All laws need to be scrutinised, but is that not the role of the judiciary in this tin pot 3 tiered system?

(actively resists extrinsic and pejorative as a memory fragment about ld mountbatton's leg floats thru consciousness)

howard and his loathsome mates made an art form out of creating tin pot tribunals and other unqualified mechanisms to make inital findings of fact in a great range of areas, from asylum seeker's to otherwise.

To witness on the global stage some of the great attrocities committed thru out history with more than a passing role from laws which deprive a person of their liberty and subject them to to all manner of ill treatment may giv som of u pause to re-consider.

Access to the law must become a Right of all people and the same goes for medicine. And for that, lawyers and doctors must i.m.o. be stringently regulated. And for that, the majority must come to the conclusion that it is in the majorities best interests to vote for other than the blue & red of the current political landscape.

...Adam...

I recall this line of reasoning from *bOAZy* from a long time ago now it seems.

Hmmm .. to me when u strip away the language, the culture, the religion, the sex and the politics, what u get down to at times is certain individuals who are only ever happy when they are getting their own way and who are invariably dogmatic to the extent that they will insist that black is white and white is black if it appears to suit their purpose.

U r little different to me *bOAZy* than the construct that u decry.

But pls, so as that u may not understand, I do not suggest that yr rants are entirely devoid of worth and thus in an area where my own knowledge is lacking, I ask u, do pls tell us what u know of the:

*Satanic Verses*

Dagget re
“I reject … that there exists in the world today a terrorist network known as ‘Al Quaeda’ …evidence (points) to the likelihood that the 19 September 11 terrorists were, in fact, patsies and that George Bush, Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice...”

Interesting thesis!

How about Jemaah Islamiyah & The Bali Bombers, how do they fit into the 9/11 conspiracy?

*smile*...

Pericles says:

<<"I can show you "with absolute finality" that the Crusades were conducted under the banner of Christianity.">>

and who (if they know history) would argue with that? I sure wont.
What I DO argue with.. is the foundation on which those crusades were done. Jesus said "As the Father sent me.. SO I send you".

HANDS UP all those who can point to Jesus gathering an army around himself?
STAND UP all those who can point to Jesus ever ordering the killing of anyone?
DO SOMERSAULTS all those who can show that Jesus encouraged his disciples to defend him physically with their lives?

CJ says UNfairly applied .. recent trial outcomes speak against you.

HANDS UP all those who wanted to be at the MCG during the grand final when a truck bomb (or some similar means) blew them up?

The evidence I'm afraid is against what CJ says.

BUSHY says "You just don't listen" ... no brudder.. it is you who does not.

Again.. the evidence is not on your side here. (surah 9.... please try to understand what this means in terms of EXXXXXXXample)

It is not 'bigotry' to point to evidence.. it is bigotry to see evidence in front of you and then go into blatant denial.

-Doctrine
-Example
-History
-Contemporary expression of all the above

is... to put it mildly.. a very compelling wallll of evidence to deny, and such denial is absolute bigotry of the most 'final' kind.

The people arrested under our anti terrorism laws were those who took all those things to heart, and applied them to 'now'....in our back yard.

DAGGET the underlying justification of the ATLs would be surah 9..it's enough.

DREAMY:)

<<they will insist that black is white and white is black if it appears to suit their purpose.>>

Yes..it continues to amaze me also.. refer the above :)

Some see "Fight them who don't believe" and translate to "love them" :) but I read 'fight and see 'FIGHT'. (basic english)

hilarious. boaz disowns the crusades at the very same time that he's trying to start a new one.

boaz, you're not supplying evidence. you're supplying bias and bigotry and special pleading and propaganda and cherry picking and guilt by association, all wrapped in a decidedly unchristian ill-will. you're the very model for the danger of masturbatory god-on-my-side religious "thought".

Hi plerdsus

While Innes' perfectly good article has been dummed-down by the usual religious obscurantists who are comically over-represented in OLO - you ask a good question:.

"...the terrorism laws were enacted under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth, with the consent of all the states, to legislate on any subject. Does it therefore follow that the Commonwealth would be unable of itself to amend or repeal these laws, and would require the consent of all the states to do so? Now that we have one non-labor state, Western Australia, would this unanimous consent necessarily be forthcoming?"

The long answer would be an interpretation, after a careful reading, of this: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/BD/2002-03/03bd089.htm .

Short (non-lawyer) answer is: Given the highly sensitive political nature of the terrorism laws the Commonwealth would need (at least informal but substantial) agreement from each State and Territory to substantially amend/repeal the laws. Amendment (a few changes) is more likely than repealing them (rolling them back).

If the amendments were deemed small and highly technical (such as changes to the Interception Act) then no State/Territory agreement might be sought.

With the possibility that non-Labor WA could criticise Rudd as being soft on security/terrorism, Rudd may continue to pursue his current security direction which is:

Blow $Billions on security particularly the AFP AND don't change the Laws because it’s too politically dangerous to do otherwise.

Once security laws/budgets are in place there is a ratchet effect - no copper/spook/bureacrat/polly is going to risk lowering the guard/budget just in case (or just before) any bomb goes off.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/