Pt 2:
In Tassie, in Queenstown; a lazy spot of maybe 2500 souls at a public meeting about economic rejuvenation in the wake of a mine closing in the region - everything was talked about bar the subject at hand ; how the water had deteriorated since the councils amalgamated and all that other parochial crap - then some one asked the mayor and a visiitng politician; what about the airport nearby; A strip of flat land (rare in those parts)not much better than a goat track was essentially unused and was now rarely manned;

A good citizen said it must be patrolled! it is a security risk! He went on to add - How come we asked agog! it poses little risk and while we're on it risk from what? TERRORISTS was the earnest reply - highly unlikely we replied - "Try telling that to the poor souls in Bali" was the sombre retort - so there it is. The far west coast of Tasmania; Australias soft underbelly - in fact I think Senator Abets was in the room; look out Tassie you might be excised from our borders as the next landing point for a bunch of bombers flying in after extensive training in thre ACT or a boat load terrorists masquerading as refugees.

That is a measure of the depth of stupid anxiety this government has engedered in some.

These laws have gotten way out of hand.

All old hat Rod

The polls you quote were, no doubt, the call in if you have a problem type.

Madrid - bang! London - bang! Some bloke in a scarf says Melbourne is next.

Takes more responsibility than a Christian Collective to govern.

Politicians represent and should protect. If they didn't support stronger laws they would be failing in their duty.

If bombs go off in Melbourne or Sydney and politicians haven't drafted more effective laws or supported them, their electorates would be very dissappointed.

Some in their electorates may be dead.

Stick to the Bible meetings.

We may have different beliefs but duty of care takes many forms.

There may be some justification for terrorism laws if they could be shown to achieve their purpose of preventing terrorism. Common sense would indicate that they are unlikely to prevent acts of terrorism and make it more likely for these acts to occur.

Terrorism can only be prevented by detecting it before it happens. The most likely way detection will occur is if a friend or relative notifies authorities that someone is thinking of performing such an act. Will draconian laws make it more likely or less likely for friends and relatives to approach the authorities when they only have suspicions? Obviously less likely. Who is going to dob in someone they care about on suspicion when it is certain to punish them even though they may be innocent. How much better to work cooperatively with those who may be able to help and work to stop such acts.

Yes Fickle

Over the last few days I've become steadily disenchanted with the proposed laws.

The atmosphere of fear that they have created (blanket advertising etc) makes is less likely that a friend/relative of a potential bomber will be comfortable talking to the authorities.

I'm coming to the conclusion that greater utilisation of existing laws (their are around 30 security Acts) where appropriate and increased funding for the security agencies (already announced) is the way to go.

It seems the proposed laws where largely launched and calculated to drive a wedge in the ALP - seperating the leadership (Beazely from the left) and the Labor Premiers from their support base. Howard is the prince of wedge politics and Bush his King in that regard).

King John had the conditions of the Magna Carta forced on him about 900 years ago because he liked to lock people up without evidence.
I wonder if we are going to repeat history.

This is more a question than a comment:

Initially it was mentioned that one of the proposed "anti-terrorism" measures is to make immigrants wait an extra year for Australian citizenship (3 years instead of 2). I did not hear about it again - anyone knows what happened with it?

Anyway, why should people who have nothing to do with terrorism, not even Moslems or potential suspects in any way, and some who may even be victims of terrorism themsleves, suffer unduly?