which amounts to stealing our votes, and which is thus as bad as any rigged election – as compulsory preferential voting, which I have mentioned many times on OLO.

Is it because most people just don’t get it or don't believe it is as bad as you and I say it is? Is it because it is deemed to be one of those really unspeakable subjects that ‘big brother’ might come down on you over (a la Albert Langer)? I don’t think so. I think it is again apathy…. in a society which is for all intents and purposes doing very well thankyou, and in which people don’t really have to concern themselves with such things.

So, with this sort of lack of concern in the general community over something so foul, what would an improvement in freedom of speech achieve, if most people still remained silent?

Is an improvement is our ability to speak more freely really that important?

Ludwig, people are frightened to speak out, they see society's tottering on the edge of chaos. People have known for years our dams were inadequate, health system in crisis, fuel would run out. Yet all the ruling junta hears is what their bosses (big business) tells them, develop at all costs, more people more money for us.

Sensible people are aware nothing can be done until the ruling junta of lib/lab is destroyed and a system comes along that listens to the people and not vested interests. Speaking out does nothing any more, they refuse to listen because they know they can lie all they like, the enslaved just grovel at their feet as they walk all over them.

Ludwig, we've fallen over the edge and are racing to a big crash at the bottom. Nothing can be done because no one will do anything and its to late. We've the rabid right wing monotheists in control backed up by the PC brainless left, none of them have any thing else on their mind but their ego's. You either go crazy with the rest, or try non participating with them as they race to see who gets to the bottom fastest.

We're witnessing the end of a society it'll be gone before 2020. Those supporting the status quo, must maintain their direction, its their only power base. I doubt anyone has heard one word of truth from a politician, bureaucrat or CEO in the last 10 years. No amount of free speech will change that.

You ask what'll it take to change peoples perspective and get proactive, look at history, you'll see the answer. All past societies have ended in chaos and war when they suppressed the people, disenfranchising their freedoms, we're at the stage now. There's no time to make worthwhile changes, climate, environmental degradation, water system collapsing, health system in chaos, justice system upside down and a massive energy crisis. But what are the powers doing, building more roads and tunnels, bringing in more people, increasing burdens on the people and returning less. Get the picture

Nearly 2,000 people attended a free speech rally at the Victorian parliament yesterday against the Bracks Labor governments Victorias draconian anti free speech laws (the Racial & Religious Tolerance Act).
How many of you who are lauding free speech were there?
I would suggest that George Williams was not. Perhaps his close relationship with the Bracks Labor government was the reason he did not even mention this bad law in his article. Has he ever spoken out against it - I doubt it - would show a conflict of political interest?
William’s promotion of a modern day Bill Of Rights, which takes the power away from the people and gives it to the judiciary, would seem to completely contradict his lauding of free speech unless it is only freedom based on very narrow parameters that suit him.
"you can say what you like as long as I agree with it or give you the 'right' to say it"!

In today's Sydney Morning Hearald is an article about a very sick young man mistreated by Centrelink in Western Australia.
"Centrelink has admitted it badly handled the case of a 16-year-old boy with leukaemia who was refused a disability support pension following "an unfortunate breakdown in communications"."

The point is that the Coalition Government which has provided the climate for bureaucrats to make mean decisions. Another case of administrative thuggery perpetrated by the Howard Government's mean attitude towards citizens.

I wonder why all the normal people who get mistreated by Centerlink don't get publicity.
It seems you have to be very sick.

When the person is sick the media concentrates on the sick person instead of the very sick Centerlink system. If all the normal people who got mistreated got publicity then the very sick people would not be mistreated would they?

The media is very sick as well.

• Alchemist ..."Sensible people are aware that nothing can-be-done until the (jellyback-spiteful-pollies run) ruling-junta of lib/lab is destroyed and a (grassroots) system comes along that listens to the people and not (elders-of-zion) vested interests"... Precisely why we need-to-examine conscientious citizen's commonsense logic! Which dictates on your local Electorate Office to enact a vital umbilical-cord-interface between the electorate and periodically chosen MP, who must adhere to the Representative Democracy notion. Where just as vital on MP was to serve the people, and not merely the executive rulers of the day. While applying vested-democracy-aim in-relation to the real-economy-generation, just-law-n-order maintenance within the social responsibility to the informed community. Solidly set on the equal-citizen's-rights to the principle-essentials such-as: Subsistence, Health, Housing, Education and Employment opportunities (onset with the crucial remedy versus stonewalling by the mainstream media).

Thus inevitably your local Electorate Office to form communication exchange bureau for active citizens participation within the unhindered need-of-contribution via local parliamentarian's domain, towards the people's-common-good. With an-ultimate goal on mind for-a-direct, participatory-democracy by people and for the people. Onset to embody our collective responsibility, to eradicate the parasites, who over the years painstakingly feathered Jew cuckoo-nests within the ivory towers. Subject to elders-of-zion preselection process via invisible hand-picked treacherous leeches and their filthiest derivatives rest. Conditioned to serve evil-echelon-masters, while forging this marvellous nation (if-not-for archaic vast-wastage-industries) into oblivion.

One may be excused for having dejected perception at-times of being just an-alien-visitor here from some-distant-planet. Thus having to-face a user-pay consequences. Which must-be contemptible for the conscientious citizens within a country where ensuing generations of youngsters grow and proceed into the adulthood without having a single elevated role-model. Someone to look-up-to (as our maverick Mark Latham), towards the impending achievements to-come. Yet when vagabonds wouldn't care, many forsaken, disenfranchised citizens still got-to-face the utmost uncertain future to-come. While being blacklisted on unemployable's heap all along, they take a stance to survive and proceed with life in the Ghetto Australis, within so paradoxically awesome land of plenty, we call it home.

As to the diminished democracy exposé, please proceed to ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4625#47660

Alchemist, I get the picture all too clearly.

I keep looking for ways to discount it, but everything leads back to the grave scenario that you outline.

So is the crux of the issue to reform our governance?

If we had true participatory democracy, would it actually mean that sustainability would become our platform, or would the same old short-term thinking still prevail? You say that it wouldn’t make much difference. Do the people need a strong government that is on the right track and that is independent of participation by the constituency, including independence from big business?

I can’t see a clear way forward.

Maybe the crux of the issue is to just realise that it’s too late…. and to start planning on the personal level as to how to get through the inevitable crash, that will descend in a very short number of years from now.

Leo Braun wrote;

“Alchemist, Your clear-vision-perception, complemented with-the-innate capacity to-be frank while also having the guts to-stand-up for the disenfranchised citizenry and speak-out far beyond the silver-tongued panacea excuses -- has been highly commendable!

Yes indeed.

But by crikey it’s about as depressing as it can get.

Ludwig, to get any result other than what we have, the system must change. When you consider how entrenched they've become and what's required to get change, it's not looking good. As federal politicians have just given themselves more money to mail out propaganda to constituents, giving them up to $400000 in mailing allowance for elections. Any independent trying to get elected other than from the lib/lab junta, would need to be a millionaire, then we have the same problem.

The alternatives, revolution or social collapse. The god factions believe it's the time when their saviour returns and they take control, but history will repeat, as before our societies will disappear rapidly, taking the zealots with it. The destruction caused in the name of economic growth and globalisation, has passed the point of sustainability and in rapid decline.

Latest predictions regarding global warming, states sea rises of 7 metres within 10 years and 70 metres within 30 (hard to believe). It's to hard to predict how this will pan out, or what the outcome will be. I expect we'll see the elite brought to task, another history repeat. Nothing but lies comes for the mouths of those in power, I listened to Peter Garret's press club address and he's now a useless wimp, spewing out the Junta's party line.

Like a pot on a stove, more's added until it boils over creating a big mess. We've put so many problems in the to hard pot, it's about to boil over. Water, fuel, energy, infrastructure, climate, environment, health, debt, governance, services, lose of freedoms, you name it and its all in the too hard basket. The next couple of years will be interesting indeed and yes it does appear the wisest thing's to personally prepare for the eventualities. To be honest only fools will do nothing, but continue to rebuke reality until rolls over them. I agree its depressing, I just try to look beyond it, to see what may be possible afterwards. That alone gives me confidence.

huwaaaah, its all tooo hard.

My head hurts just tryin to think about it!

(:>(