Now, I do not want to be accused of understating the suffering endured by the relatives of those killed in terrorist attacks. The "so" in the title is intended to mean "by comparison with other ways of dying".

Governments around the world seem to be treating terrorism as if it were a significant cause of death in an otherwise safe world, and draconian laws are essentially being justified in that way.

Yet the truth is very different. The main thing about a terrorist act is that it can kill a large number of people in one place, and a finger can be pointed at the person or persons who deliberately caused those deaths.

But dead is dead. It doesn't matter whether you die as part of a group, or on your own. Your surviving relatives will still grieve, and I rather doubt that they're comforted by the thought that you did not die in company.

The ABS provides statistics on numbers and causes of deaths.

http://tinyurl.com/ypjskt

In 2005, 270 people were the victims of murder, another 25 of manslaughter, and a further 201 were victims of driving causing death. Yet that total of 496 people dying is just the tip of the iceberg.

This document

http://tinyurl.com/2enakl

shows that in 2004 more than 5200 people died in accidents, more than 2000 died from self harm (whether or not they intended to kill themselves, which may not be known anyway), and nearly 8000 died from other non-health related causes, such as poisonings and violence (including the murders etc, that would have occurred in 2004).

Finally, one can note that in that one year, more than 132,000 people died from all causes.

So, yes, terrorism is an awful crime, and yes we ought to try to prevent it, but doing so does not have that much affect on how likely we are to die in any given year. Is it really worth compromising our liberty for the sake of reducing the already very low incidence of terrorism even further?

Sylvia.

YES. I and my family as infidels are not the target of these laws and so our freedoms are not jeprodised. In fact our freedom to shop and take trains etc. is more likely to be made safer by these laws. When these acts of terrorism stop then these laws will be scraped. There will simply be no need for them. Western democracies will never tolerate these laws once the threat of terrorism is over

Thank you, Sylvia.

To take your argument further, as I believe the Pentagon once did (see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html), the risk we face from terrorism is even less significant when we consider the risk we face from global warming, other dire threats to our environment and the exhaustion of our natural resources, particularly oil, fresh water and metals such as copper and platinum.

Sylvia....

The danger of terrorism is not in the numbers killed in specific attacks (unless they start with dirty bombs, nukes, or biological attacks)but in the ideas behind them.

The attacks (from Islamists) we have endured thus far have a much bigger goal. I hope you will give that due attention.

I don't know why you would make a forced comparison between 'ways of dying' when the real issue is the competing belief and social systems.

I'm still shaking in my boots from a near miss yesterday, when totally unexpectedly some moron made a turn from the turn lane of lights (major intersection, him facing a red no turn light, me cruising thru on the green) in front of me as if I was not even there.

But the trauma of that near miss will fade, the concern about those who will kill our bodies so they can next kill our minds and spirits and those of our children AFTER the actual traumatic incident... that will never fade.

thx, sylvia, always pleasant to hear a voice of reason.

Part of what motivated me to post the item was Philip Ruddock's comments to the effect that in the light of a number of terrorism suspects being granted bail despite the requirement for exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to change the law so that such people cannot even apply for bail.

My concern there is that it would mean that the mere accusation of involvement in a terrorist offence would be sufficient to keep a person locked up at least until the committal hearing, regardless of the strength, or even existence, of the case against them. Further, the accusation would only need to be of something trivial, as long as it's labelled a terrorism offence by the Criminal Code. As we've seen, even giving someone a SIM card has been construed as a terrorism offence by the authorities.

So all the Government would need to do to take someone out of circulation for months would be to accuse them. This would see the person placed into solitary confinement and deprived of most of the usual ways of communicating with the outside world. It is little comfort that a person so accused might then be able to sue successfully for malicious prosecution at a later date. The government could easily regard this as an acceptable price to pay.

It takes little imagination to see how such action, and threats of such action, could be abused. That Philip Ruddock could even suggest such a change to the legislation tells me that he's completely lost touch with reality on this.

I think those who favour the current treatment of Mohamed Haneef need to tell us just how far they would have this country go, short of Australia becoming an outright totalitarian dictatorship, in order to prevent any possibility of an act of terrorism occurring on Austalian soil.

The powers that Ruddock is seeking are so broad that they could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by.

Let's just consider how low this government has stooped in recent years in order stay in power and to otherwise serve its own ends:

* almost AU$300 million in bribes paid to regime of Saddam Hussein prior to 2003 in order to secure wheat sales. Then, in March 2003 Howard tells us that the same Government of Saddam Hussein poses such a threat to world peace that we are left with no choice but to invade. Justification for invasion includes lie (at a number of levels) of the existence of WMD's in Iraq. This one cynical act, now admitted to have been motivated by oil, has done more than anything else to raise Australia's exposure to the risk of terrorism.

* $20million of taxpayers money spent during 2004 election campaign on the "Strengthening Medicare" campaign that was known to be a lie even at the time.

* 'Baby bonus' payments given away without even twice to some people as an election bribe prior to the 2004 election campaign.

* No mention of "Work Choices" during the 2004 election campaign, but legislation announced after Governmem returned to office. $55million of taxpayers dollars spent on the most extravagent saturation campaign of deceit in our history.

* Telstra privatised against opposition of at least 70% of the public and against undertakings not to do so unti l rural services were satisfactory.

* etc, etc.

Just possibly, if we don't become a dicatorship, then it is likely that some cold-blooded act of terrorism, that otherwise would have been prevented, will occur, but I would rather take my chances with the terrorists than I would giving such a Government these powers.

"I would rather take my chances with the terrorists than I would giving such a Government these powers."

Precisely. It's a cold hearted thing to say, but if there was a terrorist attack in Australia a number of people would be killed, a lot more would be upset, but the rest of us could get on with our lives unimpeded.

The way things are going we have more to fear from our own government, because their attack is directed at all of us.

I wonder why you need to ask a question such as "IS Terorism so Bad"
Would you like to have family members in the twin towers on 7/11?or one of your daughters marry in to one of those cultures,where they have not got the freedom of home,there baby girl bodies are mutilated in the name of their faith?This is what Islamic face at this point in time.Under S,Hussein rule the little people were afraid to speak up against any rule this dictator decided to make,I don't like the idea of any war for any reason.But when a body like the BinLaden has decided that islam should become a faith for anyone and is taking the teachings of "Kill an Infidel" to go to heaven literally.He is a man that is needed to be stopped, He is an extremist.In the buildings of the Twin Towers there were no doubt Islamic believing people murdered along with all the others,They were just ordinary people with a belief that was the same as christian,catholic,judism and countless other faiths murdered on that day.Yes Terrorism is Bad,But why have they not gone after the bad seed Osama Bin Laden.Why have they not stopped him should be the question asked.

If something was causing deaths at the rate of 63,729 per year, 5,310 per month, 1,225 per week, 174 per day, 7 per hour, shouldn't we declare a war on it?

But these deaths are happening in the US - from 'Flu, plain old influenza.

1,353 men died from influenza in Australia 2002
1,731 women died from influenza in Australia 2002

Have we got our priorities very wrong? Or are there other motives?

It seems to me that "it is always the government's fault" I can imagine the outcry when there is a terrorist event. "the government didn't do enough to protects us" It's a no-win situation whoever is in power, there is always an element that disagrees with their policy. It's called democracy and the important thing is that we still live in a country that allows criticism of what they do for us.

Daggett,

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments regarding the threat of our country being/becoming a dictatorship... I have commented on this before.

I enjoyed reading your post.

Glenda

Yes, everyone,Terrorism IS so bad.
It is bad because each act is worn as a badge or trophy by the perpetrators to highlight and elevate their usually pathetic causes.
Lets all start to become sensitive again.

i'm sorry, folks, it's all my fault.

when our master announced he was dispatching troops to iraq to sequester those wmd, i emailed him, warning: "there will be blow-back, when bombs go off in oz, it's on your head."

clearly, he took my warning seriously and is determined that his policy will not result in a single ozzie casualty while he is standing for prime minister. so he took the threadbare facade of civil rights from the face of his government, and let you see what can be accomplished by an augmentated police force not hampered by having to have evidence, and a castrated judicial system, cut out of the punishment process.

who'd have guessed 1 email could achieve so much?

but it was an accident, and i'm really,really sorry.

Well Sylvia, I guess you might be in the funeral industry.

At the time of the first Gulf war a comment was made that if the US
troops had not gone to the Gulf more of them would have been killed in road accidents at home, hmmmm.
So they saved lives by going to war. Hmmmm.

It does seem a rather lefthanded way of looking at it.

Boaz-David, your near accident reminds me to tell everyone when waiting to make a right turn
DO NOT HAVE YOUR WHEELS ALREADY TURNED !

If someone runs into the back of you, you will die as you go headlong into the oncoming traffic.

Yes terrorism is bad. Ask anyone who has lost someone they love to terrorism. It may kill less people than other events but the difference is that many other events may be the result of natural disaster, non-deliberate human error etc.
Terrorism is changing the way people live. It is no longer seen as 'safe' to do certain things or travel to certain places. It makes people less willing to trust.
In addition to all that we have people who use terrorism for other political ends...in this case to criticise a government which would be held responsible if anything did happen here.
Too many Australians seem to believe that the threat of terrorism is not real. It is - and they would be among the first to complain if we were attacked. Using that threat in a negative way (trying to say it does not exist) in an effort to obtain the government of your choice is, if anything, every bit as bad - if not worse - than the actions of those you criticise

Communicat,

The question was not whether terrorism is bad, but whether it is *so* bad. Is it *so* bad that it trumps all other considerations, such as justice, the presumption of innocence, a fair go? Is it *so* bad that a mere accusation of involvement, no matter how peripheral, should be sufficient to lock a person away in solitary confinement until their trial which might be two years later. Is it *so* bad that we should give the executive government powers that can be abused for political purposes?

It's even arguable (and I'm willing to argue) that excessive zeal to use these powers and have even stronger ones is going to have a negative effect on stopping terrorism. This is because anyone with possibly useful information is going to fear getting caught up in an accusation of being a terrorist. Far better to stay quiet, because any particular individual has very low risk of being hurt, much less killed, in a terrorist attack.

Sylvia.

sharkfin

You and yours may not be the target now, but these things have a habit of expanding by a process of contagion. Once it is seen to be politically acceptable to target a particular group, it is easy to add people just outside that group, thus enlarging the group, and repeat.

This is of course, a slippery slope argument, and such arguments need to be subject to scrutiny, but I think it stands up here.

We saw something similar with the European witch trials, and with McCarthyism in the US.

Sylvia.

http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller)

I disagree Sylvia. There needs to be a balance and at the moment I would say that the law and the media favours the wrong doer. It is interesting how, rather like accidents that are never the fault of those involved, terrorists are always said to be innocent and good and noone can ever understand how such nice people could be involved.
I try to think well of all people but I do wonder why we have a problem with terrorists when they are all apparently such nice, ordinary, decent people...just like Saddam and Milosevic and Hitler apparently.

As Sylvia Else says losses to date are not significant in the big picture but I feel the intent to create such suffering is inexcusable. The inclusion of nails and broken glass in these bombs and their use where people mass is enough for me. If they need to go to these lengths to push their agenda then their agenda must be ugly.

Communicate and SILLE,

I have no problem with throwing the book at terrorists. They are undoubtedly evil.

The problem relates to the treatment of people who might not be terrorists. The Government would have us believe that anyone who is accused of being a terrorist really is a terrorist, and should therefore be treated as a terrorist from the day of the accusation (or indeed, from the day of the start of the suspicion).

This is not to say that a suspected terrorist should be treated like anyone else until they are actually convicted, but how much threat can a person be once they're on notice that they're being watched? It's really rather far-fetched to suggest that someone like Dr Haneef, even if he really did have a malign intent against the Australian people, would be able to conduct a terrorist attack in between reporting to the police station each day, and despite being no doubt under surveillance.

We can afford to cut such people some slack, in order to minimise the traumatic effect that false accusations have.

Sylvia.

Sylvia they have not pulled the really big sting off yet.I can think of many ways that they could cripple Sydney with just a small amount of explosives and that does not include the nuclear factor.In fact I'm amazed that it has not happened in Europe or the US already.

The facist side of Islam has been around for centuries and they can afford to play the waiting game,while our attention span is only the length of a movie.It was to be all over in a blink after "Shock and awe" but we Westerners assume too much.It is not just a war of physical violence,it is a war of words and ideas.This war will go on for decades and the way forward is for Muslim communities in Western society to more integrated and accepting of other belief systems.

Hi Sylvia,
I can understand your question and in what context it was meant to be put across as.
Terrorism is a broadly used word, which in actual fact means " lets cause havoc in a way that will confuse everybody" just the same as the reaction you got when you posted this thread! It lead to pure confusion and came across as "How the hell can she ask a silly question like that"?
Terrorism is a nasty word the world over, the way one wages terrorism nowadays is both sickening and cowardly.
Ok,we have bombs going off in crowded places, arsonists doing their bit, but the one type of terrorist that crawls up my nose, is the one that prefers to use chemical warfare. You don't see it, don't smell it and definately do not hear it, you break out in ulcers, blisters, your lungs are on-fire and the next thing, you convulse and die, not a damn thing anyone can do about it, it's sick and so are the people who devise such decadent methods

The Australian Government’s efforts to deal with the prospects of terrorism amount to an extremely difficult balancing act. It is evolving all the time. I don’t think we should be too critical of efforts to date.

We can only judge so much on the effectiveness of these measures from the high-profile Haneef case, with its unique set of circumstances, which has tested new laws for the first time.

I don’t like Ruddock’s suggestion that suspects should not even be able to apply for bail. But I also don’t think that we should read too much into it. Many people over-extrapolate any mooted hardening of policy.

I disagree that this could lead to a situation where “all the Government would need to do to take someone out of circulation for months would be to accuse them” (Sylvia) or “The powers that Ruddock is seeking are so broad that they could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by” (Daggett).

We could look at practically every law in the country and envisage a progressive hardening of policy as ending up in unfair situations that impinge on basic human rights. But it doesn’t happen…or extremely rarely.

We should all have a little bit more faith in our government and in the checks and balances provided by the courts, all sorts of social commentators and general public.

60,000 Americans kill each other with a gun annually, less than this number are killed by "terrorists".
American air power in Iraq and Afganastan is killing large numbers of innocent people, they do night raids which are not reported in the Australian media.
"Terrorism" is a Western political word, which is a weasel word, so effective as a one word, short byte propaganda instrument, just as "WMD".
Terror happens on our roads daily resulting in death and injury.
The Australian language is changing all of the time, and the inclusion of American business and political language has been installed as part of normal Australian language, over generations. Our media and ambitious politicians have successfully used a weasel word, "terrorism" to create fear in an unsuspecting electorate.
The biggest threat of terror to the world as we know it, is a Bush America, with it,s arsenal of nuclear weapons. Bush has already threatened to use these WMD against one of their enemies.
The greatest terror in history was America's atomic bomb attack on Japan, lest we forget.

Read the letters to the editor recently? I am not sure what we are all worrying about. A lot of good citizens out there keep telling us that Dr Haneef is innocent and terrorism is not a threat to Australia. Gee, all we have to do is leave Iraq and they will leave us alone. Human rights (of terrorists and those who associate with terrrorists) are everything...provided of course the terrorists are not the Australian government or anyone associated with them. They are the bad guys who can never do anything right.
Gee, why aren't these people in government? Gee, if they know so much about it all why don't they tell the government?
It is easy to write letters and criticise but where's the evidence?
Ever talked to an officer who does border control in the north and asked him about the people who try to come here? He stood there one day and took a mouthful of abuse from a government detractor and then just said quietly, "Have you seen what I have seen and heard what I have heard first hand?"

You are right Communicat, there are just too mny people who are
unbalanced in their critisism of government.
There are plenty of real opertunities to critisise government without
making up conspirosy theories.

I am afraid that on here there are just too many writers who rave on
and who should really take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

If the government really goes too far in writing legislation or in the
application of legislation it will be corrected by a later government.
The parties have never been reluctant to show up their oponents.

You have a choice, democracy or theorocracy.
The risk is someone elses theorocracy.

Apologies for my melodramatic post which quoted Niemoller earlier. It was all very true, and Niemoller was an exemplary and courageous individual, but, perhaps it was somewhat tangential to the topic at hand.

---

It seems to me that the apologists for the government's treatment of Mohamed Haneef are not paying any regard to facts and logic put forward by Sylvia, myself and others. As an example, I gave a number of clear incontrovertible examples of reprehensible, dishonest and anti-democratic behaviour of the Howard Government, and yet Ludwig wrote (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14327):

"We should all have a little bit more faith in our government ..."

Ludwig continued:

"... and in the checks and balances provided by the courts, all sorts of social commentators and general public."

If these 'checks and balances' exist, then how is it that the Howard Government was able to get away with implementing laws which have changed the very fabric of our society, namely 'Work Choices' which were opposed by the majority of the population and are still opposed by the majority of the population? Why is it that they were able to rush through the Telstra Privatisation legislation using the votes of Senators who had explicitly promised their electorate to oppose the legislation when opinion polls showed that 70% of the Australian public opposed privatisation?

Ludwig tries to imply that the Government can be trusted not to violate our human rights, yet hundreds of thousands of workers have effectively no rights thanks to his removal of protections against unfair dismissal. If you don't have that right the all other nominal rights, such as the right to insist on a safe workplace are meaningless. Unionists are regularly hauled before the courts and threatened with fines of tens of thousands of dollars simply for holding stop-work meetings. This was once considered a basic human right as enshrined by the International Labor Organisation conventions.

---

I notice Communicat tried to conflate this issue an unrelated issue, namely 'border control' with this (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14332). ...(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... In fact, to go 'off topic' as well as to become politically incorrect, the Howard Government has, itself, in fact, become the greatest threat to 'border control'. Has anyone noticed that immigration levels have shot up from well under 100,000 to an unofficial, yet nevertheless real and stratospheric 300,000 per annum? (See Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald at http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html)

This is in spite of it being widely acknowledged that one reason Howard was elected was precisely because the public were sick of Labor's high immigration policies. Howard has done this to please land speculators, property developers and others who profit from the destruction of our environment and loss of quality of life.

Howard's secret ramping up of immigration levels, in spite of all of the humbug over the Tampa crisis, is another reason why this Government can't be trusted any further than it can be kicked and certainly cannot be entrusted with police state powers.

Buzz wrote (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14333):

"If the government really goes too far in writing legislation or in the application of legislation it will be corrected by a later government. The parties have never been reluctant to show up their opponents."

In fact, this is not true. Over recent decades the Labor Party has been notoriously timid in its resolve to repeal retrogressive legislation of previous Liberal administrations. Remember Beazley being "so opposed to the GST that he was prepared to implement it upon wining Government"? Remember the Hawke Labor Government's refusal to repeal Section 45D of the Trade practices Act implement by Howard. Because of this legislation, tugboat operators could have been prosecuted if the had refused to work with the the mercenary strikebreakers during the 1998 waterfront dispute.

I would therefore suggest that one would be extremely foolish to simple pin one's hopes on a future Labor Government repealing these police-state laws (and still I do hope that, in spite of this, Howard is booted out as he richly deserves to be later this year).

(Thanks chainsmoker and Glendabeth for your supportive comments. I hope we're still friends.)

Daggett, we share a high level of disgust over Howard’s high immigration policies and various other policies of his government. Yes this government deserves condemnation on some things. But that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to condemn them or think the absolute worst over any little step that they might make that we disagree with.

As I said last time; “The Australian Government’s efforts to deal with the prospects of terrorism amount to an extremely difficult balancing act”.

So let’s be very careful about seeing it in a balanced manner and not just automatically thinking the worst.

Where would we be if we completely mistrusted our government? Do you really think so poorly of them as to think that they could be pursuing a policy direction that “could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by”. Don’t you think this is taking it just a bit too far?

Hi Sylvia,

Terrorism is bad and we should all be alert.

Whats worse, in my view, is to live day and night thinking of it and fearing it. There are those who exploited it to create an industry of fear.

I was on a business trip in the US watching FoxNews when I noticed something interesting: in the bottom of the TV screen next to the weather pannel, there was a new pannel labelled 'terror alert'. So an average american is supposed to look out for weather forecast and also see if the terro is 'high, low, or medium'! Who knows, maybe soon there will be a 'terror' tab on mobile phones pocket news and pay $$ to download or per sms.

Peace,

The problem with government powers is not so much that the Government sets out to abuse them, but that abuse happens without intent.

If you're convinced, even on totally irrational grounds, that a person is some sort of threat, and you have the power to do something that will mitigate the threat, then there's a clear incentive to use that power. It can be done with the best will in the world, but still be an abuse of the power, and the subject of the use can find themselves in a very unpleasant situation through no fault of their own.

Where there is a proper judicial review of the use of powers, the probability of abuse is lowered because the facts get examined by someone who has no prior investment in a particular decision being right.

What happens when a government is convinced that the opposition will do serious harm to the country if they get into office? Such a government may start to feel justified in using any powers they have to limit the opposition's electoral chances.

So even if we trust the government not to set out to oppress us, we still risk being subject to their poor judgement if we give them powers that are not subject to review.

The Government seems to have invested so much in the idea that terrorism is bad that it cannot recognise the possibility that people suspected of terrorism might be innocent, and that the risks associated with terrorism suspects can be managed without treating suspects as if they're guilty from day one.

If the Government gets its way, Dr Haneef will spend more time in gaol on remand that he's likely to get by way of punishment even if he's found guilty. Whatever the legal niceties, he's being punished for being suspected of being a terrorist. That's already an abuse of power, so we don't have to speculate on whether the government would abuse its powers.

Sharkfin - in a somewhat cavalier manner you say "When these acts of terrorism stop then these laws will be scraped. There will simply be no need for them. Western democracies will never tolerate these laws once the threat of terrorism is over."

What complete and utter garbage. Terrorism has always existed - what is terrorism aside from action against civilians/government for political purposes?
How then, can this threat ever "be over?"
It can't. There is no possible way, the threat of terrorism can ever be removed.
The problem with your argument, is that it justifies a constant tightening of civil liberties.
At what point has it gone too far? Are you seriously suggesting that the government will always use these provisions responsibly? At what point do you say enough is enough?

Charlee - you haven't paid attention to the disclaimers in the opening post. Nobody is trying to say the deaths weren't horrific or trying to minimise the nastiness.
But as it stands, you can't express doubt as to the threat of terrorism to society without the discussion being hijacked with emotive expressions such as the one you just put forth.

Communicat: "It is easy to write letters and criticise but where's the evidence?"

That's what people are asking about Haneef, but it's in the opposite direction to the manner you have suggested.
Magistrate Jacqui Payne's decision was made on hearing both sides (defence and prosecution). The government's decision to ignore our judicial system (and remember, the core element of all western civilisation is the concept that government figures can't interfere in the judicial process) was based solely on arguments from the prosecution.

Haneef is being jailed because he gave someone a sim card.

Bazz - democracy works because, theoretically, the public voices their opinions and their representatives hear their wishes. By this logic, people should express their views more, not less.

Daggett, yes we are still friends. You are able to converse what I feel and much better than I am able.

Ludwig, this current governments lies are not just concerning this matter. It seems before each election Mr Howard is able to somehow bring about fear to the people of this country.. eg the children thrown overboard, the reasons for invading Iraq ie WMDs, many other leis, and now this. How long does he expect us to be so gullible to continue to believe all if nay that he says. I see a real pattern and my hope is that we continue to see this pattern until we are rid of this despot!!

Glendabeth

I would like to know a little more about Haneef and his cousins. Who is paying his legal bills during his confinement? I thought he was leaving Australia on a one-way ticket to India while owing rent and other bad debts. He may not be a terrorist but it is obvious where his sympathies would lay. Did he use his cousin’s name while applying for work or did his cousins use his without his permission?

I want to see Howard turfed out but not because I think he has lied, at any time.

I’d be very careful about labelling anything Howard has said to do with children overboard or the Iraq War as lies.

What are the lies regarding the subject of this thread Glendabeth?

SILLE

You obviously have not read the transcript of his interview with police.

What debts? Where did you read this fiction. If you read the transcript he was payibg off a debt he had in England.

There is a saying; "If a pollies lips are moving they are lying" but
in reality it is not as bad as that.

There are are a number of accepted lies in the community.

It was not Labour that withdrew the troops from Vietman but the then
Liberal PM Billy McMahon.

The GG sacked Whitlam because the Gov was arranging illegal loans.
It is forgotten by those who want to forget that the people elected
in a landslide a Liberal government one month later.

The illegals did not throw their children into the water.
They scuttled the boat under them. Some parents then threw their
children into the water so they would not go down with the boat.
However, the result was the same. At least some of the parents must
have been aware the boat was being scuttled.

So if Howard had said "They scuttled the boat under the children"
He would have been telling the truth.

What dodgy definition of terrorism are the relying on anyhow, it will be something dreamed up on their behalf so that they can protect themselves for the rest of us who have had a gut full of the offensive vile conduct of the ruling elite who honestly believe that they were born to rule.
As for Howard, Ruddock, they were made personally aware of the unlawful use of tax file numbers for the specific purposes of identification by a certain Govt agency (not police or security), both claimed they would look into it but to date the offences continue causing the suicide of hundreds of non-custodial parents and theft of $millions of personal property. Regardless of their positions of status and their alleged power they should be charged and put before properly constituted courts, not the Supreme TRIBUNALS in persona designata jurisdiction but who would know what I am talking about anyway.
Their spies in Australian News Paper are fully aware of this term as they removed these words from my post on their site.
It appears that they do not want the truth out about our fictitious legal system that was used to jail the so called terrorist Doctor.
There are plenty of offences defined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 that cover the conduct of these criminals that purport to govern and protect us. This is a typical example of the blatant dishonesty of all of the police, state and federal, and politicians involved in this scam. I hope this doctor sues for millions and it should come out of the pockets of the people involved in pursuing this garbage. I hope the doctor's legal representatives now go up to the Qld Supreme Court, not the Supreme TRIBUNAL persona designata jurisdiction, and have the bail and charges revoked completely. False and misleading affidavits - they do this every day of the week but it only come to light when its a high-profile case. The locals have to suffer this level of fraud every day of the week but the media will not publish anything about it.

Peace,

Maybe we'll see premium rate SMS numbers that you can use to vote the terror level up, or down.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
This is the most inane question I have yet seen on OLO. I might as well say ‘is RAPE so bad’. I mean it mostly only does mental damage. I bet if there were a serial rapist on the loose you would be demanding every policeman this side of the equator take action.( By the way I think rape is a vicious crime that deserves serious punishment)

You said”But dead is dead. It doesn't matter whether you die as part of a group, or on your own. Your surviving relatives will still grieve”

So what you are saying is intent is irrelevant? Someone who rapes and murders a child is no more or less culpable than some idiot teen that, whilst driving carelessly, kills a pedestrian? What about a doctor who, through aggressive treatment loses his patient?

You said “Is it really worth compromising our liberty for the sake of reducing the already very low incidence of terrorism even further?”

How many peoples liberty has suffered under the new terrorist laws? I mean, if a measure of something’s importance is based upon how many people have been affected, then the terror laws are totally inconsequential. The number of people inconvenienced can probably be counted on one hand. Yet you are making a very big issue out of it.

What you demonstrate is that a group or acts importance should be assessed on the potential for damage and not by how few are affected. I think you’ll find the same logic is behind anti terror laws. Whilst thus far we have been spared the brunt of the terrorist’s atrocities, the problem is that their potential to do damage is huge. These people have shown that they want to kill as many people as they possibly can. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these people might release biological warfare agents, or detonate a dirty bomb. I think that would constitute a bad day for many

Paul.L said

"This is the most inane question I have yet seen on OLO."

Fine, given that that's how you've chosen to start your argument, I won't bother to read the rest. Try playing the ball in future.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else
What I said actually WAS 'playing the ball'. If I was 'playing the man' I would have said that the Author was 'stupid, insensitive or naive'. I pointedly didn't do that. I try not to throw personal insults at anyone all though I seem to get them all the time.

Instead, I ridiculed your question and your argument because I don't believe it was very well thought through. Your basic premise is that few people are injured/killed by terrorism therefore why make special laws. My point is that if you follow this through logically then your complaint about the laws themselves is irrelevant, since few people are affected by them. The position is even more irrelevant, since the damage to the ‘victims’ of these laws is minor when compared to the victims of terror.

What both issues are really about is potential. Potential for the laws to be applied to those they shouldn't. And on the other hand, the potential of the terrorists to bring about murder and mayhem, maybe on a scale we have not yet seen. It is a difficult situation to balance and it is not helped by those who regularly predict the coming of a police state.

During the spate of IRA bombings etc in the 70’s and 80’s the British introduced internment, judge only trials, and CCTV for every street corner. The British managed to avoid becoming a fascist state. They very successfully resisted the urge to lock up anyone who disagreed with them. I don’t believe for a second we will ever become a police state either. Now I don’t advocate anything as draconian as the British experiment but it does puts the current spate of doomsayers into perspective

Oh Dear oh Dear; I wonder what Young Dan has been smoking ?

I am afraid a Bex and a nice lie down will be insufficient to calm him down.
Do these people really believe all that stuff ?
I think there is a medical term for it, something more than paranoid.

Paul.L

Ridiculing a question or argument IS an ad-hominem attack, because it's intended to reflect on the person asking the question or presenting the argument. It serves no valid debating purpose.

Sylvia.

SylviaElse
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I did assume that those who put their opinions in public would have thicker skins. I am sorry that you can’t see the difference between a direct personal attack and an attack on one of your ideas. Anyway, it’s now looking to me like you just don't want to debate my ideas. Is that because you have a sneaking feeling that some of them actually make sense?

Paul.L

You have not hurt my feelings, but I find approaches such as yours very annoying. It skews the debate when you seek to ridicule an argument, because it amounts to ridiculing the person who presented the argument. You should be able to present a contrary view without resorting to such tactics.

Such approaches have caused mistrials. See

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2006/334.html

for an example where a court of appeal set aside a conviction and ordered a retrial because of comments made by the prosecutor.

It comes as no surprise that you should characterise my reaction as an attempt to avoid debate. Indeed, I was rather expecting you to do that - it fits a pattern.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste any more of my posting quota on you

Still friends Daggett.

That this thread turned from a non partisan discussion of the real risk of terrorism into a partisan debate should tell us something. We've never had a rational public discussion about terrorism or what it means for Australia because there's such a heavy political investment in the issue.

Witness what's happening with Haneef right now - Liberals on the one hand having to defend their prosecution of the case, which gives Beattie the opportunity to be the brave Labor face insisting on transparency and justice.

Sure it's an election year and everybody's out to get whatever mileage they can out of anything - a cat stuck up a tree can become a hot political topic at the moment. But terrorism should never have become the partisan issue that it has. Who do you trust to protect you from terrorists? is a stupid question and should never have been asked or infered.

If it had never been used as a political plaything we could have made some reasonable plans to deal with it. Instead we have the supporters of one side living in irrational fear and supporters of the other side zoomed in on civil liberties. In all likelihood it's the disinterested folk in the middle who are closest to the truth, but rationality isn't a sexy vote winning thing.

Bazz, I did'nt realise that bex still existed, what do you mix with it to calm down ?
After you get back up after your downer you should take time to read the alleged copies of the affidavit and transcript published by the Courier Mail. http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/07/070721_haneef/haneef.pdf http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/07/070721_haneef/affidavit.pdf
You will not realise that the Affidavit was not even used or read on to the record of the so called court of record.
None of the documents are SEALED with the SEAL OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT.
The Transcript is toilet paper, not certified as a true and correct copy of the original transcript or even certified as true and correct as required in accordance with the Recording of Evidence Act or Regulations.
The Affidavit identifies the individual Federal Police Officer as the Complainant, the alleged transcript indicates the CROWN is the complainant, who ever that is. Ramzi Jabbour v Mohamed HANEEF
The Application was not read onto the record of the court, nor was the Affidavit.
The affidavit contained material facts that were false, its alleged to have been sworn on oath.
The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the Qld Supreme Court require the Afidavit to be in the first person.
This was not the Queensland Magistrate's Court, a court of record implementing the rule of law, it was the individuals private Court, a person appointed as a Magistrate, Payne J, hearing the matter in dispute in a kangeroo court with the consent of both the parties and sitting in PERSONA DESIGNATAE JURISDICTION, because nobody objected.
Decisions from this fraudulent private court sitting in personae designata jurisdiction can not be appealed.
The hearing to disqualify Tony Morris SC as Royal Commissioner were conducted the same way and our Republican President Beattie stated publicly that the decision of the alleged Supreme Court could not be appealed. This is QUEENSLAND INC Pty Ltd Law, the Qld Legal System conducting legal proceedings, not the judicial system that should exist under the Australian Constitution.
If you do not comprehend any of this, its is no surprise.
Read Kable v The DPP NSW High Court of Australia.

SylviElse, You know what else fits a pattern. Your continuing refusal to discuss my counterpoints. Now I know you don't have any answers.

SilviElse,
I don't want to burst your bubble here, bow out with this thread, you are obviously not in the know about certain issues discussed in this thread, especially since your recent reply to Paul, it was unnecesary and clearly the guy was asking a simple innocent question.

SilviElse,
I don't want to burst your bubble here,but take some friendly advice and bow out with this thread, you are obviously not in the know about certain issues discussed here, especially since your recent reply to Paul, it was unnecesary and clearly the guy was asking a simple innocent question.

Arjay wrote: "I can think of many ways that they could cripple Sydney with just a small amount of explosives and that does not include the nuclear factor." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14316)

It is hardly news that our cities have become extremely vulnerable, even without the risk of terrorist attack. Environmentalists have been warning about this for decades.

Consider the fact that all of Australia's capital cities are literally running out of water. The 'solutions' offered are desalination, water-recycling, mining of underground aquifers, building of large water pipes to transport water into capital cities from hundreds of kilometers away, community-destroying dams such as the projected Traveston dam (http://www.savethemaryriver.com) etc. As we come to rely on ever more complex technologies, for the provision of basic necessities like water, food and power, and basic services such as transport and health, our society's vulnerability increases.

For food, city-dwellers have become dependent upon complex transport and distribution networks which are dependent upon petroleum, a resource which is finite and the global demand for which is soon expected to exceed the rate of extraction. When this happens, we can expect the cost of our food to rise inexorably (as appears to beginning to happen now) that, is, if our food distribution network does not collapse outright. Does anyone living at the top of a high-rise think about how they they will grow food once the supermarket shelves become bare, and what they will eat - rats, cockroaches, possums whilst waiting for their first crop to grow on some patch of ground not covered over by concrete? I do, constantly.

Rather than give extra power to those who created this mess, I think we need to start to try to fix up our cities so that they are not so vulnerable whether from economic collapse, resource shortage or terrorist attack. A good start would be to 'ruralise' urban areas in order that as much food as possible can be grown on whatever land is still available (see David Holmgren "Retrofitting the suburbs for sustainability" at http://www.energybulletin.net/5104.html)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Ludwig wrote: "I'd be very careful about labelling anything Howard has said to do with children overboard or the Iraq War as lies." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14360)

If Howard did not too lie in regard to the alleged Iraqi WMDs and teh AWB scandal then he would have to be too stupid to be Prime Minister.

You have clearly not familiarised yourself with the facts of the "Children Overboard" scandal of 2001. Prime Minister John Howard lied over the instance as a senior Public servant Michael Scrafton revealed in 2004. Even Murdoch's slavishly pro-Howard newspaper The Australian labelled Howard a liar in an editorial in 2004 (I believe in order to re-establish some degree of credibility so that it could push its pro-Howard propaganda more effectively in the last days of the 2004 election campaign). In writing this I am well aware that the moral case in favour of the asylumn-seekeers and would-be immigrants is not altogether straightforward, particularly, when some on board clearly deliberately scuttled the ship. Nevertheless, John Howard clearly knowingly lied to the Australian public in regard to one aspect of that incident in order to get his odious Government re-elected in 2001.

And, of course having been re-elected, instead of strengthening Australia's border protection, Howard has done his utmost to destroy it, by allowing Australia's real annual immigration rate to climb to 300,000 as I have pointed out above (see againhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html).

Ludwig, glad you share my disgust with Howard over this, but you have still not explained why you believe that we should "have a little bit more faith" in a Government led by a man capable of such cynical deceit and of all the other reprehensible acts, only some of which I have mentioned above.

---

One other effective means to prevent terrorism is not to give potential terrorist any grievances in the first place. Iraqi oil workers recently struck to oppose new laws which the United States is pressuring the Iraqi Parliament into passing. They succeeded in blocking further progress of the legislsation until at least October. ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... According to a union leader Faleh Abood Umara "... the law, ... allows the international oil companies, especially the American ones, to exploit the oil fields without our knowledge of what they are actually doing with it. And they take about 50% of the production as their share, which we think it's an obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil." (see http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/56301/).

As Howard Government ministers have recently admitted, contrary to the lies they fed us at the time, Australia participated in the invasion of Iraq because of oil and thereby is an accomplice in the U.S. Government's current attempted theft of Iraqi oil that the Iraqi oil workers and opposition politicians are trying to prevent.

Given this, our best chance of preventing future terrorist attacks on Australian soil would be for the Australian public to repudiate the Howard Government's participation in the invasion of Iraq by booting him out at the next election and for the new Rudd Government to make known its support for the Iraqi people's right to control their own oil wealth.

--

Chainsmoker and GlendaBeth: I am glad to her that we are still friends, but are you quite sure that you have read all of my posts carefully?

I have argued against high immigration (admittedly slightly tangential to the topic under discussion) which his considered by many 'progressives' to be politically incorrect. Very often taking this stance as resulted in people being unfairly labelled racist. For my part, I consider the right to control the numbers of people allowed into this country to be a fundamental democratic right, just as much as it was for Palestinian Arabs in the 1930's or Australian Aboriginals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This fundamental right would be denied to Australians by many left-liberal types because we are held by them to be privileged in comparison to people of other countries. Under this pretext, many ordinary Australians stand to be reduced to third world levels of poverty as housing prices rocket and our environment is destroyed as a consequence of the demands of too many people.

I concur with Sylvia Else. Paul L's posts are nonsense and don't pay any regard to many facts in posts by Sylvia, TurnRightThenLeft, chainsmoker, myself and others.

Perhaps a techincically correct title to Sylvia'as original post might have been "Is Terrorism so bad, relatively speaking" but I think the chosen tile was adequate for the purpose.

In reality the exaggeration of the danger of terrorism, which, in any case, was, to the extent that it is real, was largely brought about by Howard himself, as explained above, is being used to divert our attention from the fact that this Government, has by its policies and negligence has exposed, and continues to expose, all of us to vastly greater perils, namely global warming, resource deplation and environmental degradation and overpopulation.

As I pointed out above, even the Pentagon considers the threat of global warming to be afar greater risk.

Why won't you respond to that, Paul.L?

George Orwell said that in 1984 the masses will be occupied with playing the lotteries ann obeying our telescreens.
Never believe with conviction that about which you cannot be certain.
Guys, Please!

“…but you have still not explained why you believe that we should "have a little bit more faith" in a Government led by a man capable of such cynical deceit and of all the other reprehensible acts...”

Daggett, it is simply a matter of being very careful about seeing each step or proposal in a balanced manner and not just automatically thinking the worst.

Too many people are far too strongly polarised. They encounter something that they disagree with and forever after think the absolute worst of the person or organisation they deem responsible.

I can see a whole spectrum of things from very good to very bad implemented by Howard. The worst is his grossly over-the-top promotion of immigration. But I don’t let this cloud my judgement on other aspects of his governance.

I see the Children Overboard affair as a muddle of unintentional misinformation and a willingness for a large section of the community to grab hold of anything they could against the Howard government and beat it right up. Howard made the statement that children had been thrown overboard based on intelligence he was given at the time. He should have corrected himself when it became clear that it wasn’t the case. He didn’t act properly. But I’m not willing to label his actions a lie. I do think that it was beaten up and turned into deliberate distraction.

The bottom line was that these illegal arrivals needed to be stopped, for the good of all involved. Most of the people condemning Howard were of the view that asylum seekers should be allowed to enter Australia via this illegal channel, which would as a matter of course have encouraged thousands others to make the journey and thus put them in peril on the open seas in the hands of people-smugglers.

The overall actions taken regarding the Tampa and the SIEV 4 were the right actions at the time. And that’s what should have counted far above all else.

Ludwig

The problem is that there have been too many cases of "flawed" intelligence, I didn't know, I wasn't told, for my liking.

No John Howard is not a liar, but he often cherry picks the truth.

I think it is called ministerial responsibility, what we now have is plausable denial.

Remember "Honest John" was not originally meant as a compliment.

When you read the paranoid posts that appear here it is no wonder that
the government has been re elected each time when the opposition is
so obviously unbalanced.

This thread has become ridiculous.

Fair enough ruawake.

Thanks for that Bazz.

No need for anyone to be bothered reading all those other paranoid posts now, is there?

Sylvia Else;

Massively interesting take on it all. You're right, of course. I reckon there's only two reasons that these laws are created for the lack of incidents. 1. It all fits political agenda's. I believe the government/intelligence were/are concerned with the lack of availability to what they need to 'do their job'. 2. Terrorism is winning. They have succeeded in taking away many of our civil liberties that should be guaranteed in our society. Where does it end?...

I just thought of another option. The government are REKNOWNED for reaction, as opposed to proaction. That habit of the government is being played by all sides. Actions to prevent something is taken after the incident everytime. They are always behind the game.

Thanks for voicing logic.

Hey Dagget. Can we get back to the real issues instead of avoiding it as you guys have so far managed to do. Let me do you the courtesy of responding to your argument first. We’ll see if you have the courage to reciprocate.

I would like to see who, where and when the Pentagon said that terrorism is not as great a risk as Global Warming. IF someone, among the thousands of pentagon staff, suggested that Global Warming was more important than terrorism it is my bet that this is the only time you will ever use the Pentagon to back up your argument. I think that you are cherry picking. I don’t believe for a second that the Pentagon is more worried about Global Warming, and it’s not what they are paid for.

I do think more resources should be put towards managing the risks that global warming entails.

Again, if terrorism is to be judged upon the numbers of people affected, which is what you and Sylvia Else are suggesting, then the issue of anti terror legislation is also irrelevant since far fewer people have been affected by it. And the scope of their suffering pales into insignificance when put beside the victims of terror.

The importance of both issues is their potential to affect very large numbers of people. You are worried about the potential of these laws to curtail the rights of individuals. I say to you that there is a more important right that also has to be addressed, that is to go about your business without being killed dead.

As for the danger of Terrorism, I really don’t think it is for you to decide what level of risk is represented by terrorists. I recommend to you, that you talk to the victims of the Bali bombings to see whether the danger is real or not. I am sure you would have said it was ridiculous to suggest that terrorist were infiltrating pilot training schools in order to highjack planes and fly them into the WTC, Pentagon etc.

Daggett, I generally lean leftish but that doesn't mean I support high immigration.

The resources and sustainability arguments you make are familiar, but my argument is social.

Personally I don't have a problem with migrants and find cosmopolitan far more interesting than the monocultural suburbs of my youth, but many people are clearly unhappy it. When immigration was kept at a reasonable level people had time to get used to the new faces and the new faces had time to settle in before the next batch arrived. Now it's relentless and a lot of people are afraid of being overrun. That can't be good for social cohesion.

It's doubly irresponsible for a government to set immigration rates so high, then use the dog whistle as a political strategy. Combine that with the withdrawal of various social services for migrants and infrastructure neglect and we have a mess on our hands.

Haneef strikes me as one more example of what happens when people with foreign faces are used for political purposes.

SYLVIA -“You and Yours may not be a target now, but these things have a habit of expanding by the process of contagion”

This is very true, but to me it’s a choice of the lesser threat , (a choice between two evils so to speak..

Terrorism has as its ultimate goal, the overthrow of western society . I/ll take draconian laws under a western government over that any day.

At present road accidents etc. may kill more people but terrorism is ethnic cleansing in smaller numbers. Taken to its ultimate goal it could result in the killing of millions, namely people not of the same ethnic origin as the terrorists.

Road accidents don’t have an agenda to ethnic cleanse.

sharkfin,

But terrorists do not have the resources to overthrow Western Society, and they never will have. The worst they can to is make life a bit more dangerous than it already is.

The only way Western Society could be overthrown is from within, as a result of people in that society changing it in response to the terrorist threat.

I doubt that the agenda of the terrorists is really that clear cut anyway. I suspect most of it is just blind hatred, with the killing of westerners seen as an end in itself.

Sylvia.

Sharkfin,

What we once considered to be 'western society' is being 'overthrown' before our very eyes by our political rulers who are now imposing their agenda of 'free' market neo-liberalism on the whole of society. Basic rights such as the right to work (and not as a casualised traffic controller breathing in poisonous car fumes in the hot sun for many long hours each day, or a telemarketer), the right to affordable shelter, health services and eduction and to to have adequate time for leisure, rest, cultural activities and self-improvement, are being taken away from us by this Government. If Howard has his way, most of us will be living in conditions akin to third world poverty as a consquence of housing hyper-inflation, destroyed wage levels and working conditions and a ruined natural environment.

---

Sylvia Else, I would have to disagree with you to a small degree. I don't doubt that there are elements within the Islamic community who would impose an Islamic theocracy on the rest of us if they could, just as Howard and his ilk are right now, by unconscionable and undemocratic means, imposing their market fundamentalist program on our society.

I simply don't think that giving Howard police state powers will succeed in stopping Islamic Fundamentalism the long run, anyway, assuming thqt that threat has any prospect of success. In the short term, those powers could just as easily be turned against unions and grass-roots political movements who would be in opposition to Howard as well as to the Islamic fundamentalist agenda.

Sylvia,

I actually came onto OLO in the first place to find people who disagreed with me. Its so much easier to just preach to the choir. You are really gutless.

Dagget

You are joking right. America is still a major part of the western world and yet they have very few of the protections you described. The west isn’t defined by its monetary and fiscal policies

Where are they legislating to take away the right to work? That’s just hyperbole. Are you suggesting that no one should have to work as a telemarketer? It would be nice if we could all be CEO’s and senior public servants but I don’t think that’s possible.

Health and Education are STATE issues, but I imagine you already knew that.

Housing prices aren’t set by the gov’t. They are high because a lot of people want to live in places where there aren’t many houses. They aren’t making any more land in central Sydney.

Free trade has the potential to bring the third world out of poverty. It gives them the ability to build a future that is not based upon aid handouts. For many years we have used trade restrictions to keep our wages high and as a result the third world has not been able to compete. As can be seen from the newly emerging middle classes in India and China, free trade can work. It also means that we have industries in this country that can now compete in a global economy without being propped up by the taxpayers.

I am not a fan of work choices legislation. I believe in unionism. John Howard was re-elected four times, I think it’s fair to say that the majority of the people agree with much of what he is trying to achieve. So it’s hardly undemocratic.

Howard will be gone at the next election, without doubt. The idea that the anti terror laws could be turned on “unions and grass-roots political movements” is ridiculous. If you actually go through the legislation you will see that they could not be applied to any group which is not suspected of a terrorist act. Any definition of terrorism that does not include the potential for lots of dead people will be laughed out of court.

Police states are very successful at putting down internal insurrections. We are SOO FAR from a police state that it makes me wonder if you even know what one would look like.

Islamic extremists measure success in the number of dead bodies they leave behind them. They won’t stop unless we make it clear to them that they won’t succeed. That we will fight them all the way. There is no negotiating with terrorists, it just encourages them.

Paul.L

(So much nonsense. I could fill a bookshelf with responses.)

Yes, there is obviously relatively 'low' unemployment at the moment, that is, until this economically unsustainable boom peters out and if we disregard the statistical fiddle such as regarding everyone who works longer than 1 hour per week as 'employed'. Nevertheless, most of the jobs on offer are low-skill, casualised with low rates of pay and little career prospect. The jobs on offer only a generation ago, which offered career advancement sometimes to people who had not even finished secondary eduction, are no longer there.

Howard and his neo-liberal ilk (including the previous 'Labor' governments of Keating and Hawke and, before them, Malcolm Fraser) have transformed a prospereous and relatively compassionate society into an economic basket case. They are only able to cover up this reality to some, such as yourself, who choose not to look too hard, because they have the good fortune of being able to sit upon an endowment of mineral wealth that rightly belongs to all future generations and not just to this one. Instead of looking after it they are recklessly digging it up and shiping it off to countries who are even more reckless and irresponsible with their environment than ourselves. As a consequence, nearly 1 million Chinese die each year breathing in their poisonous polluted atmosphere. I have written more about this here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6002#86770

... and on the same page, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6002#87297

... and here:

http://candobetter.org/node/86

I suggest you read "Planet of Slums" (http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/davis_m_planet_of_slums.shtml) if you truly believe the myth that globalising capitalism will raise poor third world people out of poverty. As of 2002 1billion people lived in shanty towns on the edge of major megopolises with absolutely no economic role to play in their societies. Many had formerly been farmers but had been driven off their land as a result of inappropriate environmentally-destructive and, ultimately, unsustainable mechanisation. It is because of the existence of so many desperately poor people in these countries that they are able to pay factory workers so little.

Daggett,
So little coherence of thought in your argument I could also fill a bookshelf.

You said “Basic rights such as the right to work .. are being taken away from us by this Government” This is called hyperbole, the gov’t has no intention of taking away the ‘right to work’. Your attempt to link Mike Davis’ Marxist theories on slums with Australian reality is ridiculous.

Reading Mike Davis is what you call ‘looking hard’ is it?

I agree there is historically low unemployment. But I’m not sure that the ABS would appreciate you calling their figures ‘a fiddle’. Also Australia is not an economic basket case.. Australia is the third-best country in which to live according to a UN report. They calculated this using the human development index which measured a nation's wellbeing by rating figures for per-capita income, educational levels, health care and life expectancy. That was published in the Age newspaper.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694487321.html

You said “most of the jobs on offer are low-skill, casualised with low rates of pay and little career prospects” That’s rubbish. Just a quick glance in any newspaper will show you how many jobs there are for skilled people out there. It’s most of them. The way in which people want to work is changing. Today a large number of people don’t want to work in the same company for 40 years, as their parents did.

China’s air quality is their business. I can guarantee you that most Chinese people are much more interested in development and growth, like the west in the 19th/20th centuries.

How do you explain the growing middle classes in China, India, Russia etc

You said “It is because of the existence of so many desperately poor people in these countries that they are able to pay factory workers so little”
What you neglect is that they have jobs, which they didn’t have before, and they are usually being paid at many times the average weekly wage of their home countries. This foreign capital, which comes into the country, is helping create middle classes in the third world

Paul.L,

I can see that you have managed to skillfully create an impression of having refuted my arguments when, in fact, you have avoided addressing any one of them.

I didn't attempt to "link to link Mike Davis' Marxist theories on slums with Australian reality". I was refuting your nonsense argument that "Free trade has the potential to bring the third world out of poverty." The evidence cited in "Planet of Slums" shows precisely the reverse. One billion human beings are now slum dwellers living on the edge of sprawling megopolises with no economic role to play in society.

Did you get that Paul.L?

One thousand million human beings are living in slums with no economic role whatsoever.

Many had previously worked sustainably with great skill farming their own land. Instead, they are now unemployed. They are unemployed because the mechanisation of agriculture, unsustainably dependant upon fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-derived fertilisers and pesticides, has driven these people from their land.

You state: "they have jobs, which they didn't have before, and they are usually being paid at many times the average weekly wage of their home countries."

That's paternalistic nonsense as I have shown above.

The figures concocted by economists, whose job it is to paint globalisation in the most favourable possible light, which 'prove' that sweat-shop workers earn 'many times' more than they could have earned as farmers usually don't place value on many commodities produced and exchanged in rural economies without the use of money. I suspect, as in Australia, the figures would also fail to take into account many of the overheads that are necessary for urban workers to survive that would not be necessary for farmers - rent, transport, fast food, work gear etc, etc.

Paul.L, if we accept that a person who works for only one hour per week is 'employed', then the ABS figures are not a fiddle, but I suspect that most would beg to differ.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Obviously there are plenty of job vacancies for skilled workers, but what possible use are they to those who don't have those skills and who don't have the opportunities to train because of John Howard's cut backs to spending on vocational training, or the fact that very few companies provide on the job training to entry level employees any more?

Paul.L I suspect a lot of Chinese want to live and want a future and that is probably more important to them than achieving first world levels of affluence. In any case, if the rampant growth of the Chinese economy threatens to destroy the planet that we all share then I consider that it is our business.

Being the third most desirable country in the world in which to live doesn't mean that the Australian economy is not a basket case. It is a basket case because it has little manufacturing capability left. Instead our economy is driven either by digging up non-renewable raw materials or by flogging Australian real estate to the rest of the world, neither of which can be sustained in the longer term. If this trend continues it is unlikely that our status as a desirable country in which to live will endure.

To other forum users:

My apologies for my part in having lead the discussion off topic.

The point where it was still somewhat 'on topic' was when I wrote that our political rulers have in fact 'overthrown' 'western society' by having dishonestly and undemocratically thrust their neo-liberal economic and social agenda down our throats in the past decades causing poverty approaching third world levels to be a reality for many ordinary Australians today. So, to justify giving police-state powers to the same extremists who have brought this about on the grounds that they are necessary to prevent our society from being overthrown by other Islamic extremists, seems disingenuous to me.

Notwithstanding the figures provided by hired-gun economists, needless poverty and economic insecurity are real and for at least a large minority of Australians today, and many of the rest who enjoy some illusion of material prosperity often overlook how hard and how long they are working for that prosperity and how expensive are many things which used to free. (I have written more on this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173)

---

The relatively small numbers against whom the 'anti-terrorist' legislation is enacted is beside the point. It is the principal and the precedent that it establishes. The FBI's abuse of powers with its CoIntelPro program in the 1960's and 1970's against decent ordinary law-abiding American citizens who wanted to stop the bloody destructive slaughter in Vietnam or fight for equality for African American citizens demonstrates how these sorts of powers can be abused.

If one examines similar police state measures employed against unionists today to prevent activities, many of which have only recently become criminalised, against international labour and human rights conventions, it is obvious that this issue is of concern to many more than just a small handful of Islamic extremists in our midst.

What are you a Luddite. Whoever developed the wheel must have put thousands of people who dragged things out of work. Should we have banned him? We can’t go back to the pre-industrialised world even if we wanted too.

Real free trade allows farmers from all over the world to compete without tariff protection. This gives the third world especially, a competitive advantage.

Please explain the massive increases in middle classes all over the third world. That is one reason why so many people are flocking to the cities. Citing a Marxist analyst to back up your arguments is not proof. Its only evidence of bias.

You state: "they have jobs, which they didn't have before, and they are usually being paid at many times the average weekly wage of their home countries." That's paternalistic nonsense as I have shown above”

You didn’t show anything above, you quoted a Marxist who has not the slightest semblance of consensus for his claims. You are saying that the industrial revolution drove these people off their farms. If you have no money to buy food, you don't leave your farm. Its not cheaper for them to buy food. Those people who leave the land are looking for more than a subsistence living. The cities, rightly or wrongly, are seen as a way to get ahead. Your glamorising of their previous lives is typical of the left. The noble savage etc.

“figures concocted by economists” OK so economists are part of a global conspiracy. Is that right.

“the figures would also fail to take into account many of the overheads that are necessary for urban workers to survive”

What you are talking about is purchasing power. The ability to afford the things you need or want. Clearly the purchasing power of many in the third world has improved. That we have emerging middle classes in third world countries that previously never had any is proof of that.

Con’t

You said “Obviously there are plenty of job vacancies for skilled workers,” This is in direct conflict with what you said above “ Nevertheless, most of the jobs on offer are low-skill, casualised with low rates of pay and little career prospect.” Which is it? When there are lots of vacancies for skilled people that are unfilled, it starts becoming economically viable for companies to train their own people. The gov’t should definitely be helping upskill people and whilst their record isn’t the best, I am sure Rudd will improve this when he gets his opportunity.

You said” I suspect a lot of Chinese want to live and want a future and that is probably more important to them than achieving first world levels of affluence. In any case, if the rampant growth of the Chinese economy threatens to destroy the planet that we all share then I consider that it is our business.”
You are making a lot of assumptions there. First I don’t think you’ll find many Chinese who believe your assertion that they can’t have life, a future and first world levels of affluence. They just don’t see it your way. Many others worldwide also don’t. As for the Chinese destroying the planet. Again that is your assumption. Climate change scientist have no firm idea what effects global warming will have. There are plenty of hysterics like Al Gore you can quote, but reputable scientists don’t agree on what the effects will be.

You said” . It is a basket case because it has little manufacturing capability left. Instead our economy is driven either by digging up non-renewable raw materials or by flogging Australian real estate to the rest of the world” That is garbage 8.4% of our GDP is production and mining. Manufacturing is11.2%,
http://www.economist.com/countries/Australia/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Structure
Its only manufacturing exports which lags resources

Hey Paul.L,

If our manufacturing sector is doing so well, why aren't there any electronics manufacturers in this country any more? ... or telecommunications equipment manufacturers? Why don't we manufacturer computers? Why are our car manufacturing plants closing down?

I worked in a water fittings manufacturing plant for a year until late 2005 when most of its work was sent to China. Then after that I worked until Christmas 2006 for a sheet metal manufacturer which was struggling to hold on to customers, because many were turning to a sweatshop Malaysian company to supply their orders.