This morning 400 police armed with 23 warrants raided houses in Melbourne and Sydney under the glare of breakfast television cameras.
I would have thought arrests would have been D-noticed.
Were this mornings raids to counter terrorism or to move IR legislation off the front page?

Nice piece, Gary, with which I find very little to disagree. As sand between my toes has pointed out, this morning's raids (including at least one reported shooting of a 'suspect') smack of a jackbooted attempt by the Federal government to capitalise upon the xenophobic sentiments that have largely kept them in power - at least since the Tampa travesty.

However, I think that any distraction from the IR putsch is fortuitous, rather than strategic - they're just not that smart.

We indeed have the government we deserve. I predict rioting on the streets in the benighted suburbs where most of our small Muslim minority live. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies...

The parts of the anti-terrorism legislation that we know of are certainly radical, but then so is mass killing by terrorists.

It might be possible under the legislation to keep someone under secret house arrest for years, but the average person need not worry himself or herself about that. This suggestion is just a fear tactic – something that the only Government is said to use!

Yes, the laws are repressive, and so they need to be if they are to repress terrorists.

Similar laws saw an ‘innocent’ man shot by police in the UK. One person killed by police against how many innocent people slaughtered by terrorists on buses and trains? Come on! While this person may not have been connected with the terrorists, he was loitering near a building of interest to the police, and he did run from them. He was also an illegal immigrant which could explain his desperate dash. He didn’t deserve to be shot for that, but in the situation just experienced in London, running from armed police was not a good idea.

Talk of anti-terror laws leading to authoritarianism, as Gary Brown is, is pure scare mongering. Again, the ordinary person should ignore such rubbish. Let the people these laws are aimed at worry about it.

As for “wide spread abuse” abuse by DIMIA, Mr. Brown has really left the planet.

Gary Brown also jumps on the Federal Police Commissioner for highlighting a “flaw” in the laws. There is no “flaw”. The Commissioner simply stated the intention of the law, like it or not. If any intelligence is wrong, that’s just something that has to be accepted in the current climate, and mistakes can be repaired.

Two thirds of Australians support the introduction of the laws (“The Australian” 29/10/05), including house arrest and detaining suspects without charge.

As The Australian editorialist also said, “And people who do not like it are resorting to claims that the interests of a tiny handful of individuals, whose rights will be infringed, are more important than measures intended to protect the physical safety of us all”.

hmmmm. Mr Brown makes some good points - and do not think his reference to the abuse perpertrated by DIMIA should be dismissed as readily as some have. The point was timely and pertinent in relation to abuses of power, particularly under the reign of a government that seems tacitly to supoprt the denartments actions.

As for the blurring of the IR issues with this stuff I suspect , as indcated by another, it was for the government a happy convergence of events - to assume the terrorist beat up was driven by a desire to bury the iR debate flatters the strategic thinkers in the government.

The IR laws in fact continue to get a thourough hammering in most forums; and rightly so. At the end of the day the IR debate is a far more important one to this off broadway terorism production.

Gary although you look like the type of long haired chap my “ex” wouldn’t bring home to her mother I agree with your article.

Its particularly timely that you noted “One of the problems in writing in this area at present is the speed at which developments are occurring.”

I hope that once the gory “plot” or “plots” behind yesterday’s arrests become known that people can remember that the intelligence buildup and arrests largely occurred under anti-terror laws that have been in place for years. The draconian laws the Government is proposing are NOT in place and so were not used.

However much the Government crows that its draconian proposed laws are now necessary - as a measure of their worth the government did not see it a crucial to ram the proposed laws through Parliament last week for last nights swoops.

Interesting posts so far on this string:

Sand…

Do you think this is all a big conspiracy to divert attention from IR laws? Was ASIO in league with the young “would be terrorists” on this? I can feel an extreme left mantra coming on!

mahatma...

No rioting in the streets yet. Any schadenfreude arising from this will more likely hurt Muslim bystanders rather than the Government’s popularity.

Leigh

Your basic argument appears to be “this is the will of the majority, right (or sometimes) wrong.” My reading of the state execution of the Brazilian was that he was shot many times in the head while seated. In any case if the will of the majority was accepted in Australia we would no doubt still have the death penalty.

Sneekeepete

As usual you are a rare voice of moderation on this complex topic, although we still don’t know how serious the “terrorist plot or plots” were compared to the IR issue. I’ve got to admit I’m more interested in the (anti) terrorism issue.

I reckon the seriousness of the plot(s) will rest on the amount of bomb making equipment (including kg explosive materials) located and on any terrorist target lists and building structure plans that the police/ASIO picked up.

I cannot see in the legislation where there is any prohibition on reporting the existence of a control order.

The reporting of the existence of a detention order is prohibited only for the duration of the detention, and that duration is limited.

Sylvia.

good point plantagenet about which laws todays arrests occured under, and if as you speculate they involved the posession or the attempt to aquire materials for an attack then they were probably arrested under the same laws as wille bridgite, so it seems our police are doing a fair job with them.

it also seems they were under survailence for some 3 yrs, and im assuming they were arrested at a critical point of their mobilisation, which would impply that the surveilince teams were aware of their timeline.
the question is for the new laws, which seem to have a heavy focus on verbal or written planning or discussion, is that if these suspects had been arrested earlier at the begining of the planning stage, would the plot really have been foiled? if you arrest everyone as soon as a plan is mentioned is it possible that you miss the ones who are not talking, but rather acting? i dunno, just speculating.

another point on the brazilian. he was as plantagenet pointed out, sitting on the train at the time of his execution. it is also debateable wether he was actually challenged by police, witnesses suggest he ran for the train and was completely unaware that he was being followed. i guess we wait for the video, if it still exists, to be leaked.

and on the comment about the 'rights of the few'. i oppose these laws for the rights of all australian citizens.

I have no problems with the laws, labeling authoritarian is a bit over the top, I wonder what you would label the Islamic Fundamentalist’s law, “Conservative”.?
Perhaps a 2 month trip to Saudi Arabia is on the cards to study authoritarianism in the flesh, then compare the two dictatorships !Saudi and Australia. That would be an interesting task, Go on, toddle off.
Men in white coats need to pay some a visit. That wicked John Howard has done it again. Dam those Left Authoritarian Dictators. Hmmmm interesting! Straight Jacket and rubber room Jargon.
And while you are there in Saudi, check out there Industrial relations. "IR" and compare John Howard's, we might need some changes.You might even fall in love with the place and not come back to Australia ,it is that bad now in my home land "Australia" so sad?

^^^

*in redneck voice*

"If you don't like it... then you can geeeeet out!"

All-, just because other countries have horrid systems, does not mean that we should ignore baby steps in that direction from our country. Yes, these laws will not affect the majority. Yes, they are less draconian than the former USSR or current day Saudi Arabia. Does that make them benign? NO. Should we accept everything our government does, just because it was legitmately elected? NO.

It is utterly foolish to say "oh well, life sucks elsewhere, therefore we shouldn't complain when people decide to hack away at our basic values and insitutions, 'cos its still better than somewhere else".

Things like locking people up for two weeks without charging them, or allowing them to tell anybody why (try explaining that to the boss), just because they happen to have been unlucky enough to be the friend, or relative, or neighbour of a nutbag are just wrong. And we should not stand by and say that it is okay just because the government says so.

Laurie,
Your point is valid, Personally , I would like the Government to remove all the laws and U N treaties, and wind things back 30 odd years , but , will” Never happen”.
I would expect the racial vilification and religious vilification laws repealed, etc. These laws are designed for a specific purpose, and it is not your freedom in mind.
I absolute die of laughter when you read garbage such as this.
Compared to the System of law the narrator and quite a few others would have you under, It would make Stalin and Lenin look like school kids. I kid you not.
We live in a different world, I do not like it, many do not like it, Not many questions on how we got to this point of time and the difficulties we face, Simply put, the wingers created this mess in years gone by, now My generation and future generations have to survive, Don’t know your age, but let me tell you, This is not the Australia I grew up in, nor my or many of our ancestors had left us.
The question should be who destroyed Australia and trashed it. Answer: Whitlam started it, Fraser accelerated its decline, and Hawk capped it, Keating Cooked and added the finishing touches . So what we have left is a skeleton of a nation out of control, that is what I fear for my Children and yours. Good luck.

Oh gawd. This must be the fourth or fifth article by some hand wringing trendy lefty journo who loves Multiculturalism but is aghast at it's consequences.

Even as Paris burns from French idiocy in letting millions of Muslims invade their country, Gary Brown simply whistles and pretends not to notice the link between Islam and terrorism. All he can do is whinge about the necessity of implementing onerous laws to combat it.

One can only hope that the first Islamic terrorist bomb which detonates in an Australian city will be in some favourite journalistic watering hole. It might get some trendy lefty Shiite journos away from their inbred thinking and out into the fresh air where they could have a look around at the real world.

Redneck:

What right-wing rednecks like you don't to realise (unlike the "do-gooder, bleeding heart, pinko, lefties" you seem to dislike realise) is that fundamentally you cannot take the civil liberties of a nation away - no matter what the threat. It's that simple.

On pure principal, I personally would rather die young in a terrorist attack while living in a free country then live-out the rest of my life in a country where I can be arrested because I spoke-out against the wrong-doings of my country's leader. Hang on - aren't they the principals we're fighting for in Iraq. Well, they are now since excuse A (WMD) failed?

But more to the point, what these "trendy lefties" understand (unlike you) is that the only reason these breaches of civil rights have become "necessary" is because western countries (particularly America) want something that the poorer countries have and then invade, killing their innocent and using the excuse of "spreading democracy" to get it: -

Iraq: Oil;
Afghanistan: To build a gas pipeline through the country that the Taliban wouldn't allow;
Palestine/Israel: One of the world's largest oil ports.

The list goes on.

And THAT is why they're fighting back. Anyone who falls for the "They're against our freedom" line has to be the most stupid person on Earth. Sane or insane - who would be against freedom?

Remember, it was Howard who got our country into this mess and it's now the perfect excuse for his twisted government to push through one of their core, right-wing ideologies of destroying civil rights; in order to (ultimately) gain complete control. Right-wingism, in its extremes, is fascism. And a government in total control of parliament becomes extreme.

And I don't want to hear any of this sh*t about the apparent, imminent terror threat either. Blind Freddy could have seen what a farce that was. It came strait from the handbook of "Sir" Robert Menzies (the world-wide communism threat), Hitler (the Jewish threat) and the incompetent George W Bush (the WMD threat).

Why attack us? With these "anti-terror laws", they've already won!

...Oh, and Leigh, prevention is better that cure. The best anti-terror legislation would be to adjust our foreign policy. In other words: Leave other countries alone so that their militants don't start hitting back.

And Knightrider, Why should WE get out! If you don't value your civil rights then YOU get out!

I'd suggest Nigeria or Sudan. With little to no oil, you can guarantee you'll never be "liberated".

Online Opinion

“If the world is to be spared what future historians may call the Century of Terror, we must chart a perilous course between the Scylla of American imperial arrogance and the Charybdis of Islamic religous fanaticism. ” From “Google”.

It seems with our current world problem, the Kantian proof is emerging that not one personage nor one nation, will ever be suitable to manage the world as it is today. The Great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, based his theory on human nature, proven so much by his disappointment with Napoleon, who as a young general after the terrors and trials of the French Revolution, made a pledge that it was his role to carry the proleriat banner of Equality Fidelity and Fraternity throughout the world where needed.

But as we already know, Napoleon broke the Enlightenment rules and declared himself Emperor over not only France but all the land he had conquered in the name of Liberty.

As a devout Christian and moral philosopher who had backed the Enlightenment, Kant should have possibly not been surprised that Napoleon’s successes had gone to his head. Napoleon did pay the penalty as many other self-appointed leaders have done, like Hitler. But so can democratically elected leaders get themselves in trouble like Richard Nixon, as Bush seems to be in similar trouble, though possibly bearing the brunt possibly on behalf of a few of his compatriots like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. There is also the worry about the Bush Republicans appointing their own head of the US Judiciary - which smells like an attempt to protect against the second White House impeachment in less than fifty years.

Part Two

Indeed, political philosophers do point out that a major weakness in our Western democracies is for the party in power to be allowed to appoint a new member of the Judiciary.

Surely these political shenanigans emanating from today’s White House could not only be proving Kant’s axiom that not one person can be trusted as one nation run by one personage cannot be trusted - but also the leader of a modern democracy cannot be trusted, something Kant had not been associated with.

Surely the answer, then, must be Kant’s Federation of Nations with a joint or equal commissary, or similar, fitting today’s conditions, part of which could entail the United Nation’s own permanent nuclear armanent as suggested during the Korean War the

. There has been a worry that little nations have had too much to say, and that a member of a small nation like Kofi Annan should never have been in charge. Yet surely with all the lessons learnt back to the Ancient Greeks who invented the idea of democracy, that we find a way to manage a United Nations somewhat similar but much more democratic of course, than Kant’s Federation of Nations.

Our WTO is also a part of the UN principle, which sadly is being badly abused by the very nation which purports to be able to run this world in a free and democratic way. But the only freedom there appears to be these days in marketing, is the freedom for the top nation to break WTO rules, especially in blatantly subsidising its grain farmers mainly in exchange for the farmer’s Federal vote to keep the offendors - as we should call them - safe in the White House. Furthermore, by recent record, how can we ever trust such a nation to remain a unipolar symbol we can look up to

First they came for the Arabs
Then they came for the Unionists
Then they come for..... who?

Face it, anti-semetic + anti-union + secret police powers + indefinate detention = FASCISM!

I do not support the terrorists, or their sympathisers, it is simply that they do not have the capacity to destroy our way of life. Unfortunately, laws very similar to these demonstrated that capacity, in one of the most advanced, hospitable countries in Europe in the 1930's. the laws were aimed at providing the government of the Weimar republic with the necessary power to prevent communists taking over all, or part of germany. The laws were effective for a period, but resulted in the complete disintergration of german society and the second world war. In the end however these laws led to the very communists, at which they were aimed, taking over the majority of germany within 10 years. think about it.

Also as a jew, I have very little patience with any form of anti-semitism, the way the arabs are depicted now, is essentially the same way jews have been depicted prior to every pogrom and geneocidal act in the last 1000 years. Yes, they are different, however they are still human beings, treat others as you expect to be treated.

redneck, maybe you could check with some of your US based namesakes about governments removing freedoms. Image these powers in the hands of left wing extremists if you think this is only an issue for the left wing to be concerned about.

I'm kind of struck by how similar the tone of a lot of this stuff is to issues in family law
- a perception that a certain type of problem is exclusively caused by one group (regardless of the facts).
- a willingness to see allow all individuals in that group to suffer regardless of their guilt or innocence.
- the removal of viable checks and balances to stop abuse of the stystem.
- secrecy provisions which make it difficult for individuals impacted by this stuff to adequately present their plight.
- etc

As a nation we are already seemingly willing to accept unreasonable harm to individuals if it satisfies some kind of catch cry. The wedge is just getting driven in a bit further.

R0bert

Aaron

I think you are overstating the problem. We remain a voting democracy, and one CRITICAL point.....

=The Jews during Hitlers reign were not:

-blowing themselves and hundreds of citizens up all over the world in suicide bombings.
-Telling everyone from the Prime Minister down that their religion is superior to all others and stay away from them.
-Demanding special laws specially for them.
-Mercilessly attacking and mutilating the genitals of grandmothers and infants with old razor blades in the name of Judaism as the Muslims have been doing in the name of Islam to Christians in Ambon and Maloku(Indonesia)

No.. the Jews were content to just enjoy their synagogues and make money.

Consider this:

The group arrested yesterday and today,
-were planning bombings.
-Had and/or were seeking stockpiles of explosive chemicals
-Were driven by ideology.

Some have applied for BAIL... now lets assume they actually have some explosives 'ready'.... and they are suddenly freed KNOWING they will only have a short time to carry out their murderious plan..... what are they likely to do ?

So, a law which gives the possibility of short term detention without trial is quite justified on these grounds.

If the government went over the top, we have elections coming up....
Its ludicrious to think they will incarcerate Kim Beazly for 'being too radical' :)
Now Bob Brown...hmm thats a different story.....

these muslims should be stripped of citizenship - born here or not, it doesnt matter where you are born, if you want to commit genocide against christain and jewish and all other non-muslim Australians -

I was born in China, but i am of white English parents who travelled into China from Hong Kong - and i was born on the holiday in China.

-I do not look Chinese or Asian
-I do not speak Chinese
-I have no Chinese culture
-I do not call myself Chinese

can anyone here reasonably say I am Chinese... my point is, stop saying, 'oh they were born in Australia, they are Australian'... it is such an unreasonable argument.

take away their citizenship and send them to where they are so proud to be from... namely, Lebabnon, Syria, Iran, or wherever else!

Our ancestors built this country, we made "Australain", its an ideal, not a piece of land we have the right to deport anyone whos loyalty does not lie with this country, citizenship or not!

Aron,

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

Australia is a supporter of Israel, and not 'anti-semetic'. If you are talking about anti-Arab, then refer to the above - you f..cken idiot!!

Plantaganet,

My “basic argument” is that terrorists should be dealt with in a timely and appropriate matter for the sake of us all, including you. I have absolutely no interest in the “rights” of terrorists.

Obviously, I disagree with you on what is right and what is wrong, but I would be interested to know why you exhibit contempt for the will of the majority when majority rule is clearly the mainstay of a democracy. Majority thinking is clearly behind the proposed anti-terror legislation. The Leader of the Opposition supports the legislation, as do the Labor State Premiers, with only the extremist ACT Premier doubtful (and now irrelevant).

You and, let’s be generous, say 30% of Australians, don’t “accept” the law. That is your right. But you have to learn to live with majority opinion. We all do. If you know a better way of doing things, I’m sure we would all like to hear about it.

Re: capital punishment. The Death Penalty Abolition Act was passed in 1973, and I don’t remember the pro and con figures. I do remember being sickened when Robert Ryan was hanged in 1967. I was a guileless 24 year old then, still innocent about people.

Incidentally, in August 2003, when asked by Newspoll whether or not the death penalty should be reintroduced in Australia for terrorists, 56% of respondents said, yes. After the first Bali bombing, 51% said yes to the same question, 31% said no, and 25% had no opinion.

Minority opinion is healthy. But people trying to attract attention by saying things like: 1 in 4 people think such and such or, a significant minority of 25% are opposed to such and such – meaning the majority of people do not agree with them - is amusing, to say the least.

Gary, I'm ditrustful about one's intellectual credentials when one uses scarecrows to make or boost his argument. This is what you are doing by describing these laws as "more appropriate to the USSR, Nazi Germany...than to liberal democracy". If you need these 'scarecrow stilts' to uphold your argument, then the latter must be rationally very poor.

And, indeed, it is. While you claim that terrorism is a real threat and say, "I fear it's only a matter of time before something worse... will happen", you fear to tread on the sequences of your own proposal. This is a characteristic of 'nipple-fed' intellectuals who avoid to deal with the real issue, the great threat that terrorism poses against the West, and divert their energy - whatever that energy on stilts happens to be - on the purported attack of the counter-terror laws against liberties.

Also, your one-sidedness impoverishes further your argument, when you lament that "how much more likely...is that innocents will be detained...on mistaken suspicions", and that "the police will seek orders...based on intelligence", and you amusingly ask, "what if the intelligence is wrong"? But the greater likelihood is that under these laws and this imperfect intelligence more culptits will be apprehended than your abstract exaggerated number of innocents. And what other resources governments have other than these less than perfect intelligence services, on whose information they have to take urgent decisions?

Gary, you seem to be a partisan of the syndrome of the Left, which while it vociferously and vehemently denounces the capitalist system, it has nothing better to put in its place, after the collapse of its misplaced and displaced utopia, communism, but its 'wet dreams'.

Do you remember the "boy" (GARY)who was afraid to cry wolf, in view of the arrests that occurred yesterday

Leigh

You can have a relatively secure environment without overly oppressive laws. Noting that at the other end of the spectrum (Israel) stronger security laws appear justified.

However much Howard has “rattled the Muslim cage” (in Iraq) we haven’t had deaths by terrorism in Australia since 1978 (Hilton bombing) and that wasn’t due to Muslims.

Taking your points in turn:

I agree on dealing with terrorists in “a timely and appropriate manner” – the government was able to rely on existing laws (and last weeks amendment) to successfully (it appears) mount the operations over the last 48 hours. The Government obviously saw it as unnecessary to expedite the other anti terror law proposals through Parliament to mount these operations. This raises question about how essential these anti terror proposals are.

Clearly the 30 or so existing anti terrorism Acts are being used. Also ASIO’s budget has been sharply increased to use existing laws more fully.

Your assumption that terrorists carry some sought of “open season” label on them defies the rule of law. No bombings have occurred so can anyone easily group these (generally) Muslim Australian youths with “successful” terrorists who have murdered people.

It’s a fundamental tenant of a democracy that people can hold minority views especially when proposed laws are being discussed and formulated. The fact that the majorities of very small samples of Australians supported the proposed laws does not mean that critics are bound to agree with the proposals.

Once/if these laws come into force I will be bound to abide by them (Leigh this is the concept of having a voice but still being law abiding)..

COMMENT - PART 2

Furthermore healthy discussion is a strength of democracy and the Federal Opposition, fronted by Big Kim is clearly unhealthy as an effective opposition.

The proposal on “incitement” is putting the frighteners on those who disagree with the Government and the Opposition has done bugger all to allay our fears.

Your stats on the death penalty are well researched. Seems the majority supports the death penalty. Now if these Muslim Australian youths who haven’t actually bombed anything, are classed as “terrorists” should they be under threat of hanging?

Some questions raised:

Should there be a special scale of penalties for “terrorists” who haven’t actually carried out a violent act?

Has their main act of terror been that they’ve been arrested and exposed as “terrorists”.?

A fair number of people feel panic just from hearing about the arrest. But other than intent what terrifying thing has happened?

Or are tougher anti-terror laws and penalties mainly useful due to their deterrent effect? I suggest this is the main aim and (if the laws need to be passed) the most compelling.

I agree “Minority opinion is healthy” and agree with your implication that statistics can be deceiving.

So I think we have similar goals just different assumptions.

Themistocles

- your diatribe against young Gary reduces the impact of your arguments. Somewhere buried is the possible usefulness of casting a wide intelligence net but the abiding picture is of "nipple-fed intellectuals...

Yes, Gary will have to agree that the urgent laws were not simply a beatup or "crying wolf". I think he'd be flattered at being described as young - his OLO bio & photo suggest he's on the wrong side of 50.

More substantially, if we decide it's OK to ignore the rights of innocents in order to apprehend the guilty, we enter a minefield. Should we start detaining Italians because some may be in the Mafia and might commit a crime? Or Asians because some seem to be involved in drug smuggling? Or politicians because some are liars and cheats? The reason rights must be upheld for all is because if they aren't, then it becomes easy to deny them to anyone we don't like, and soon we end up with none at all. That, incidentally, was the communist mistake too. I never had any time for "comms" precisely because they invariably ran authoritarian regimes.

I say while we are at war with terorists I see these laws agreed by both sides of politics and State Governments as essential to the national security of our way of life. Instead of attacking the laws and the Government, start identifying the real enemy of our free and democratic society. These terrorist have learned how to use our freedoms to destroy us and out society.

The Age, November 9, 2005

"Police reportedly believe chemicals seized in yesterday's counter-terrorism raids in Sydney are the same as those used in July's London bombings. Clear liquid chemicals seized from a Lakemba home during the raids are believed to be ingredients of triacetone tiperoxide (TATP), a powerful explosive used in the London terror attacks, The Australian newspaper today reports. AFP officers were tipped off in July by a Sydney chemical supplier that members of a suspected terrorist cell were trying to acquire the ingredients of the highly volatile crystal explosive. The substance is so powerful only a few hundred grams are needed. In in its finished form TATP is undetectable by bomb sniffer dogs and other conventional detection equipment."

At: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-believe-raid-chemicals-same-as-london-bombings/2005/11/09/1131407660723.htm

re: Anti-smeitism

I seem to have raised some examplars of this particular problem with my latest post on this topic.

BOAZ - Yes that is true, but the Jews happiness making money is somewhat stereotypical, and arises from the fact that the only occupations allowed, beyond the Pale(s) included money lending.

However, despite the fact that the jews of Europe dod not in fact kill inncocents, the famous 'Blood Libel' suggested that they did (for example St. Simon of Trent), demonising the Jewish populations (invariably during times of economic or social unrest), providing a popular scapegoat for the citizens, generally resulting in pogroms (A lot of which was inspired by the churches - nb. the 'mea culpa' by the Vatican).

Thor - Anti-semetism is a disease, and like all diseases it mutates. I agree that for several hundred years, it has overwhelmingly applied to Jews, however now, like during the crusades and wars in spain, it is expanding beyond the narrow definition. Like all diseases it is best recognised by its symptoms;

- Demonisation of a community (for dress / language / etc.)
- A variation upon the 'Blood Libel' theme
- Special laws, or restrictions applying only to them
- Poor relationships between effected community and the wider community & government.
- Mistrust

I suggest that the current vilification and demonisation of the various moslem comunities in Australia, puroprtedly on the basis of the actions of moslems overseas, may in fact be based in neo-classical anti-semetism. I mean, lets face it, they do not act / dress / talk / or worship the same as the rest of Australia - do they?

I personally wonder how long it will take, before gangs start going around cutting the beards of moslem men, or forcibly removing the hajib from their women. Without recourse to semantics, this is anti-semetic behaviour, and should be identified as such.

We are on a very dangerous path.

Aaron, I agree with a lot of your points but my watching of this matter has given some different opinions.

The gangs which are going around now don't hurting those who don't dress, talk, worship like them appear to be muslim rather than targetting muslims - I don't live in sydney so have no first hand experience of this but have seen no serious rebuttal of the statements by people who claim to have knowledge of this.

Not much doubt about what is happening oversea's. Time and trials will tell if local muslims have been planning the same (arrests don't equal guilt).

Please don't make the mistake of being one sided on this. I have the impression that most of my fellow aussies are fairly accepting of those who make different choices. What we don't generally accept is those who insist on double standards. Those who insist on the right to dress differently should also respect the right of others to do so etc.

Speak out against that small minority of muslims who are doing the wrong thing and your concerns about that small minority of the rest of the community who may do the wrong thing will bear more weight. Any comment on those thugs beating the crap out of the TV camera man the other day?

R0bert

I think that Aaron's point about anti-Semitism is an interesing one. The current moral panic about Muslims and Arabs shares many structural features with anti-Jewish sentiments as they have been expressed historically. As some of the extremist comments here indicate, we may indeed be on a dangerously slippery slope:

That certain people in this forum have no compunction in deploying stereotypes about Jews (not to mention Muslims), or making jokes about using the new draconian laws against Bob Brown in the same post, is just a bit worrisome, I reckon. The points that Pericles has made with respect to parallels with Mosely and 'rabble rousing' are very pertinent too - particularly the 'brownshirt' promotion of anti-Semitism.

I think that what we see happening now with respect to the largely manufactured hysteria about Muslims in general and Arabs in particular may be analytically regarded as sharing many structural similarities with global vilification of Jews between the First and Second World Wars.

And of course these are the very same sentiments that were most successfully harnessed by the vilest totalitarian regimes the world has seen.

Be afraid... be very afraid...

Your government depends on it.

I would suggest that a more and a Objective investigation of what some call Jack Boots and Anti Semitism, is more in the direction of Ego, Authoritarianism, obviously some peoples views are misguided. Fascism and Nazism is a trait of the left of olden days, Fascism is a trait that has been adopted by western Governments of late. As explained here: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html
Your answer Mahatma duck is here: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html and here: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/saddam.html :
As you will find, all are based on a Marxist Philosophy, and so was the Jewish Question. Many years of corrupt Academe feed all the garbage to the later students, and that’s why the Modern day man is in a greater struggle to survive. Happy reading, you will learn a lot

"These are the types of...parasites undermining their host countries and threatening 1000 year old cultures and bringing with them crime, corruption and chaos."

From footage of second world war Nazi propoganda broadcast to German ppl. It's from a doco about Nazis on ABC or SBS a few weeks ago and was referring to "Eastern Jews who flooded Europe's cities..."

Aaron,

It has NOTHING to do with international terrorism. It is about social and cultural issues - the conduct of the Lebansese Muslims outside the Melbourne court who cowardly attacked the camera man sums it up - it is the same condut i see in bankstown And lakemba in Sydney all the time - it is a 'clash of civilizations' - what i mena is, when you take someone form an extrem culture and put him into another extrem culture which are at odds, he cannot assimilate.

look at the gang rapes against Australian women by lebanese muslims, well, the same is happening in France, Holand, Norway, and Sweden - its not about race or Lebanses, but it is about the common Arab Muslim culture. http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

Mark Steyn sums it up when he says, " in Sydney, in Oslo, in Paris, in Copenhagen and in Manchester, multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture -- the subjugation of women -- combine with the worst attributes of Western culture -- licence and self-gratification" http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn1.asp

Aaron

you misuse the term - common misuse by leftists, liberalists, and IslamoFacists.

Etymology and usage;

word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was practically synonomous with Jewish. German political agitator Wilhelm Marr coined the related German word Antisemitismus in his book "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" in 1879. Marr used the phrase to mean Jew-hatred or Judenhass, and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January. The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."[2]

In recent decades certain pro-Arabists have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, Anti-Arabism, in the context of accusations of Arab anti-Semitism. The argument for such extension comes out of the claim that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendents of the Biblical Shem, anti-Semitism should be likewise inclusive. This usage is not generally accepted.

I agree with everyone, but there is more.

Gary may know something he isn't saying, so I'll take a guess.

One comment interested me because it contained the term “misplaced and displaced utopia, communism”. 'Communism' has been used to describe various ruling or legal systems, but these communisms have never resembled the ideology that produced them.

These communisms have in common, revolution and rule by machine gun, with each other and with stage 1. of Carl Marx's ideology. This also sounds like fundamentalist Islam.

Seemingly unknown to most, Marx's stage 2. of his ideology, is democracy, or forms of democracy or as an Englishman might say, “a degree of democracy ”. Marx's democracy would be described as “rule by the people for the state” and not just state but a Godless state. Democratic Communism? If this sounds like a oxymoron then your understanding of these words is wrong.

The western countries have bypassed Marx's stage 1. and gone directly to Marx's stage 2. If you look closely at the State and Commonwealth legislation. You will find that since Harold Holt Legislation has been becoming increasingly Godless and State (not people) oriented. Our Commonwealth has been systematically destroyed and most probably has a negative dollar value. Why do they still call Australia a commonwealth? I guess it is because they have changed the meaning of the word.

I have a lot of respect for John Howard. I am sure he does the best he can do with what he has got. He has my support.

Evil men already have all the Legislative and Constitutional powers to do what they want to do, it's a mystery that John Howard has had so much trouble doing something good.

Where is this leading you ask. Seeing that incoming alternate Governments never repeal Legislation, knowing that better than 60% of the population disapproves of most legislation, if we want a piece of legislation repealed all we have to do is find a minority group, say Bob Brown, and pee in his pocket.

I havehad to shorten this post, I hope it still makes sense.

Oh Goldbrick

Just between you and me, its always dangerous (on most blogs) to admit a positive attitude to Mr Howard.

You appear to see things with odd clarity.

I'm looking forward to your next post with greater relevance to the topic.

Nothing like a fresh perspective.

Cheers

“If the world is to be spared what future historians may call the Century of Terror, we must chart a perilous course between the Scylla of American imperial arrogance and the Charybdis of Islamic religous fanaticism. Through these waters we must steer by a distant star towards a careful, reasoned, democratic, and humanistic future. Else shipwreck is certain” From Google Online

Though a liberal Christian, there seemed the need to take out the word, secular, which followed the word “humanistic”. But surely we are of earth, and today in Australia facing a terrible argument on earth about Islamic terrorism, which is very earthly and deathly also? The point is by using ancient religous arguments based on faith more than reason, are we solving the problem, or just heating it up, as our West Australian newspaper proved this week with its graphic frontpage headline - The Enemy Within, above a very worried, and typically Islamic face. Every dark-bearded Muslim could now look like an enemy?

Hardly one of us wants to be a Muslim, and most are disgusted at the thought of terrorist tactics, especially by suicide bombers. However, suicide bombing is not only related to Islamics, the Tamil Tigers, in fact, hold the rotten record for suicide bombing, nearly 500 attacks, in fact.

But the graphic top paragraph does present something we should all remember, that there is a need for us Anglophiles, us proud English speaking peoples to give ground, even for us proudies to put on act, for as that top paragraph expresses, even our great grandkids could be still fighting this horrible war, which in most ways is so indecent from both sides, with our pilots bombing towns and cities as in Iraq, without ariel opposition, all said to be in the name of freedom

Part Two

Our Australian leaders appear so arrogant, that they never seem to look behind the scenes for the main causes of terrorism, mainly brought on by political and economic intrusion into the Middle East ever since WW1, said to have got bin Laden fired up, not that we have to like him that much.

It is interesting how that top paragraph intimates the use of reason rather than religion, which means rather than digging up old hatreds which the Muslims seem better at than us, we should start to think that maybe John Howard should think beyond feeling so sprightly right now about having arranged a real top police job against terrorist threats.

Mr Howard, in some ways, typifies the 19th century statesman, stiff upper lip and all. But it needs much more than that, otherwise our grandkids could be really facing that terrorist -stricken century depicted up top. It is a worry that parts of our universities could be silenced, were lessons about protection against terrorism sre not so much taught, but where the deep causes of terrorism are studied - enhancing the growth of historical wisdom and understanding, so much needed in this troublesome world right now

Howard is inspired by Fidel Castro:

How it is
http://www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/dunstan.htm
In 1996, it all went wrong. In the time of Dickens, John Howard might have aspired to be the Parish beadle. He has all the right qualifications: limited horizons, antiquarian values, a narrow vision, and a taste for harsh rules rigidly enforced. He came to the Lodge with a vision which looked backwards to the time before Menzies gained power. In many ways, his world view makes Menzies seem progressive.

Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, and Exile

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-02.htm

Cuba frequently subjects nonviolent dissidents to arbitrary arrests and detentions. Human rights activists and independent journalists are among the government's most frequent targets, along with independent labor organizers, religious believers, members of independent political parties, organizations of independent academics and medical professionals, environmental activists, and others. These improper arrests and detentions, which serve as intimidating measures designed to silence dissent, violate Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cuba often ratchets up pressure on government opponents by subjecting them to repeated arrests, short-or long-term detentions, or criminal prosecutions. In many cases, the government then presents activists with the "choice" to go to prison, or continue serving a prison term, or be exiled from their homeland. This practice violates the UDHR, which explicitly prohibits governments from exiling citizens from their own country.1

I wonder! Why Gary isn't responding to any of his critics? Is he after all a "nipple-fed" intellectual?

CON

Open my BLOG if you like, for more readings on global terror.

Blog address: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com
( click on the LINK of Google )