I am doing a research about the above topic and I was wondering about the opinions of people regarding this matter.

The Australian Anti Terror Laws have been reinforced since the 9/11 attacks and London bombings to prevent similar cases from happening here. But since there is no Bill of Rights, there is no way of telling if the laws are appropriate or not.

Are some of these laws, such as the control orders and the sedition laws too 'harsh' and do they infringe on the basic human rights of the people?

Any feedback will be much appreciated.

YES but is it worse than death by a terrorist act?

I think we need to realise that the rights that these laws apparently infringe are highly compromised anyway.

Sedition laws impinge on the fundamental right of freedom of speech, which is held up as a pillar of democracy. But this apparent right is very highly reduced for many of us, and probably always has been. Hence the overwhelming use of pseudonyms on this forum.

I would dearly love to be able to express my views under my own name. But I simply can’t as government employee. The same issue exists in private enterprise.

I don’t have a problem with control orders or sedition laws. Much better we have this added level of restriction on our civil liberties than suffer a terrorist attack. Or putting it another way: much better a very small portion of the populace suffer some further restrictions to their civil liberties, even if some of those people are found to have nothing to do with terrorism.

This sort of stuff presents a terribly difficult balancing act, in fact an impossible one. I reckon many of the same people who are up in arms about these laws now, would be up in arms about the lack of government action against terrorism if they were affected by a terrorist act.

sedition laws can not exist in a democracy, a society ruled by the people- which oz is not. the purpose of sedition law is not to protect people, but to protect government. governments fear and hate free speech, for they know how corrupt and incompetent they are.

the australian people cheerfully accept thousands of casualties every year so they may drive vastly overpowered vehicles in a manner that exhilarates the driver. but they are unwilling to accept the possibility of attack? they are in more danger from lightning strike.

of course, terrorists might strike oz even in the face of sedition laws- suicide bombers are serious people. sedition law doesn't stop them, it only stops us from discussing in public why we are hated.

if you accept sedition laws, you are 'collared', a slave to 'government approved' information.

Well Demos, if it is so bad here, why are you still here ?
Could it possibly be that this country is significantly better than
wherever else you might otherwise go ?

I thought sedition was an offence of making statements and acting in
support of the enemy. So it depends on whether there is an enemy.
It also depends on whether there is a war I guess.

There is less freedom of speach now for white Australian males as there
are subjects that are illegal for us to make statements about as we
might wish.

I cannot even say to you "Go back to where you come from" without
raising the PC police's attention.

We are living in a big, open island nation that is vulnerable by its very isolation.
I personally agee with anti terror measures because what we give up in liberties we have enjoyed in the past, surely we make up for in safety. Is there some sort of Orwellian theme happening here?
We cannot let 9/11 happen again.

bazz, if ozzies like you enjoyed the democratic powers i urge you to demand, you could stop people like me moving in. but you're only subjects, not citizens, and the mcmahon government decided to get some educated immigrants without consulting you. saved 'em having to spend money educating the locals, you see. i was glad to come, i found participating in genocide rather depressing and figured life here would be a bucolic holiday.

see, if you had listened to me in the past, you wouldn't have to listen to me now.

goddess, my advice to you is to write to osama bin laden, explaining your sensitive nature, and asking him to put you on his advance warning list. don't rely on the foreign minister, he only knows what the cia tells him. and of course, wave a mop handle under the bed where the reds used to live, before retiring.

EstherL2

With all the screaming from the left of politics about our anti terroism laws, I doubt whether 99 per cent of people have been affected at all. The only infringement on my 'human rights' have been a slightly longer wait at the airport. The screams about these laws were nothing but a storm in a tea cup by a small element in our society that have nothing better to do than to protest in the name of freedom. Often they are the most violent in the community and pretend to represent a large number of people because they get access to the press.

Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. " Charles Schumer said "Giving up even an ounce of precious freedom is a very serious thing to do.
". I think these statements say it all. As for preventing "another 9/11", read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin then decide for yourselves if anyone could.

To imagine that the Government can prevent a concerted effort to commit a violent attack here is nieve. It doesnt take a genius to figure out a way to harm a lot of people, especially if your willing to forfeit your life to do so - for a great example of what I mean, take a snapshot of Iraq, with its 100's of thousands of elite american troops yet still powerless to stop such attacks.

So in effect we are not giving up a little bit of freedom for more protection, we are giving up another bit of freedom for the perception of protection. Yes it makes you feel better I know but when they do strike us because of our participation the sedition laws wont help the victims in any way whatsoever and they may even hinder discourse to finding a solution to the global conflict that we, the US and the rest of the coalition has created.

"Are some of these laws, such as the control orders and the sedition laws too 'harsh' and do they infringe on the basic human rights of the people?"

Hell yes. Thought crimes and censorship is wrong, period. Under these rules it would be illegal to conspire against a government that executed your family in front of your eyes.

if history has any lessons for you, remember: hitler began tearing up the weimar constitution to protect the german people from terrorists. they were content to let him do it, since he assured them that good germans had nothing to fear, and safety was more important than a little loss of liberty.

the current australian government aren't nazis. but if you let them get away with one sedition law, they'll try two, and then three...

unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it, is there?

“So in effect we are not giving up a little bit of freedom for more protection, we are giving up another bit of freedom for the perception of protection.”

You are probably right Zygote. But perceptions can be very important. I reckon the perception held by the majority of Australian residents that our government is willing to implement sedition laws and control orders counts for a great deal, even if these measures are effectively useless.

The opposite perception; of a government that is not willing to take these sorts of pretty minor steps towards our protection, could be very damaging to the government, and to a harmonious society.

The question should not be; is the extra impingement on our basic rights justifiable, but rather; is it a genuine attempt to do something about the threat of terrorism or are we being deliberately duped into a slightly increased false sense of security?

Yes I think the tiny extra restrictions on our freedom, which amount to no extra restrictions at all on the vast majority of us, are justified. And more importantly, yes I think it is a genuine effort to address the issue.
.

“but if you let them get away with one sedition law, they'll try two, and then three...”

No I don’t buy this give-them-an-inch-and-they’ll-take-a-mile argument at all DEMOS.

I agree that the restrictions that have been imposed are reasonable
and probably necessary. The restrictions in the UK may also have been
effective as they have foiled several very serious attempts at killing
large numbers of people.
I wonder what the opinion of those that were in the target area would be ?

Now if there was an attempt to blow up a civil rights convention that
could have very interesting results.

What are all you people who accept restrictions as a pay-off for perceived "safety" going to do when the government finally decides to issue biometric ID cards and keep a national register of everyone's fingerprints and DNA? There is always the old and tired pacifier, "If you behave and have nothing to hide, what's the problem?". How about personal privacy?
After all that, someday they will want to microchip us all. That really makes me feel safer...not!

Ahhh well JPH we will need the card anyway so as to ration petrol !

To "Bazz"

as Pauline would say "Please explain".

Who is JPH?

ludwig
"You are probably right Zygote. But perceptions can be very important." I reckon the perception held by the majority of Australian residents"

...appealing to the majority. Look it up.

"these sorts of pretty minor steps towards our protection, could be very damaging to the government, and to a harmonious society."

Censorship is NEVER a "pretty minor step" in a free society. I notice you used the phrase "harmonious society" instead and that suggests you believe less in liberty or freedom than in government paternalism.

"The opposite perception....could be very damaging to the government"
Why? Australians don't even know what sedition is and they never cared before. Sedition laws won't stop anyone from killing innocent people. Any one of us who could make a bomb could set it off in a public area without the police being able to do a thing about it. If people are being monitored for plotting a terrorist act, then it would be more valuable to authorities to await action and purchases, than to arrest for sedition prematurely.

"In late 2006, the Howard Government proposed plans to amend Australia's Crimes Act 1914, introducing laws that mean artists and writers may be jailed for up to seven years if their work was considered "seditious" or inspired sedition either deliberately or accidentally.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#Australia

That is just an obscene abuse of the legal system. Artists and writers, the new terrorists?!? 7 YEARS imprisonment for artwork or writing a book. Artists and writers need to be free to express themselves in any way they see fit. If you think otherwise you are a true fool and very ignorant. It is my understanding that Australia is a free and democratic country, that represents everyone, not exclusively the majority. Ludwig thinks Democracy is about the majority imposing it's views on others. It's not.

ludwig
"The question should not be; is the extra impingement on our basic rights justifiable, but rather; is it a genuine attempt to do something about the threat of terrorism or are we being deliberately duped into a slightly increased false sense of security?"

This is nonsensical. Do you know the odds of harm by terrorism to say, death by road accident? You are buying into the fear TOTALLY, like a timid, little citizen handing away freedoms for perceptions. Absolutely inane

"Yes I think the tiny extra restrictions on our freedom"

To artists and writers, who apparently face 7 years in prison for artwork or writing a book, this is definitely not tiny by any stretch. Your sentiment is extremely selfish and narrow minded. All for perceptions and "genuine attempts"

again it's ludwig the twit "But I simply can’t as government employee.........Or putting it another way: much better a very small portion of the populace suffer some further restrictions to their civil liberties, even if some of those people are found to have nothing to do with terrorism."

"much better a very small portion of the populace suffer some further restrictions to their civil liberties, even if some of those people are found to have nothing to do with terrorism."
I can't print that enough. You are a government employee of a Democratic country advocating the potential imprisonment (lookup sedition laws) of those who "may have NOTHING to do with terrorism". ... I would love to meet you to know what type of snivelling coward could say that to about his countrymen who he represents. No doubt the same who cover for government corruption on regular occasions. You truly make me sick to the stomach ludwig. To everyone reading, this is the kind of scum employed by the government. But there are worse, I suppose. Ludwig doesn't realise the consequences of his words or sentiments.

"I don’t have a problem with control orders or sedition laws. Much better we have this added level of restriction on our civil liberties than suffer a terrorist attack."

<sarcasm on> Because, you know, these laws automagically prevent terrorism, because the government said so and I believe them 100%</sarcasm off>

get 'em, steel.

ludwig seems to mean well, but he did admit to tolerating nuclear power, also. clearly we must monitor this lad, he might be an agent provocateur for asio.

Oh Steel your comments on Ludqig are a bit much.
Take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

JSP1488 errr alias JPH, yes sorry when I came to address it I couldn't
remember your netname.

Re the card; you might remember the government is going to introduce an
access card for Centrelink/Medicare etc etc, well I suggested that the
bio enabled card about which you are concerned could also be used to ration
petrol under the Energy Transition Protocol to make petrol available
fairly to all rather than ration by price.

Everyone is in a flat spin about global warming but there is a
limiting factor coming over the horizon that all want to ignore.
The loss of civil rights re terrorism will be nothing to what happens
at that time as we head down the depletion curve.

Which all raises a point, will terrorism survive the oil depletion
power down ? Perhaps they will be too busy growing their food !

Well, we have a live one! Alright Steel, it looks like there’s a rip-roaring debate ahead of us.

But please, have the decency to keep your comments on subject and don’t get personally abusive. Such antics make you appear to be anything but level-headed, being ruled by emotiveness and not logic…which undoes your credibility entirely.

Your third post yesterday reached a gutterous level that should see it removed from this forum, and you suspended for a week or so. Shame on you.

“Censorship is NEVER a ‘pretty minor step’ in a free society.”

This seems to lie right at the core of your thinking. You are fundamentally wrong here. We have all sorts of well-accepted censorship; on pornography, foul language, defamation, offensive behaviour, etc, etc.

Just about every government institution and private business has a code of conduct, which outlines what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. In fact the whole fundamental purpose of law is effectively to censor (or restrict) us in all sorts of ways, for the greater good. We wouldn’t have a functional society without censorship. We’d have anarchy.

“…suggests you believe less in liberty or freedom than in government paternalism.”

Liberty and freedom are not opposite to government “paternalism”. A strong rule of law is necessary for the maintenance of liberty and freedom. A strong governmental regulatory regime is essential.

No one has ever been able to public espouse the virtues of rape, murder or child molestation or heaps of other things, either publicly or in a written form that is legally accessible to the public. Sedition laws are just and extension of this sort of philosophy.

Now you can argue about the detail. But to blankelty oppose the concept of censorship or of mitigating sedition, is just crackers.

Steel, can you look at Australia’s sedition law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law#Seditious_Intention_2) and tell me just what it is that you disagree with here. Or do you agree with the concepts but totally distrust out government to observe them as written?

Let’s try the third last paragraph again…

No one has ever been able to espouse the virtues of rape, murder or child molestation or heaps of other things, either publicly or in a written form that is legally accessible to the public. Sedition laws are just an extension of this sort of philosophy.

To deliberately kill one person is murder, to plan to kill 100 persons is equally murder.

If the security services have powers [laws] to intercept communication and planned actions between organisation that plan the murder of one or one hundred then give them that power at law. Murder under any name is against the best interests of a democratic and cohesive society.

While terorists and their sympathisers intellectually legalise murder for their political cause we must act to oppose their plan to murder and destablise our democratic society. They may consider their cause a just war; however within a single society under one government it must be outlawed.

A society divided by ethnic or idiological hatred will fall into civil war. Multiculture without restrictions is condusive to violence. Of course there are sections in our society today who want civil war, because under civil war social structures, governments and social values change. They are taught if you want change you must fight for it!

However our Western society has been subjected to all these struggles in past generations resultant in our current democratic freedoms. The current terrorist regimes want to take away the right of personal choice and freedoms and impose a pseudo religious and totalitarian value system upon everyone. They will attempt to do this by fear and intimidation without regard of the personal lives destroyed.

Only those not willing to be subject to legal scrutiny of their involvement in or support of violent acts will cry "unjust laws"!

"To deliberately kill one person is murder, to plan to kill 100 persons is equally murder."
So if someone plans to kill you, they have already killed you? Somehow I wonder how grown, educated adults can say things that would make an 8 year old blush with shame. Ps. this is about sedition, not murder.

"The current terrorist regimes want to take away the right of personal choice and freedoms and impose a pseudo religious and totalitarian value system upon everyone. They will attempt to do this by fear and intimidation without regard of the personal lives destroyed."
Such as...the United States? If so I agree with you. Lets see,

impose a pseudo religious and totalitarian value system? Check.
attempt to do by fear and intimidation? Check.
without regard to personal lives destroyed? Check.

As in Vietnam, where millions of Vietnamese and others were brutally murdered by American forces and sprayed indiscriminately with carcinogenic chemicals, the innocent victims of the Iraq war will not be compensated. In fact they are lying by the tens of thousands, dead.

"Only those not willing to be subject to legal scrutiny of their involvement in or support of violent acts will cry "unjust laws"!"
Are you a Stalinist or something? Of course those who value democracy, freedom and liberty oppose government audits of their lives. Unlike you seemingly believe, people are not white rats in a laboratory. Perhaps you should move to China. I think their government is more your style.

DEMOS

“clearly we must monitor this lad, he might be an agent provocateur for asio.”

oow!! (:>0)

Monitor to your heart’s content, you demon you!

“…but he did admit to tolerating nuclear power”

Please see my response on the appropriate thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5991#84486

"Additionally, it is now specifically illegal to [urge] a person to assist the enemy:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
or to [urge] a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.
except where such urgings are by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of a humanitarian nature.

These new crimes are all punishable by Imprisonment for 7 years."

Whoa I just read this for the first time. Does this mean I cannot have an pro-Iraqi vs US/AU/UK view? As in if I wrote "I call on all Iraqis to resist the occupation of their country and the murder of its citizens' I could go to jail for 7 years? What a crock of Nazism. <- oh no, was that urging disaffection with our crappy government. Another 7 years... what am I up to, 21 years now for a paragraph.

Well Steel… you are obviously not going to respond to my post of 21 June.

You passionately express your views and become extremely offensive, without the slightest bit of provocation…

And then you completely woose out of the discussion.

You are not prepared to defend your position, you’ve got no idea of how to conduct a tactful debate, you are completely intolerant of those with whom you strongly disagree and are willing to alienate people at the drop of a hat.

Wow…you are some piece of work!

Zygote

“Does this mean I cannot have an pro-Iraqi vs US/AU/UK view?”

No. You are entitled to your views.

“As in if I wrote ‘I call on all Iraqis to resist the occupation of their country and the murder of its citizens' “

This is going a little bit further than just expressing a view. I think it might constitute sedition. Although under ‘Penalties and Scope’, it is stated;

‘the amended laws no longer include specific penalties for uttering seditious words’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law#Seditious_Intention_2)

It seems a bit grey to me. But then our law is full of grey areas. I guess it is something that will needed to be tested in court.

I can’t imagine that anyone would worry too much about it unless it was quite serious. I reckon you’d have to say things like that a lot of times on this forum before you’d rouse any problems, let alone ASIO or AFP interest. Then you’d get a polite warning and then if you didn’t heed it, you might be charged and found guilty, with a very minimal penalty.

I mean, the intent of the law is clear. And expressions of strong views on chat forums like this clearly don't fall within that intent.

I presume you have no problem with the first part of the new laws, re: urging the use of force or violence against the constitution, government, etc?

So the main question then is; do you think that we should have no sedition laws at all and that everyone should be able to incite violence against our government and be able to assist the enemy, as a matter of the principle of free speech? Or do you think some quite limited restrictions are in order?

It is very clear to me that some restrictions need to apply here, and that the new sedition laws are a pretty good compromise between applying those restrictions and maintaining a decent level of free speech….in fact without hardly impinging on free speech or other basic rights at all.

Steel,
What I meant to say was: "To deliberately plan to kill one person is an act of premeditating a murder - we must stop it occurring. Failure to do so is accessory of a crime. To recognise a plan to kill 100 persons indiscriminately is equally an act of premeditating a murder so it makes the person/s equally quilty and we must stop such acts. So if we have knowledge of such plans we have a social responsibility to see it curtailed by laws, otherwise one is an accessory.

When it is indiscriminate killing against the State the State must act to incarsarate enemies of the State and protect its citizens.

Ok, ludwig
“You are fundamentally wrong here. We have all sorts of well-accepted censorship; on pornography, foul language, defamation, offensive behaviour, etc, etc.
Just about every government institution and private business has a code of conduct, which outlines what behaviour is acceptable and what is not."

Those are workplace rules. While debatable, I won't go there. We are talking about individual liberty in a free and open society. As for pornography, that currently is certainly not democratic and is wrong. All pornographic censorship must be repealed. Censorship of media is flat out wrong. No adult can tell another adult what they can or can't watch. Sorry, if you disagree with that, you can't believe in democracy. As for "foul language", people use it all the time. Censoring it on broadcast media is wrong. Everyone and I mean everyone (children) is or will be exposed to foul language in all it's forms. This is where parental responsibility comes into play, not arbitrary laws saying some insulting, foul words are ok but others are magically wrong. Defamation and offensive behaviour are not censorship issues.

"In fact the whole fundamental purpose of law is effectively to censor (or restrict) us in all sorts of ways, for the greater good."

Ok this is what really makes me angry. "For the greater good" Are you serious? I have to sacrifice MY rights and 'pursuit of liberty and happiness' to make the average morons/racists/christian idiots feel a little better?!? NO THANKS! You really sound like a Socialist/Authoritarian/Fascist dictator here. I strongly believe you should reconsider your views. The greater good in a free society means maximum individual liberty, not a sacrifice of individual rights. Black markets exist for a good reason.

"We wouldn’t have a functional society without censorship. We’d have anarchy"
That is absolutely false, and an outrageous suggestion as I know you seriously entertain the notion. Outrageous also, as it comes from the mouth of a government employee!

"Liberty and freedom are not opposite to government “paternalism”."
They are when it comes to free speech issues. And yes, talking/writing about rape, murder and child molestation harms no one. You are advocating thought crimes. There may be good cause for writers, artists or performers to express themselves about these issues... it just boggles my mind that you think censorship like the regimes around the world is ok...

"Sedition laws are just and extension of this sort of philosophy.
Now you can argue about the detail. But to blankelty oppose the concept of censorship or of mitigating sedition, is just crackers."
How? Crime revolves around action. When you threaten someone's life explicitly, that is about as close as you come to an action without doing the action. When you assault someone 'verbally', you are doing an action that creates harm, depending on how successful it was.

"just an extension"
And the extension after that? And the next extension? It is completely arbitrary. I said before any of us could make a bomb in private and discuss it with associates and there isn't a thing the police could do about it. Sedition laws are ineffective and cost eminent writers, artists and performers their freedom of expression, because there is a threat of imprisonment, which I might add, is FINE WITH YOU according to your earlier comments...I shouldn’t even be entertaining the thought that you are a citizen of a democracy.

These are not laws to protect citizens. They are laws to control what people can and can't say. Just as whistleblowers have been effectively silenced, you will have harsh critics of the country also silenced, all under the threat of law. In a supposed Democracy this is simply stunning.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin

Steel

Nice of you to eventually respond… and in a non-offensive manner too. Thankyou so much for that!

“Those are workplace rules.”

What? They are rules of society, not one little bit less than sedition censorship.

“Defamation and offensive behaviour are not censorship issues.”

Yes they are. Of course they are!

Look, there is no point in responding quote by quote. All I need to say is that you are so fundamentally off-track that it just boggles my mind.

Every single law is a form of censorship inasmuch as it defines what can and cannot do and hence restricts us from doing certain things. You can’t randomly pull some out and brand them as censorship.

You are advocating a society where there are absolutely no restrictions on pornography, or on all sorts of other things! How much personal freedom do you think the vast majority of citizens would have under that sort of regime?

You seem to hold the most absurdly polarised position; it is either all or nothing. You don’t seem to realise that little bit of something can be good while a bit more of it can be bad, and that the biggest issue with all sorts of rules is finding the right point of balance.

Obviously a society with no censorship would be unworkable. And obviously a society with levels of censorship which greatly impinge on our freedom would be bad. Obviously a certain level of censorship on all sorts of things would give us the best balance between personal freedom, security, harmony, a properly functioning society, etc.

Sorry, but I find your views to be the most ridiculous that I have even encountered on this forum. There is nothing sane about them at all.

"Obviously a society with no censorship would be unworkable."
Huh? How does censoring specific pornography* make society workable? If anything, it drives a black market and makes normal, law-abiding adults into criminals, forcing them to break the law.

*as defined many decades ago by a specific historical and cultural context that is alien and absurd to new generations. Look at how gay sex has been freed from the past.

I said that offensive behaviour and defamation are not censorship issues, because in both cases you are directly causing harm to another person or their reputation in the process. You are attacking or assaulting them.

With any other form of censorship, it comes down to free speech and freedom of expression. Many interesting moments and valuable insights into history were recorded because documents were allowed to be written and views expressed, where sedition laws would have led to the destruction of the documents.

Did the society fall apart after pornographic censorship was lifted? No. Quite the opposite. Questioning the Church in the past was Blasphemy and scientists were killed and tortured for doing so. That would under todays stupid Sedition laws have been sedition against the Church and King, annointed by God (a phantasm).

Your position is a blip on a continuum, like all positions in the past. How can that not be obvious?

Steel you seem to be awfully hung up on pornography.

As I said before;

“Every single law is a form of censorship inasmuch as it defines what can and cannot do and hence restricts us from doing certain things. You can’t randomly pull some out and brand them as censorship.”

Think about a few other examples, such as road rules, building regulations, drug laws, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Tell me that no censorship / restriction / regulation of activities should be happening in these areas.

Here’s the great fault in your reasoning; your intense polarisation, as epitomised in this statement;

“And the extension after that? And the next extension?”

You seem to innately belief that a little bit of something is the start of an inevitable slippery slide to a lot of it!

Well it isn’t! Take a look around you at the real world. Look at just about every law / rule / form of censorship that has been established in this country for aeons. How many of them are getting progressively tighter? Very few indeed. Some are, as population pressure increases and the quality of our environment and resource base decreases, but the vast majority are not, including your beloved pornography.

With the new sedition laws, you need to look at them at face value and NOT project them into something that you think they might become at some unknown point in the future.

I had to have a close look at the detail before I could approve of them. I think that stronger restrictions in this area could well be inappropriate. But as they are now, they are fine.

On 21 June I asked you if you could look at Australia’s sedition law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law#Seditious_Intention_2) and tell me just what it is that you disagree with here.

You didn’t respond. Come on, it is the detail in the existing law that is important. In fact, it is the ONLY thing that matters.

Whatever might pass for sedition in other cultures has got nothing to do with Australian sedition law.