“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.