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.