What an important article. OLO should have a special place on its address bar at the top of each page for its pearls of wisdom.

BRAVO.

The reference to Schicklegrubers famous laura norder speech is particularly relevant.

I take it the author does not believe signing international laws and treaties have any effect. Or again are we having double standards? Or is it just domestic laws that don't work.

Good article, patently sensible and drawing conclusions that any reasonable reader would endorse. As the last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism, then it could be said that the scoundrel's first resort is 'law and order'.

Does runner actually read any of the articles upon which he comments? If he had, he owuld have noted Ellen Goodman's categorisation of three kinds of law. I'm sure that even runner would be able to work out in which category international law belongs - but he'd have to read the article to do that.

Although I have no sympathy for most of the policies of the present government, I'd like Ms Goodman to define the boundaries between "law and order politics" and law and order. Some people, do indeed, pursue lifestyles that are threatening to democratic societies,their criminal activities cannot be tolerated, they have to be dealt with. Why can't we decide who comes to live in our society? A more law abiding past is not a myth, I grew up in the 50s and 60s a less violent, more cooperative and more law abiding era. What's wrong with requiring new citizens to share our democratic values and speak English, how can they object unless they are racist,xenophobic and jingoistic themselves?

CJ

I would of thought the parallel is obvious. Those who use global warming scaremongering and other 'environmental issue' in order to be elected have no more chance of changing the behaviour of companies and badly behaved environmentalist than politicians who use domestic law and order issues to be elected or re elected. Laws are a deterrent as can be clearly seen in Singapore however they don't change peoples hearts

Well... this article could be described in very low terms.

"A cheap political hooker, out for a cheap trick to get dosh for her next fix"

No..that doesn't quite match.. I'll try again.

"Throw mud, at a fan..and just hope some of it sticks to my political opponents"

This article was just a cheap, base, amoral empty attempt to damage a government, and promote another side, using carefully selected language to try to camoflage this.

"The effect of resort to “law and order” politics therefore is promotion of difference rather than harmony; mistrust of others and insecurity, encouragement of racism, xenophobia and jingoism. It is the antithesis of political thought which is progressive, positive and inspirational."

In other words. "Our leftoid agenda is better".

That juicy little summar does ZERO for promoting an alternative.. in fact the only 'alternative' which I can see mentioned is:

"That which is progressive, positive and inspirational"

goooood grief.. we are not kindy kids.. we have brains. I know political double speak when I read it.
Each of those terms if 'partisan' and subjective.. are we supposed to immediatly know 'what' they mean ? of.. I forgot.. they mean 'NOT' the policies of the incumbent government.

What utter and complete rubbish. If the policies are weak..EXPLAIN how..and present a well articulated alternative..don't insult our intelligence with vague slogans.

Just for the record..YES.. 'WE' will indeed decide who comes here and under what circumstances they come. Why ? ok.. here is where I differ from the lamentable froth and bubble of the article..I have "reasons" and history.

1/ Unfettered Thai migration to Ankor Wat resulted in a Thai takeover and sacking of the city.
2/ Ivory coast, migrants tried to take over....result..civil war.
3/ White Australians to Australia.... you know the rest.

DIFFERENCE is promoted by "Multi" culturalism!

Law without a democratic constitution simply means that law is just a word giving even tyrants full control.

Philosophical history also tells how in a genuine democracy we have the Separation of Powers Statute which was intended to separate scientifically evolved law from popular law, but a Statute that is never heard of these days, especially regarding arbitration which seems to have been fully taken over by partisan power, replacing it with a non-scientific law which in rough language says that the government believes it has the right to hold the big end of the lawful stick in anything it chooses.

The purpose of the article was to distinguish between a government passing laws by the usual means and a political group which creates a beat-up about a particular issue for the primary purpose of winning an election.

DavidBoaz just think back to the Tampa election....was a wealthy country of 20 million really scared out of its wits because a few thousand people arrived on our doorstep in a leaky boat?

And was it really necessary to ensure that none of us ever saw one of these persons up close...we might have realised that they were humans just like us.

BUSHY.. I've posted something specially for you on the Augustine topic.. (general discussion) have a peek :)

You say separation of powers ? Mate..I have to scoff at that.. not to pick on you, but to bring what you said back into the realm of reality....

The courts are NEVER separate from the state.. they are appointed BY the state for the benefit OF the State.. and if there are leftover Judges of the 'previous' State Flavor.. the incumbent will always be seeking ways to REMOVE them and replace them with 'flavor of the month' types of their own liking.

We might have skillful 'disguises' which camoflage this, but thats how I see it anyway.

The only meritorious thing about this woefully abysmal, rediculous example of cheap political harlotry and propoganda (The article) is that it provides an opportunity for thinking people to speak some sense into the issue.

Law and order concerns are not owned by the right or the left side of politics. Citizens have a right to be protected, as far as is possible, from infringements apon their rights and safety from criminals and other would be wrong-doers. This is a fine line and not everyone will agree on where to draw it.

The problem arises when the law and order regime that is set to protect us becomes blurred and actually works to infringe some civil liberties, rights to privacy, rights for representation, the presumption of innocence and in some cases blatant discrimination such as the legislation regarding same-sex relationships.

There is no doubt that the world is a different place than it was some years ago and we now have a 'current level of alert at MEDIUM' as per the website: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/. This is no trivial matter but surely the best law and order methods lie in prevention. As far as international crime/terrorism goes, perhaps we should be looking more at our own economic and diplomatic relationships and issues of equity and fairness across the great divide, rather than bandaid quick fixes to correct our own mismanagement and misjudgement. Fanaticism and terrorism is best fought through reducing the conditions in which it breeds - poverty, inequity and foreign policies based on economic self interest.

This government, in an effort to be perceived as one who is all about protecting us from terrorists ie. protecting our way of life, is actually infringing the very rights we are seeking to protect eg. freedom of speech, democracy and there are many other examples of repression of information or 'silencing dissent' (gratis Clive Hamilton) that make you wonder what is it that we are protecting?

Boaz, you have only said what I have said, except I could suggest that you do a course in political science which will tell you that true justice in a true democracy should not be left in the hands of ordinary elected leaders, especially in nations with weak constitutions.

PS - Further, don't know what you are trying to tell me about St Augustine, Boaz, except in another thread where I compared him with St Thomas Aquinas. That is a comparative question asked in political philosophy, as you must have noted other comparisons in the same thread. On the road to Enlightenment and democracy, Aquinas was well ahead because he had the earthly commonsense to balance faith with reason.

The article is right on the mark. In the State of Queensland former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen was notorious, even habituated, for dredging up "law 'n' order" if his campaign looked like it was faltering, though with the gerrymander he so skillfully managed to exploit, I was never sure why he needed a surefire issue. The Nats and Libs in Queensland are the laughing stock of state politics, and a massive embarrassment to their respective federal organisations. They still trot out "law 'n' order" at every election. They treat the Qld voter, even those of the recent influx, as political cretins who've spent too long in the sun, and can be snowed by a tired old line. The federal approach to the hardening, surreptitiously & openly, of national security legislation is of real concern, especially from the civil liberties standpoint.

What a timely article.

Pelican, you expressed what I think very well.

What I find strange is when concern is raised about infringements on civil liberties or disquiet of tampering with long held legal principles within our legal system, which we are supposed to prefer above all other forms, accusations of left wing political bias is bandied about.

The communists, the extreme left, and the fascists, the extreme right both needed complete control of their populace to retain power. Both used the same language of fear and the need of law and order to justify laws that restrict freedoms. All to hold onto power, not to protect the citizens.

Law and order talk is all about holding onto power or attaining power.

In actual day to day life, a law on any issue which is not personally reprehensible is only a meaningful deterrent if there is a high likelihood of getting caught. That's why we all speed when there is no police on the road, people will continue to drink and drive if they can go home 'the back way', kids will continue to graffiti, but the vast majority (90%+) go to the polling booths on election day.

It is a myth the 50's and 60's where more law abiding. We just didn't have TV stations or papers trawling through every nook and cranny on our planet competing for our dollars by feeding us juicy news. We were just blissfully unaware back then.

Like I said, reasonable readers generally endorse the article. On the other hand, the raving loonies seem to have problems with it.

What else would we expect?

Yvonne,

If you are my age I find your comments difficult to understand. Yes we had TV and radio then, and police rounds journalists. Now our cities are covered with graffiti, the incidence of white collar crimes and burglaries is higher, not to mention motor car thefts. Teenagers could also have a party with little risk of being murdered or stabbed forty years ago, it's the increased i;ncidence of particular crimes that is significant.

Excellent Article.

The obscession by 'the powers that be' in Australia with creating (...no forcing) the Uber Nanny State upon its citizens is a disturbing, devisive and neo-fascist movement.

I for one as an educated, tax paying, freedom loving citizen who does not cause any harm to my fellow citizen am perfectly capable of deciding my own values thank you very much. Little Johny H-H-Howard and Bronwyn Bishop are the last people I would look to for any kind of inspiration for anything but an example of how moronic our supposed leaders are.

I can tell you that the legal status of the pills I regularly take for recreational fun has absolutely zero effect on my enthusiasm to partake in them. In fact I get a perverse enjoyment out of regularly breaking as many Nanny State laws as I desire and getting away with it 100% of the time, preaching the gospel of the freedom I feel in doing so and living a happy, successful life.

My main conscern the total waste of tax payers money on such rediculous persuits as prohibition.

Bushy... you are always saying that Aquinas benefited from the Islamic thinkers from whom Peter Abelard obtained the ideas of the Greeks.......

I'm disputing that, on the grounds that Augustine knew of Plato etc and write screeeeds about reason, faith, and doctrine.. fully aware of the things you claim we only obtained by the Muslims.

Do you understand my point now ? :)
cheers.

"Cultural law is primarily concerned with personal morality. It is this category of law which, as a rule, is the subject of “law and order” agendas." - Ellen Goodman

Daniel06,

You are spot on - a Nanny State; and determined by the dullest and dreariest in our society.

In age, I am closer to seven decades than six, and I have no doubt that whenever I step out in public, I am unwittingly breaking some law or another - somehow. The last time resulted in a police car circling the carpark of a shopping centre and stopping alongside me. I was about to take a two-inch twig from a large, spindly and overgrown geranium bush. The driver enquired: "Can I help you, Madam?"... and he wasn't offering to get a better twig from the top ... the subtext was obvious. Resisting the sudden urge to be part of a police drama, lying flat on the ground with my hands behind my head, I managed to gracefully extricate myself from the situation.

However, now, I am indeed criminally disposed. I am determined to get that twig whatever it takes ... and I might even take two.

On a more serious note, we certainly don't need a Nanny state; especially when it imposes "morals" from one group on another - such as in same sex unions.

I remember the fifties/sixties with no affection whatsoever. The hysteria of "reds under the beds", the six o'clock swill, the prejudice towards anyone/thing different, when teenagers were non-persons until the 21st birthday, when women died in backyard abortions, when domestic violence was acceptable in certain quarters, the "respectability" and self-righteous judgement ... even the expected dress code for visiting the city - frock, hat and gloves (which I refused to wear)

I recall standing in a bus in the final stages of pregnancy. I was married and 24, but looked 16. Two seated matrons, directing their comments at me, loudly voiced their disapproval about girls who “got themselves into trouble”. That was the sixties.

Any law that imposes on or conflicts with the cultural and moral norms of a society is repressive. If laws in that area that the Feds have passed transgress our morality, and the ALP run with more acceptable policies, then they deserve the job of giving us all more acceptable laws. But if JH wins again will his detractors accept that his laws do represent community standards?

State Labor in NSW at least has been just as happy to play the Laura Norder card as the Libs, and better at it too.

I take Boaz' point about how the otherwise excellent article morphed into an anti Howard polemic.

bushbred,

In a previous post you wrote:

"I could suggest that you do a course in political science which will tell you that true justice in a true democracy should not be left in the hands of ordinary elected leaders"

Of course it should not; it should be left in the hands of bushbred!

I would give thanks to bushbred for being bold enough to demonstrate his disdain for democracy.

I must also say that yet again I agree completely with BOAZ_David; the sycophants of the left go on about how terrible we were to applaud the action of the Howard government over Tampa; yet Tampa is the message of our times, which is that when the population of the third world doubles over the next 25 years only a very small proportion (which we select) will be allowed to settle here, and that the third world countries must choke on the rest.

This is the ancient principle of territoriality, which antedates humans, being very obvious in the animal kingdom. Fortunately, our near neighbours in Asia understand this principle completely, and so when we are required to enforce it by using our navy to sink boats full of illegal immigrants (which I forsee within 20 years), they will not raise any objections.

The only thing that most of the world knows about John Howard (and for which he is greatly admired) is Tampa.

Why does the left think we can save humanity? If 80 million illegals settled here, destroying the environment, creating huge stinking slums such as we see in south asia, all we would have achieved would be to delay the inevitable by 12 months, for that is the current level of world population increase.

When all is said and done, the two most important facts in the next 25 years is that the third world will double its population, and that we are going to run out of cheap energy. This means the third world will never be developed, and that life is going to get very rough and tough for everyone. Very little is said about either.

"The only thing that most of the world knows about John Howard >>>>(and for which he is greatly admired)<<<< is Tampa." (Quote:plerdsus)

I think you should check your facts. Australia copped a fair bit of flack because of Howard's actions.

Perhaps you haven't quite grasped the full implications of your position, plerdsus.

>>...the message of our times... is that when the population of the third world doubles over the next 25 years only a very small proportion (which we select) will be allowed to settle here, and that the third world countries must choke on the rest<<

This may be the message that you would like to get across to "third world countries", plerdsus, but it is becoming an increasingly hazardous attitude.

Throughout history, Empires have come and gone. What is strong one day can be weak the next. No-one is immune.

Many earlier Empires were simply a matter of military conquest. You have stuff that we want; we're bigger than you; we'll simply take what we want, thank you very much.

This morphed into trade-driven empires, where there was at least a notional amount of quid pro quo, even if the exchange was usually heavily in favour of the Empire manager (Britain, Spain, Portugal - even the Belgians and the Dutch got into the act) it was still predominantly non-aggressive.

Post-war empires have tended to be heavily US-centric, which means that it is the sort of Empire you have when you don't have an Empire. It's a crude mix of the previous two: predominantly economic, but with military backing. My global business is threatened? Send in the military.

How does this affect us?

The two Empires that created and nurtured us - Britain and the US - are waning powers. There is little doubt that the rest of this century will be dominated by the economic and political impact of countries other than these two. This means that our behaviour as a country will be measured not by our traditional friends, but by countries that do not necessarily have our best interests at heart.

I'm not suggesting that we roll over and beg. Just that we use a little more diplomacy in the way we manage our affairs in the global arena, and don't simply continue our practice of spitting in the face of everyone who disagrees with us.

Pericles,

I fully recognise the import of my last post. That is why I believe we should consider arming ourselves with nuclear weapons.

That said, I don't think the position is so parlous that we should consider surrender to the third world. We are very fortunate in having a sea boundary, which means that if chaos and starvation rule much of the world, (which I fervently hope I never see come to pass), there would not be many who could afford an ocean-going vessel to come here. Remember that these vessels can only be used once to bring in illegal immigrants, and they are not cheap. As I said before our near neighbours are not interested in waves of unwanted immigrants either (remember the fate of the vietnamese in Hong Kong) so I don't think they would oppose actions by us to maintain out territorial integrity. The places most likely to be overwhelmed are Europe and the US, which only has a river between it and South America.

There have been other times when the world has faced seemingly insurmountable challenges, and has managed to survive. The action I think we should take here would be for our foreign aid to be devoted to educating third world women, since the number of children they have is inversely proportional to their education.

The main problem is that most third world countries equate population control with genocide, so the outlook is not bright.

When I came to Australia I was horrified from onset about how I perceived there was a lack of proper law and order and refused to naturalise for some 23 years as expression of a (peaceful protest). Then I naturalised and glad I did have my kind of protest.
Now, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST”, with my INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books I continue my protest.
Firstly, few if any politicians (regardless if they are lawyers) have any real understanding let alone comprehension as to what the constitution stands for. As such, many laws are enacted that purportedly are for moral issues or politically suitable but which are really worthless as they are beyond constitutional powers.
Secondly, most laws (Bills) are voted upon by members of the political parties pending what their leader tells them to do. As was with the Federal Parliament, most didn’t even have a copy of bills they voted upon! This makes a mockery of having representatives in the Parliament as it is a mere dictatorship!
Most High Court judges have no concept of what the Constitution really stands for, and so also most lecturers in legal studies and as such teach law students their (mis)perception rather then what is constitutionally permissible.
International Law does not override constitutional provisions but pending if it suits the Federal-Government or not they argue against International law application if it goes against them, but they argue in favour of International law if it is to somehow justify to expand their legislative powers (such as in environment)
We had a REPUBLIC referendum where neither monarchist or republicans had a clue what is constitutionally applicable, as constitutionally there is no power to turn the Commonwealth of Australia in a REPUBLIC, as it is not a dominion, country, kingdom, empire but a “POLITICAL UNION”, as like the European-Union!
Politicians therefore seek to con the electors with all kind of stories about legislation but ultimately it is all about power! that is gaining more power for themselves, slowly turning every person into a criminal without that society is any better off, rather worse!
See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Well noted Pericles:

Post-war empires have tended to be heavily US-centric, which means that it is the sort of Empire you have when you don't have an Empire.

Do we blame the USA for taking this heavy handed approach?

Well..I tend to when they try to evergreen medical patents under the guise of free trade agreements, so we have to pay through the nose for medicines and prop up the 'lifestyle' to which Pharmeceutical bosses have become acustomed...

But the Barbary wars of North Africa must have taught the Yanks the lesson that if you are weak.. you will be trodden down, mashed up and filtered for a glass of wine of the next mini me tyrant who thinks he can get away with it. 25% of your gross national product is a hell of a lot to pay to some raghead numnut on the North African coast just to sail in the ocean within reach of his slave gallions.

No one treated the Americans with any particular 'justice' so.. we should not be surprised when they say "our turn"

I just re-iterate.. the whole discussion of 'more law..more order' is entirely relative. Ya caynt please alll the people, and there will be those who jump up and down at the slightest change in law which might or might not effect them.

Such is democracy....and people.

Boazy: "...and there will be those who jump up and down at the slightest change in law which might or might not effect them."

You mean like you do at the prospect of the legal recognition of same sex relationships?

"Raghead numnut" - sometimes, when his quasi-reasonable facade slips, we get a glimpse of the real Boazy. And it's far from a pretty sight.

Ginx,

You claim that Howard copped a fair bit of flak from his actions over Tampa.

As far as the overseas media establishment is concerned, you are absolutely correct. I was referring to the reaction from ordinary people, particularly in Europe, which is being overwhelmed by the flood of illegal immigrants it is receiving. The third world population explosion, is, of course, a taboo subject, and as far as I know, the only subject on which the US government, the Vatican and the muslim world agree is that nothing must be done to limit the increase in world population. Europe is in a even more tragic situation, as its birth rate is now so low that the establishment covertly supports the immigration of people from the third world to augment the labour supply. It is always dangerous to extrapolate trends, but if current trends continue Italy and France can expect to have muslim majorities in 50 years or so. Around 2075 you could expect St Peters in Rome to follow the fate of the Hagia Sophia church in Constantinople and be converted into a mosque.

As I thought, plerdsus, you haven't thought it through at all.

>>I fully recognise the import of my last post. That is why I believe we should consider arming ourselves with nuclear weapons<<

I presume from this throwaway remark that you are pretty happy that Iran should have nuclear weapons, and perhaps North Korea too? After all, what is our foreign policy about, if not to tell the world that it's ok to get down and dirty when it comes to defending your turf.

It is actually difficult to imagine an action more likely to destabilize the world's powers than Australia declaring itself to be a nuclear-armed nation. Little Australia, twenty million people on a massive, mineral-rich, totally indefensible island, taking the nuke'em option.

Would the US come out on our side? They'd be hard pressed to allow it, given the reaction from China and the rest of our northern neighbours. What would China do, if they suddenly found that they had a nuclear power to their south - would they be likely to sit on their hands and say "good for you, guys", or would they be likely to take a different approach. Like, stop buying raw materials from us. Like, refusing to send us any of their merchandise either.

Or maybe they'll take the easy option and stage a pre-emptive invasion. Then turn round to the US and say "what are you going to do about that, big boy?"

>>There have been other times when the world has faced seemingly insurmountable challenges, and has managed to survive.<<

True. But you might be testing the boundaries a little with this one.

plerdsus,

You make mention of condemnation over the Tampa incident being a media establishment thing. Not so.

I was in Europe for several months during that period, and I can assure you that I felt considerable discomfort at the way Australia was perceived; though it was clear that the blame was being leveled at the Government not the people.

Whether there is a global problem with illegal immigrants or not; it is hardly a mitigating factor in the disgraceful treatment the Tampa refugees received at the hands of our Government. It was a shameful incident, and did Australia no credit at all.

As to your predictions of a global shift of humanity and even belief. What's new?

Life is evolutionary. Countries will change, borders will shift, terrain will change (we hope for the better!), populace/belief system's etc.

Churches WILL be converted into mosques. Many will be converted into delightful dwellings as with a friend of mine. I'm not being facetious; things change; people change. But that change will come gradually, (YOU do not refer to a week Friday).

I did not miss the comment about the mosque. It will be so, IF and when people want it.

That IS life plerdsus.

Yes, Boaz, Augustine did know plenty, but he never got the message about balancing faith with reason.

Which Thomas Aquinas did, which later helped to bring along the Age of Reason followed by the Age of Enlightenment, all part of the progress to our present democracy. That is why Aquinas is called a Doctor of the Church, because he is also regarded as a philosopher.

I am afraid you would not get far in a university lecture on the subject, Boaz, even though could say you do not lack intelligence.

And please get the message about the increasing abuse of ethics in our governments, Boaz, otherwise through making their own laws we will have certain Liberals getting round with looks in their eyes like Nazi storm-troopers

Pericles,

Do you know what is the definition of a nuclear power? It is a country that has a nuclear device that can be made operational within twenty-four hours. Australia is not defined as a nuclear power, because we do not have any devices that can be made operational within 24 hours. As to 48 hours, 96 hours, etc., I will leave to your imagination.

You ask me if I would be happy for North Korea and Iran to become nuclear states. I have always felt that North Korea was never a threat, and was always just out for the maximum aid they could extract from the west. I understand that the US is now installing a light water reactor there to provide them with power, and if you understand anything about nuclear physics you would know that these reactors cannot be used to make bombs.

Iran is another matter. Their claim that they only want peaceful power can be refuted by the fact that as in the case of North Korea, such reactors can be built, but they don't want to do that. Iran is facing demographic catastrophe over the next decade, and is determined to exterminate Israel, and has been rightly judged as a danger to world peace by the Security Council. We could well see their enrichment facilities destroyed by nuclear bunker-buster bombs in the next few months.

You seem to have no solution except to surrender to the third world. I don't know that the Australian people would agree with this.

I think this is as far as I want to go here, plerdsus. Your arguments are making increasingly less sense.

>>Australia is not defined as a nuclear power, because we do not have any devices that can be made operational within 24 hours. As to 48 hours, 96 hours, etc., I will leave to your imagination<<

If you are suggesting that we have an operational capability at all, you are delusional.

>>You ask me if I would be happy for North Korea and Iran to become nuclear states<<

Only in a sense. I really wanted to know whether you felt that other countries would be within their rights to unilaterally declare their intention to deploy nuclear weaponry. The secondary question, that I assumed would be obvious, is whether you thought this would contribute to, or detract from, global political stability.

A tertiary question would be, if we got that far, could Australia defend itself effectively, in a situation where everyone from South Africa to Indonesia has nuclear weapons. But it is unlikley that you would have thought that far ahead.

>>You seem to have no solution except to surrender to the third world. I don't know that the Australian people would agree with this.<<

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that being disinclined to deploy nuclear weapons constitutes surrender. Especially since that is the status quo - are you suggesting that we have already surrendered?

Ginx
Love your Kay Sera Sera attitude, but things don’t always happen slowly (not even in evolution). Harking back to the example cited by plerdsus “Hagia Sohia” please tell me what were the gradual, democratic processes which willed it to be converted to a mosque?

Pericles
There seems to be an implication in your earlier post that the rising powers in Asia i.e. China & India would find the anti-immigration views expressed by pliesdsus
<< unpalatable>>.

The reality is, neither of these countries, nor any other country in SE Asia is anywhere near as accommodating towards uninvited guest as Aust- never have been. It seems the only ones who don’t << get down & dirty>> when it comes to defending their turf is Aust. But then we’re true believers in the higher god of ‘human rights’ (even over & above common sense).

<< It is actually difficulty to imagine an action more likely to destabilise the world’s power than Australia declaring it a nuclear armed nation>>
‘ROFLMAO’ over that one.
<<what would China do?>>
Probably the same thing China did when India & Pakistan or Iran (all much closer to China’s borders & one with a history of antagonism towards China took the decision) –make a few rhetorical noises then keep quiet. The Leadership in China has shown itself to be very pragmatic-economics before ideological considerations (as long as the price is right) and they would be more likely to react adversely to our Tibet policy or our Tiananmen Square massacre stance, than any nuclear policy.

And as for << pre-emptive invasion>>!
Now you’re telling us another of your <<Finnish school>> jokes right?
If they didn’t invade Indonesia when they massacred ethnic Chinese in the street –not just once, but numerous times (ditto Malaysia & Kampuchea) they’re not likely to invade Aust over nuclear programs.

And while we may not have << surrendered>> yet, there are a goodly number of influential opinion leaders who are doing their best to push us onto the slippery slope.

And I thought the Finnish gag had gone unnoticed - thanks Horus.

>>There seems to be an implication in your earlier post that the rising powers in Asia i.e. China & India would find the anti-immigration views expressed by pliesdsus "unpalatable"<<

I was more concerned with their response to his proposed actions, rather than his opinions. After all, they are very likely to recognize his views as reflecting their own, as you point out. Nor, for that reason, are they likely to object to a few dissidents "disappearing" on the journey from their country to ours.

What concerns me more is this attitude that "being right" is enough. It seems to assume that so long as we are under the protection of the United States, we can say and do anything we like, and no-one is going to object. Like the little guy hiding behind the big guy in a fight, his continued protection lies in it being in the interests of the big guy, not his own.

You scoff at the idea that there might be a reaction to Australia arming itself with nuclear weapons. Think for a moment the sequence of events that needs to occur before that could come to pass. At the very least, it would be the clearest possible sign that we had lost faith in the ability of others to come to our aid in the event of a real threat. The big guy has decided he has other battles of his own to fight, perhaps.

But let's assume we do.

China, particularly, is far more economically sound than it has been in the past. And you said it yourself, they are "very pragmatic - economic before ideological considerations". They - demonstrably - couldn't give a hoot about our attitude towards Tianamen or Tibet. But they do like - need - our coal. And other sundry raw materials that we have lying around.

I don't envisage an ideological takeover of Australia, simply an economic one. Whether or not this involves force largely depends on our own attitude towards belligerence, rather than theirs.

Pericles,

To try and widen the debate a little, I would love to know what you see as the future of the world over the next decade or two, so that posters can interpret your opinions accordingly. Do you see a world of sweetness and light, where the lion lies down with the lamb, etc.? Or do you see, as I do, a Hobbesian world where wars are fought to secure diminishing resources, when billions die as a result, and where we are very fortunate to be out of the way, in our own little region, and most of all, favoured by having a sea boundary. In addition, our defence posture is favoured by having 3000 km of desert between Broome and Sydney, making attack very difficult. There is often a country that is a little ahead of the pack, and can be used as an example of what the world in general will be like in a decade or so. Do you agree that Iraq is the example for the future? The popular resistance to ANY immigration, let alone immigration by illegals is there waiting to be exploited by politicians, as more and more people find their quality of life reduced by the levels of immigration being forced on us by both major parties. If Pauline wins in the Senate in Queensland you could say it is already being exploited.

Horus,

Eu tenho explicado já.

Qué séra sér.

Mas obrigado para plerdsus de ocupaçào.

Fair question plerdsus.

>>Do you see a world of sweetness and light, where the lion lies down with the lamb, etc.? Or do you see, as I do, a Hobbesian world where wars are fought to secure diminishing resources, when billions die as a result, and where we are very fortunate to be out of the way, in our own little region, and most of all, favoured by having a sea boundary.<<

Neither, actually.

The problem with your first idea is that it has never happened before in the history of the world, and will never occur in the future while human nature persists.

Your apocalyptic alternative has some merit, but contains one fatal flaw. We are by no means "out of the way", and would inevitably be sucked into any conflict of the nature you envisage. Especially when resources are involved.

No, my view is that we will toddle along, becoming gradually less important in the world - it was only ever reflected importance anyway, from the UK (up to 1945) and the US since then.

Our economy will gently slide in comparison with the rest of the world, making us an increasingly less attractive destination for refugees - as their country of origin becomes comparatively less disadvantaged, our attraction diminishes.

We won't be hard up. We'll make a living. But it will be increasingly dependent on service industries - particularly tourism - as we become an attractive backwater.

Nothing dramatic. Just business as usual, really. Which is why, when people go out of their way to antagonize our neighbours by slagging off their religion, or their lack of democratic principles, and generally behave as if we are something special, it raises our ugliness profile just a little, and unnecessarily. And if we become sufficiently ugly in someone's eyes, they might take a swipe at us. The question will then be - because we are totally ill equipped to defend ourselves, what with being girt by sea and all that - who will drop everything to help?

More law means more orders.

Clearly. Thats the point.

Yes, Pericles, Paul Keating's "banana republic" is coming this way.

Exactly, Jack the Lad. But what amazes me is that otherwise intelligent human beings are actually surprised by the fact that the world is in a constant state of change, geo-politically and socially speaking. Always has been, always will be.

As a kid, if we saw a toy with the words "Made in Germany" or "Made in Japan", we absolutely knew that these were of inferior quality and that was the reason they were cheap. We knew it, we accepted it. Later, we would understand how it had been necessary for these two post-war economies to build themselves up on the back of their most freely-available resource: people.

When in the sixties and seventies these countries became economic leaders, rather than followers, it was because they had had to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, after necessarily discarding any and all of the Prussian Junker or Crysanthemum Throne concepts of society. This gave them an advantage over countries whose wartime successes had not interrupted their concepts of ownership and privilege.

When I was older, Spain was little more than a tourist destination, where food and booze were cheap, and the natives simply a backdrop to our two weeks of hedonism. Today it is a serious economic and political force. Who knows, one day it might again be just a place to drink sangria and eat paella in the sun. It's just the way the world turns.

We in Australia have had a dream run, first on the sheep's back, now by exploiting our mineral wealth. When this dominance fades, so will our influence and, hopefully, our arrogance.

The overriding self-delusion is that it is our "Aussie culture" that has somehow been the mainspring of our success. In fact, we have survived and prospered in spite of, rather than because of, our overwhelming attitude towards hard work which is, inevitably, "I'd rather be surfing".

That is not, of course, to denigrate the efforts of the ten percent who actually do work hard. And yes, before you write in to protest, I know that you are one of the ten percent.