The Communist_Manifesto_states:

[In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.]

In 1951 the following was said:

[September 22 1951, defeat of the referendum to ban the Australian Communist Party confirmed that Australia’s temper would remain democratic. [?]

Labor leader Ben Chifley said the Communist Party Dissolution bill “opens the door to the liar, the perjurer and the pimp to make charges and damn men’s reputations and to do so in secret without having either to substantiate or prove any charges they might make”.]

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and MULTICULTURALISM. Suggests that we don't condemn a person because of their ideas, -so far so good. But what do we do about a person who clearly stands steadfastly on a foundation which has as its supreme objective, the destruction of the freedom we currently enjoy ?

Notice carefully the last sentence of the Manifesto.
-Violent revolution
-Establishment of the rule of the proletariat.

Looking at the bigger picture of Communism, it is clear that there is no room for democracy.

So, why did the ban on the party fail in 1951 ?

I suggest is was due to misinformation, spin and lack of general knowledge about the true goals of that party.

In a democracy where the courts are independant, how can banning such a movement be seen as opening the door to the pimp the perjurer and the Liar ? What about 'evidence' ? Did such a concept dissappear in the Bill ? Hardly. Clearly something else happened. Perhaps it was in the wording of the bill ?

Should we invoke Voltaires "I hate what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" ? but what about 'believe it and work in accordance with the things' said, especially if such working is aimed at the violent overthrow of the social order ?

The perceived "Red Menace" threat during the 1950's was largely a creation of the Menzies Government which then had to be seen to be doing something about it and the referendum was defeated on the basis of it being a blatant attack on Civil Liberties. This was actually the third unsuccessful attempt to ban them.

http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/cabinet/1952_cabinet_notebooks/1952_events_issues.html

It's interesting that at the time, there was opposition to Australian Servicemen bringing their Japanese War Brides home because it could cause "unrest" so socially we are at about the same point today - looking for "Reds under the Bed" and hysterical xenophobia.

Are you proposing that ALL political or religious groups that oppose government policy should be banned or only ones that have any reference to violence in their manifestos? What about other neo-political groups that oppose Globalisation for example? Some of their demonstrations can get pretty violent from time-to-time.
Greenpeace too.

There are also a number of active extreme right wing groups that have fire-bombed the occasional Chinese restaurant. They may not have their specific methods written down but their actions speak for themselves.
There are religious groups in the US that have also blown up abortion clinics and murdered medical staff. Should they be put on the same banned list as some radical Muslim groups?

Perhaps it's time for a McCarthyist type of society where everybody is either under suspicion or an informant.

Then we can all be united in our paranoia.

The only sure, secure and peacful society is a monocultural one.

I envy Japan in this regard.

There's many kinds of multiculturalism, and many shades of politically correct.

To chalk either one of these complex ideals up to a single issue is false.

Multiculturalism simply means the many cultures from around the world. You wanna go tell your vietnamese neighbours you hate multiculturalism?
Be my guest, but don't expect me to join in. If we have a problem, and I'm not convinced it's nearly as serious as it's made out to be, then you look at that problem, not just blame it on immigration in general.

As for PC.... it's so very PC to bag being PC. The term scarcely has any meaning any more.

Hi Rache

My view is that only groups which intend to constitute a new government by force should be outlawed.
Any group which has in its foundation documents such as the Manifesto the idea of 'violent overthrow' should be declared seditious forthwith.

The 'Reds under the Beds' -'Knee Jerk' reactions whether political or social are anathema to peaceful society.

You mentioned Islam. I have this recent image of all our parlimentarians (unless there were some consientous objectors to attending a church service) in Church, as per the constitution pre-amble "Humbly relying on the blessing (or Guidance) of Almighty God" and then I think of some 'Abu Izzadeen' type character gate-crashing in on the service and screaming out that Islam is going to take over Australia. "like it or not" (I saw him saying this in UK)

Like here http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003024.html

An except of an interview with him:

JH: You want Sharia law in this country? If you want to change the way this country functions, why can you not do it in a democratic way ?

AI: Democracy means sovereignty for man; and as a Muslim, we believe sovereignty for the Sharia, therefore I would never take part in democratic principles. Rather I will work to change society in accordance with Islamic methodology.

COMMENT...so... if he won't work under democractic principles... one wonders which principles he intends to promote? Clearly if he wishes the country to be under Sharia law, there is a strong likelihood of him 'emulating' his prophets approach to such things which include

"I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought." Hadith Muslim book 1 number 31

Now..all one needs do is examine whether this hadith has been viewed as 'sahih' (legitimate) and 'strong' in the Islamic countries (not western, they will not give a true answer) and you have the basis for a proscribed movement under our anti terrorism laws. (My opinion)

DB - your suggestion that groups wishing to overthrow the government be force be outlawed is appropriate for this time.

Though it is likely there will one day come a time when our government has atrophied, and is no longer acting in the best interests of the people.
(I may disagree with what the government is doing, but I do at least believe they believe it's in the best interests of the people, and I concede plenty of people agree with them).
Whether revolution is necessary, I of course, cannot say at this time, but it is quite plain to me that having a law allowing a government to crack down on dissidents is dangerous.