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.