Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Margo. I haven't really tuned into all of this. For some reason, it just doesn't seem to concern me. Are you able to persuade me WHY I should be concerned? Some Webdiarists and many others in the media have quoted that parable about "first they came for the Jews....." but I am still not even slightly convinced that it will have any impact on my life or freedoms.

BUT, it might reduce the chances of terrorism taking a hold.

From today's Daily Briefing

Debating the politics of the future

In New York this Friday, leading public intellectuals Frank Furedi, Russell Jacoby and Richard Sennett will take part in a debate entitled Reflections On The Future: Thinking Politically In The 21st Century. For those of us who can't make it, spiked.com has published an essay from each of them, and the links to all three can be found here.

In his essay, Furedi looks at the role fear has in shaping political debate and policy, arguing that the nature of fear and our relationship to it has been changed by "fear entrepreneurs". It's an interesting read against the background of the move to introduce draconian anti-terror laws.

"In one sense, the term politics of fear is a misnomer. Although promoted by parties and advocacy groups, it expresses the renunciation of politics. Unlike the politics of fear pursued by authoritarian regimes and dictatorships, today's politics of fear has no clearly focused objective other than to express claims in a language that enjoys a wider cultural resonance. The distinct feature of our time is not the cultivation of fear but the cultivation of our sense of vulnerability. While it lacks a clearly formulated objective, the cumulative impact of the politics of fear is to reinforce society's consciousness of vulnerability. And the more powerless we feel the more we are likely to find it difficult to resist the siren call of fear."

What a sad day this is that we have allowed the PM and every state Premier to produce this cock & bull rubbish that has handed away some of the freedoms that we have always cherished. As if they will make the slightest difference to anyone planning to do us harm. If the handful of perpetuators of the dreadful 9/11 events could carry out their mission in a country armed to the teeth and with its own draconian laws why does anyone think this rediculous window dressing stuff will work. The British with their superb intelligence services were never able to stop the IRA. In the end they had to negotiate. We would be far better off trying to work out why someone wants to harm us and stop the conditions that lead to this hate.

This is the first step towards a secret police and incarceration without trial. We can see what little sympathy David Hicks gets and the number of people who confidently talk about his alledged 'crimes' when nothing has been publicly presented even though he is now in his fourth year of detention. Or how soon the Scott Parkin episode disappeared off the radar. Total secerecy and for what reason? We are treated like children now by politicians who by receiving a few thousand votes assume that we who put them there must be kept in the dark about unknown threats that haven't yet happened. Given the state of our own security services and how they got the WMD facts completely wrong and how they were simply allowed to carry on as before, how can we possibly expect them to come up with credible information.

I'm as concerned about security for this country as anyone but I'm more concerned now about a government that intends to bring in powers where people can vanish for months and have no recourse, lawyers can be shackled and the police have unfettered power.

Illustrates the first-names (Michelle, Karen) cosiness between our guardians of democracy, and the law-makers, for one thing.

Despite the reassuring murmurs about judicial oversight and review, I maintain it is still highly likely the first person grabbed under the new stop-search-question laws will be some poor muggins. Probably someone off his meds, without ID or e-tag, sitting in the airport lounge cradling a knapsack full of old newspapers, muttering and playing with a cigarette lighter. If he takes flight, the automated responders will take over, and he will be dodging bullets. If he makes it into the sanctuary of 14 days of detention, and manages to convince the goons he is not play-acting, it may turn out he is a person of value to someone who can make a fuss. Bring it on, and send the bill to the over-awed Premiers. 800 jihadists waiting to blow us up! Crikey, it must be true.

The best part of the new funding agreement is the provision for new CBR detection. This seems to be an admission that, while our colleagues in the North, eg Moscow have been investing billions on fixed and mobile detection systems, we have spent, well, bugger-all. Maybe they will come up with a horde of sniffer robots, to locate a few million tonnes of Incitec's superceded raw materials that are scattered over the wide brown.

Sitting on their hands for the ten years of this regime, since the '95 sarin attacks and the '95 Oklahoma bombing, and now in panic mode. But not about home-grown extremists, oh no! Pick on people who are easy to identify, that makes sense and keeps the shockjocks at bay.

"I cannot guarantee ..." blah blah.

Phil Uebergang, if you are sincere in desiring to get some traction for your opposition to these proposed laws, how the hell do you think you are going to achieve that if your post is the best you have got?

When people, such as myself, ask you and your fellow-travelers why we should oppose these laws, are you always going to just hurl a flip "Nazi sympathiser" snide remark at them?

The people of enormous concern in this country currently work in Parliament House. The sooner they lose their jobs, stop imposing on us a social order reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, the better.

Well Noelene, I guess that's the opinion the good citizens of the Third Reich were also wheeling out as they watched freedom disintegrate for certain troublesome groups in their society.

My greatest fear for Australia's security is the flatulent bottom of the bloke working across from me.

Frankly I'm a lot more worried about having a car accident on our poorly maintained roads than I am about whatever this latest waste of government money and policy is supposed to be about.

Good stuff, Wayne Sanderson. I need to know so that I can explain to my grandchildren, when they arrrive, how we lost our civil and political rights. And why I am so strange in my insistence in speaking out 'truths' at inopportune times. No doubt it will be put down to senility, which on reflection puts a different cast on the whole growing old thing and madness.

The rationale behind these laws looks to me like this. The terrorists despise our freedom & democratic society, so by taking away our freedoms & democracy, will reduce the terroists desire to want to carry out acts of terrorism against Australians.

As for people not thinking these laws won't affect them, look at the parts relating to sedition. When you want to protest about government legislation - IR reform, welfare etc - that could very well be interpreted as inciting action against the gov't of the day, therefore the leaders of community action groups will start dissapearing & nobody will be allowed to comment on it.

Of course if you are a blue blood Liberal you have nothing to worry about.....YET!!!! Govt's change eventually.....hopefully. Do you think Labor would repeal these laws if they prove to be useful for silencing dissent. Maybe I'm being cynical. Time will tell, but by then it will be too late.

Noelene given your opinion of me I don't expect to be able to persuade you, but here goes anyway...

Yesterday I witnessed two shameful acts. The first is an example of what happens when cowards are encouraged in their hatred of cultural diversity by the second - a political act of cowardice.

I was waiting for a tram at the Fed Square superstop yesterday afternoon and watched a tram driver close the doors and deny entry to a woman pushing her child in a stroller and struggling to shepherd her son (3 or 4 years old) onto the tram. I was watching the driver's face at the time because he looked like an Army WO2 I knew. (It wasn't the WO2 I knew). The tram driver was looking at this woman and her children in his mirror and smiling to himself. After closing the doors he rolled the tram forward about 5 metres and then sat the tram there, still at the superstop, for several minutes. He watched the woman gather up her son, wrangle with the stroller and approach the doors again. He was watching and refusing to open the doors whilst this mother stood at the door.

There was no apparent reason for refusing this family entry to that tram, except perhaps that they were Muslim. They had darker skin. The lady wore a headscarf. My assessment of the situation was that I was witnessing cowardly racism, so I approached the doors of this tram to test my assumption. Magically the doors opened for me. I have white skin. I wore a business shirt and trousers. The tram driver treated this woman and me differently. This is racism. QED.

The second cowardly act was one taken by men claiming to be our representatives. On Tuesday they met in Canberra and agreed to create laws that encourage the little Hitlers in our communities, the people like the racist tram driver, to abuse the rights of others. They did not have the courage to consult us about these decisions and rather than having the courage to build trust within our communities, rather than having the sense to avoid acts that may alienate and provoke more aggressive responses, they took the low path that can lead to places we really don’t want to go.

The reason why we should all be concerned, despite assurances that this will only effect those who intend to harm us, is that laws like these encourage cowardly little racists and various other bigots. Laws like this give a boost to the little Hitlers who take pleasure in dividing the community and punishing in their little way anyone they don't like.

Hi Margo. I've spent a lot of years, in sales. I saw the grinning and would I say smug PM making the comment - "I thank the States and Territories for their continuing commitment and cooperation in keeping our community safe from terrorism."

I couldn't help thinking, this man is very relieved after selling some washing machines to some people who don't have running water. In other words, a real con!

Mark Latham might have something in recommending to students that they avoid organised politics. However, consistant with his diaries, I know where that would lead, just lots more disharmony and even chaos. But where is an alternative voice going to come from?'

I have hoped for that voice to emerge from Labor and yet all I hear is ME TOO! I wonder whether the state premiers went away wondering whether they had been conned?

Margo: They weren't conned, Ross. They were in on the trick, that's all. At least they said something about civil liberties - Beazley had run off saying that aspect shouldn't be debated! Pathetic, eh?

If you wanted to encourage the growth of home grown terrorism this government is certainly going the right way about it. From a minister for multiculturalism who suggests that extending the time it takes to become a citizen will give people a chance to spend time at pubs (what about getting a reliable source of hashish?) to police wanting immunity from racial profiling, an attorney general whose defence of administrative and secret detention is that we must trust the "competent agencies", and an idiot PM whose ability to distinguish Australia from London and New York is non-existent, we have a recipe for on-going marginalisation of people from regions that have genuine grievances against America, Britain and Australia. Alienated youth caught between two cultures are always something of a problem, these rules have the potential to enshrine that alienation and provide an obvious object of enmity, the Australian state and society they claim to represent.

Australia has had a highly successful multicultural society built on policies and attitudes that do not exist in Britain or the United States. Comparison with the UK's home grown bombers is so stupid it can only be the case Howard just thinks its a useful quick soundbite that Current Affairs watching voters will swallow easily.

That everyone rolled over in Canberra, after briefings from police and secret police, just shows why it’s a good idea that courts not police convict people (up until now?).

I would guess the fear of being held politically responsible for any terrorist act, along with the fear-mongering by the competent agencies, and of course the lack of understanding of liberal democracy and civil rights to be found in Australian political culture, accounts for the rollover. Did no-one ask the question, what do these laws do that current ones didn't, apart from replace central planks of rule of law with administrative fiat? Did no-one ask where were the different points of view? I’m hardly surprised the premiers have come home with the equivalent of a deed to the Sydney Harbour Bridge in their pockets, paid for with a blank cheque for infringement of their citizens’ liberties.

The so-called concession, the 10 year Sunset clause, is a joke by any standard of public policy. It’s far too long a time frame, there are no actual criterion against which the laws can be judged, and nor has any system of review, independent or otherwise, been outlined. Howard’s response to the latter issue was vintage Bjelke Peterson, don’t you worry about that now… At a minimum such legislation should need renewal with each new parliament.

For those who might like to actually understand the sources of terrorism may I suggest this article in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books as a good primer.

Mr Howard's Freudian slip when announcing the new measures was accurate: we are now indeed subjects, not citizens. I will add five words to indicate a plausible scenario for Australia's future: Singapore. Malaysia. Internal Security Act.

Noelene, I guess we can only point to history. Not necessarily the facist regimes of the 30s, but how about the story of the Guildford 4 and the Chelmsford 6? That seems to me to be a clear parallel with today because they are stories about an abuse of secret police power in a liberal democracy that theoretically had 'checks and balances'. Our own recent case of detained and deporting Scott Parkin shows we don't even have those checks and balances.

The experience of the Iraq War shows that intelligence communities can either be very wrong or very manipulated by dodge politicians (depending on your perspective), but either way we know they have and do provide inaccurate information sometimes, on the really big issues. Ultimately it doesn't matter if these were stuff-ups or conspiracies, the results are the same.

It is precisely because our forebears were concerned about this that our Constitution's framers prevented the government from arbitrary detention (nice circumvention by Howard there, what a champion of 'the rule of law') and we got laws like the Habeas Corpus Act back in 1672.

Chances are it won't impact on your 'life or freedoms', Noelene. It almost certainly will impact on the life and freedoms of a lot of people who are not and will never be terrorists. Are you okay with that?

The only terrorists operating in our country are those at the top of the political heap.

John Howard has done more to instill terror into the minds of ordinary Australians than any Terrorist, Bin Laden, Jemmiah Islamiah or George W ever could.

He has used this divisive technique very effectively, to win four elections and all because the people who voted for his party are to silly to recognise his tactics.

Why can't we have laws to protect us from Lying self serving Politicians?

Hi Noelene, I've read enough of your posts to offer the opinion, with some confidence, that you won't be targeted by the new 'anti-terror laws'. In my opinion, they are designed, inter alia, to shield views such as yours from criticism.

So, if that's your criterion for concern, relax! Pro-establishment, pro-war and anti-civil liberties ideas will remain safe and protected - better protected than before, in fact.

Craig Rowley, exactly. Damned well put.

Margo, once Howard latched on to the most prejudiced, reactionary, least informed and least analytical section of the electorate as the key to gaining and retaining power he led us down the path we are on.

As we saw with Tampa and now again with these laws, Labor, Federal and State, have succumbed to the belief that intelligent, reasoned responses will not convince the above elements so the meekly lock step for fear of electoral rejection.

Meanwhile, that famous quote "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" is proved true as people gaze across the waters and not to their own backyard and the old saying "it couldn't happen here" could well be proven false.

Actually Noelene, it should be the other way around. If you want these laws, explain how they are going to reduce terrorism please.

Just as one example, exactly how would a law prohibiting the leaving of bags in public places stop a terrorist from leaving a bag with a bomb in it - do you think a terrorist would worry about being arrested for abandoning a bag?

Given that all abandoned bags are very carefully handled these days anyway, what purpose does this law serve except to waste police time and resources in enforcement and give the police an opportunity to harrass innocent people.

So my point is that we shouldn't introduce laws just because we think they might help something. We have to have good reasons for introducing laws.

For example: a law placing a curfew on all teenagers of 10pm would no doubt reduce (at least to some extent) underage drinking, road deaths, assaults and unwanted pregnancies - does this mean it would be a good idea to introduce such a law?

No of course not, for a law to be introduced that will limit the rights of individuals you have to demostrate the following:

1. Will it be effective? (ie: will it actually, provably help with the problem it is designed to address) - my proposal above would probably meet this criteria.

2. What will the economic cost be? (This would be both economic costs of enforcement and the opportunity costs of those resources not being directed to some other law enforcement.)

3. What will the social cost be? (This would the effects such as increased public protests, isolation of specific groups from the general community, rebound crimes - ie. other offences caused by objection to the new law - etc.)

4. Will the benefits under point 1 outweigh the costs of both 2 and 3? If so, then there might be a case for abrogating some basic principles of our laws, subject to:

5. Can it be abused for purposes outside its aims?

Basically you also need to consider the flow on effects. How do these proposed laws affect current laws. For example, if the police can't arrest someone for suspect drug dealing because they don't have enought evidence, would it possible for them to report "suspected" terrorist activity (eg. meeting people at night, handling large sums of money, dodging the police) and have that person locked up for 14 days with a control order imposed?

I don't think and I think Phil would agree with me, that the proposed laws even meet point 1 above. But even if they did, I would argue that they fail at points 4 and more importantly point 5.

There may indeed be laws that could be introduced to help prevent terrorism at a bearable cost to our community, but these proposed laws don't appear to. And it is the job of the law makers to explain how and why the laws are necessary in a full and clear way and how the benefits outweight the costs.

Until they do so (and no case has been made by the various Governments that addresses both the costs and benefits), then there is no justification for these laws.

Justin Wheelan, thank you for that. I'm now convinced. I had forgotten all about the horror of the Guildford Four, etc. Not to mention our very own Hilton bombing frame job. Ta.

Craig Rowley, you're right, you haven't gone anywhere near persuading me. In fact, the only thing you have persuaded me of is that you must be off your rocker if you think that opposing these laws will stop tram drivers from closing doors on people!

Here's why it is a problem Noelene. Because neither you nor I have been told how any of these measures would have prevented what happened in London on July 4th, so on the most basic points, we are none the wiser as to how these measure make us 'more secure from terrorists'. Second, neither you nor I have been told what the intelligence briefings actually were, so neither you nor I actually know whether and how the announced measures, will do anything to meet the supposed new 'threats' we know nothing about.

Thirdly, it is passing strange to me that people whose general position seems to be that governments can't be trusted to run a chook raffle, are confident that detention without charge, trial or judicial oversight, for periods of 14 days, on the basis of decisions made by intelligence agencies, whose recent performances suggest they are anything but, are so serene about this latest victory for the terrorists. The veneer of liberalism is very thin these days, and it is clear that in Australia it is impossible to be certain it has support in any important institution whatsoever, including in the ALP, the media, the professions, anywhere at all, other than in a few places whose denizens are already unpopular.

Social and political authoritarianism in this country has taken new directions which even five years ago would have been unthinkable. This has little to do with September 11, and everything to do with the determination of the powerful that nothing, absolutely nothing, will be allowed to get in the way of the project to destroy every institution that stands between powerful executive government and the interests it serves, and a population who must be persuaded that there is no alternative, never, ever.

Noelene's comments in her first posting are an example of a type of thinking which seems to be widespread in the community.

Noelene wrote: "Why should I be concerned (about these anti-terrorism laws)? ...but I am still not even slightly convinced that it (that is the new anti terror laws) will have any impact on my life or freedoms."

It is the belief of a majority of the community that they are immune from many of Howard's policies that allows them to be indifferent. So for instance:

1. Mandatory detention - well I'm not an refugee, none of my family or friends are either, so what do I care;
2. Aboriginal Stolen Generations Report - well obviously I'm not Aboriginal so what do I care;
3. Voluntary Student Unionism - well I'm not a student, so what do I care;
4. Industrial Relations - well it won't effect me, I'll be OK, its only aimed at unionists and I'm not a unionist, so I've got nothing to worry about;
5. Anti -terror laws - well I'm not the type to protest, I'm not like that Scott Parkin, so what do I care.

There seems to be an inability in the community to think about these issues from a position of first principles and in the abstract. So we arrive back at the attitude, 'well it won't affect me so what do I care'. Rather than arguing whether these are good policies in terms of creating the type of society we wish to have, or thinking in terms of the impact these policies have on individuals especially people we will never meet. To mention the words civil liberties or habeus corpus is to risk being called a wanker. But these things matter and I believe it's only when our rights are eroded sufficiently will we realise their value and what we've lost.

I can't imagine ever being personally subject to these new anti-terror laws, yet I am desperately concerned about them. Why? Because they erode, in serious and fundamental ways, elements of the sort of society we are. And that frightens me. In a piecemeal fashion freedoms and rights we have taken for granted, which have fought for by past generations are being taken away from us. Politicians, from both political parties are so afraid of being accused of being 'soft on terror' that they race each other to appear tough. The Federal scene appears like a NSW state election writ large where each party competes for the vote of Nora Lauder.

When the PM continued day after day to discuss why a sunset clause was necessary I wish I'd posted on the subject. What an olive branch! A Federal leader siezes state legislature control over his Opposition, benificently allowing the vanquished to appear victors by appearing to have changed the PM's mind. Never would have seen that one coming...

It's poor scriptwriting, but the Neighbours demographic will believe it. Never mind the soapie fans - Howard has justified himself to the UN on the basis of a questionable Al Qaeda video, and additional material supplied by Scott Parkin has prodded civil libertarians into the public eye, there to be dismissed.

Australia is in a very different situation to that which the US was in when the Patriot Act was passed, or that the UK currently finds itself in after the London bombings. A population undergoing attack is much more prepared to make ethical compromises in return for a solution. We haven't had one, and no number of Australian-targeted terrorist testimonials or fear of Korean missiles will change the fact that we haven't been psychologically damaged in quite the same way.

Resultantly we're not filled with unadulterated admiration for our leaderhip's strength in a time of crisis. Instead we have a chance of maintaining a more detached observation of events and photo-ops unrolling.

I'm sorry to think that PM Howard's 'masterful strategy' might be written in the Regime Change department of a Houston advertising agency. I apologise that I consider the state premiers as more than 'bit-part' players in this murderous matinee.

If I'm wrong I'll apologise again at the end of the closing credits.

Noeline, Phil didn't call any one a Nazi sympathiser. Not even you.

He was merely citing the historical precedent offered in the example of that mixture of ill-informed ignorance (no free press), fear and apathy that had Germans eventually literally crossing across to the other side of the proverbial road, to not be associated in any sort of Good Samaritan way with Jews, Socialists, Christians, Gays and even conservatives, who became increasingly on a public view receiving end courtesy of brownshirts; then SS.

Although of course, if you were a good member of the Nazi Party, you would have claimed back then (too): "Well, what has this to do with me; why should I care, I've nothing to fear, etc" (that is, until the Allied bombs started falling and then the Germans found the Russians camped on the ruined doorsteps of Berlin).

But as others seem to have cottoned on a bit quicker, I will go along with their idea that the government actually DOES have to prove the dismemberment of democracy is any sort of price to pay, for some sort Goebellsian propaganda fantasy or furphy about "the war on terrorism".
As for the press, "reichstag labor" and Beazley; sheer gutlessness yet again.

John Herring: “He has used this divisive technique very effectively, to win four elections and all because the people who voted for his party are too silly to recognise his tactics”.

Did you work that out all by yourself or did you read it in the Idiot Weekly.

It was policies that won the elections plus the fact that they really had no opposition, at least not from the Labor Party. Maybe a little bit from The Greens.

To say that the people who voted for him are silly, does not say much for a person like you who was conned into voting for Latham and his mob of lying incompetents.

By the way we do have laws to protect us from “Lying self serving Politicians.” It’s called elections, and it has saved us from the Labor Party on four occasions.

I am absolutely horrified at the massive loss of Civil Liberties that Australians have permitted our Governments to get away with today. I am scared of what could happen to our country. I am scared for my children and grandchildren. I remember paranoid 'reds under the beds' years. I remember a political party kept out of office for 30 years out of 33 because it was always possible to frighten people with the 'Communisists'.

Did draconic laws and massive physical surveillance in London prevent the recent bombings - No!

Did years of paranoid anti-communism prevent the FBI and CIA harbouring many double agents - No!

Did the FBI and CIA prevent the Oklahoma city bombing - No. Was the bomber an external threat - No!

Will these laws absolutely stop anything, ever happening in Australia - No!

There is no protection at all now for any citizen of Australia that criticises the Government. They can be determined to be a terrorist.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST? Someone the Government of the day doesn't like??

Who do we vote for to protect our rights? Both sides of politics laid down for this one. At least Doc Evatt and the Labour Party stood for Civil Liberties in the 1950s. Where are they now - rolling over and playing dead. I'm horrified that there is no dissent. I've had to look so hard through newspapers and all over the web. Hardly any - why?? Don't we see what is happening?

What happened to habeus corpus, legal representation, the right to contact family.

The debacle of the Immigration Department's handling of refugees shows what happens when there is no watcher of the watchers.

WHAT CHECKS AND BALANCES??? Where is the Bi-Partisan Oversight Committee? Where is the Inspector-General?

Isn't this the sort of law that Joseph Raymond McCarthy would have drooled over in the USA during the 1940s and 50s. In the 1950s Australia rejected banning the Communist party.

Isn't this the sort of law that Robert Mugabe is using in Zimbabwe?
Isn't this the sort of law that operates in China?
Isn't this the sort of law that operates in places like Saudi Arabia?
Isn't this the sort of law used by military juntas in South America?

Are we going to have a generation of the 'disappeared' in Australia or are we just going to have Blackwater Security holding the security contract for our Parliament house?

Does a wrongfully detained person get their job back? Do they get their family back? Do they get to court and can they ever be found not guilty by a jury of their peers.

The current Attorney General permitted a boat load of human beings, mostly women and children, to drown even though he had the power to save their lives. I am now to believe the same person when he says this only applies to terrorists - WHAT IS A TERRORIST BEFORE AN EVENT OCCURS?????

Are Opposition or Dissenting elected representatives safe?

Are genuine investigative journalists safe, if they are criticising Government Activities?

Am I safe if I join Amnesty International or The Australian Council for Civil Liberties?

WHY are our current laws inadequate ?????

We treat rapists and axe-murderers better than this - after they've been found guilty!!

This is not the way to fight terrorism writes Kenneth Davidson in The Age today. I'm glad I'm not alone here in seeing the alternative strategy for the US and its allies as articulated by Scott Atran in Science magazine:

...change behaviour by directly addressing and lessening sentiments of grievance and humiliation ...

A strategy that does this, rather than seeing enemies everywhere, just might reduce the chances of terrorism taking a hold.

Col Everton, how wrong you are. If you believe that Howard won the 4 elections on policy, then you are oblivious of the facts.

The first election he won on promising that the proposed sale of Telstra mark 1 and the billions it collected would be used on the environment. Lie for election win number 1, the environment is in a worse state now than in 1996.

"GST will not adversely affect any one" - Lie. The GST has affected everyone. We now have a tax on the essential needs of a modern household (Electricity, Gas, etc). We have two federal taxes on fuel. We have a GST on public transport fares. Howard just cannot speak truthfully.

"Children Overboard" - another lie. It never happened. Howard knew that during the election campaign, but neglected to amend his statement and tell the public the truth.

The list continues. One only has to look at his past history. John Howard was the first Treasurer to prevail over record interest rates, when they climbed over 10 percent in the late '70s.

As for Latham, I did not vote for him for two reasons. Firstly, I do not live in the electorate where he was a candidate. Secondly, I do not like the man and never have. He is to academic, to stuck up for me.

Beazley will never lead Labor to Victory. I lived in his previous seat of Swan for all of his time representing that electorate and never saw anything he had helped achieve. As Defence Minister he was useless. He may well be an authority on his studies of the American Civil War, yet he knows nothing about the Australian Military (something which, unlike myself, he never served in). He was useless as Finance Minister and I get sick of hearing the one line he trots out - "The devil is in the detail".

I am proud to state that when I cast my vote it is solely from studying my local candidate, not the party leader. I have no choice on that vote and I vote for Independents and Minor Parties (Greens / Democrats) and when selecting my preferences, major party candidates tend to attract the last two spots. For the Senate, I flatly refuse to vote above the line and allow someone else to make my preference decisions for me. However, when push comes to shove, I would prefer a Labor Government over a Liberal/National government any day.

Gail Tetly raises the obvious point. What is the definition of a terrorist? Once our fearless and erudite politicians come up with a satisfactory definition, perhaps they might like to enlighten the UN.

Margo, another thing I've just noticed on re-reading this transcript is that not one journalist asked a question about civil liberties. There were, however, multiple questions trying to dig up disagreements and identfy winners and losers within the meeting. Journalism at its best, that.

Bravo! Congratulations to Australia. You have just taken the first step in joining the club of police states!

Kenneth Davidson in the Age on why the new laws won't work plus Scott Atran's article mentioned by Davidson.

Let me see if I've got this right.

We have to introduce arbitrary search and detention laws because if we don't, the (unknown and undefined) enemy will murder us in our beds and force us to endure a regime of arbitary search and detention (with no guarnantee implied or given that the new laws will actually prevent this).

So we have a populace divided, a minority group to demonise and a Opposition that (as usual) sides with the Government. Just like 2001 all over again - what odds an early election?

Gail Tetley is right. So is David Messiter. Our glorious leader would have us believe that he can protect us from terrorism, a concept that a UN gathering convened to define was intimidated into tip-toeing away from by the perpetrators of state-sponsored terrorism within the UN. Doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that there are plenty of cogent, and very similar, definitions of terrorism and a dearth of people with the courage to pick one of them up and run with it?

In the face of cowardice as utter and ubiquitous as this, let's just pucker up and kiss democracy goodbye. Democracy isn't a 'gift' to be bestowed on the obediently silent by LCD neanderthals such as John Winston Howard or Geoge W Bush. It's a shared prize for courage above and beyond the call to cloying, gutless, sheep-like, politically correct, low-profile, half-arsed duty.

John Herring, what a waste of voting power to vote for the Greens or Democrats, at least if you would have voted Labor your dreams might have come true.

By the way, should Labor ever get into office, how long (to the nearest 30 years) will it be before Labor dismantles the GST.

Don't worry about Beazley he will not be there for much longer; it looks as though Gillard is sharpening her knife. What the hell was she doing launching a book about "Labor in Opposition", who would read a book that has not got an ending they are going to be in opposition for years yet.

The Editor,
Sydney Morning Herald. September 29, 2005.

Three months without charge: what’s all the fuss (‘Terrorism laws may be even tighter’, Herald, September 29)?

A majority of Australians knowingly voted for a government that lies to its own citizens; pursues illegal wars; zealously & unapologetically imprisons & tortures asylum-seekers for years on end; illegally detains & deports its own citizens & connives to permit the illegal torture & imprisonment of Australians by foreign governments.

We’re simply reaping what we sowed.

NOW FIRST UP HERE’S SOME BLOODY FIRST GRADE BULLSHIT FROM THE BOYZ, COBBERS...

PM J Winston Howard: “Those briefings put into detailed context the security environment in which we now live and the broad terrorist threats that, not only Australia, but the rest of the western world in particular faces.”

COAG points Sep 2005: “$1.3 million over four years to support the development of a national strategy to explain to the public, through a set of clear, concise messages, the arrangements set out in the National Counter-Terrorism Plan and improved, centralised communication with the media during a crisis; [ie to be given to Liberal Party mates in the PR and advertsiing industry]”

So, now that we’ve got laws about terrorism, and a set of clear, concise messages about them, can we finally solve the Hilton Hotel atrocity during CHOGM way back?

That terrorist act, very politically useful for the Australia Right, killed police and other citizens, but no VIPs of any creed. And the investigation is dead in the water.

J Winston Howard was a powerful figure in our federal ministry at the time, setting his sights on a series of goals in crushing Australian families.

Specifically, there was what he and his fellow ideologues call “Welfare” and “the IR club”.

He was also intent on becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug giants of the Bennelong group and Australia’s energy csars, who have given him his riding instructions on automotive fuel this week. And on ethanol too, apparently.

What did J Winston Howard think then of terror in the face of CHOGM in the Sydney Hilton and nearby?

And in light of all that, what does Police Commissioner Michael Keelty think also about the assassination not long ago, and not far from the PM’s official residence at the Lodge, of senior federal cop Colin Winchester?

Did that much-criticised investigation preview benchmarks for the Howard-Keelty rules on clipping the rule of law for the Australian 800?

Are we better set up now than we were back then to stop a terrorist from killing one of our top cops in his Deakin driveway?

Or from stopping a London or Madrid type atrocity?

Was this all just another expensive, giant con, from blokes who pull cons and rorts like COAG all the time?

Imam Peter DCCC Woodforde

Daoyi Lin, glad someone else has recognised the likely antecedents of the proposed legislation.

While I'm about it, how ridiculous to have a 10 year sunset provision. How long did the thousand year Reich last?

And to pre-empt all those who may rebuke me for mentioning our government and Nazi Germany in the same post, allow me to point out that the course on which we have now embarked does not necessarily imply that we will end (in more ways than one) in Australoreich. It is not, however, an impossible outcome.

First, it was two weeks. Then, it might be three months. What next?

Heard about the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia and Singapore before? Put simply, the ISA was introduced in Malaya during the Communist insurgency and gave governments the right to imprison anybody suspected to have the intent to threaten security. However, this act has been used to quash domestic opposition over the last four decades.

The Howard government seems to be modelling its anti-terrorism measures after the ISA (albeit slowly). Should there not be alarm bells ringing?

Lord Acton once said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". A country's citizens should be wary about vesting such power with the government. Without any openness and accountability, the system will be prone to abuse.

Read more about the ISA and cases related to it.
here.

Here's how these laws work in practice! 82 year old former refugee from Nazism Walter Wolfgang gets manhandled out of a Labour annual conference in Britain for heckling Jack Straw about Iraq! Not only that but he's briefly detained under the Terrorist Act!

here

If the whole incident hadn't been recorded on camera and/or if he'd been a 25 year old with a Shane Warne style earring, would anyone have made a fuss? Plus the person would likely end up with their name on some secret database (with no unsubscribe button) of people of interest in relation to terrorism!

Col Everton, you seem a bit wishy washy to me.

One minute I am told by you that I probably voted for Latham, yet when I explain my position, you say I wasted my vote by not voting Labor, which one is it?

My voting for independents first, which you neglected to mention, then placing minor parties before I put major party candidates last, is not a wasted vote, it is my democratic right, one which I hold dearly, until Howard deems all independents and minor parties terror groups and bans them, something the little dictator is heading towards.

I note you do not criticise me for voting below the line on the Senate Paper, maybe you share this view as well?

I am proud of being an Australian, I spent six years in the Australian Regular Army from '73-'79, at which time the Fraser Government began cutting back opportunities for promotion and postings, which was when I became a coach driver, I have never shirked my responsibility to vote in an election at any level of Government, however, with Howard leading an incompetent Coalition Government, I am starting to feel as if we are not turning into a third world democracy, or just another state of America.

Recently in New Zealand, my wife and I toured in a campervan, at one particular overnight stop, we met two American Couples also driving around that beautiful country. During our late night coffee sessions with these people, they asked, "Why is your Leader so far up Bush's Backside?" I was dumbfounded, I asked them why they thought this, they replied, "We know what a madman Bush is and we fail to understand why anyone would follow him anywhere." When I asked for a clarification, after all, the first vote may have been not quite open and accountable, they said, "As we do not have to vote, most do not, however, the Christian Right came out in force because Bush knew just how to pull their strings", then I saw the similarity to Australia. Howard knows just how to pull the strings and terrify people into voting his way, whether his way be right or wrong.

Therefore, that is why I will vote the way I have in the Past and continue to do so, whilst we have two major parties that have no difference on Policy, that has the Labor Party slinking at the heels of Howard and blindly following him in any decision he makes and refuse to return to being the party of Workers, Unemployed, Pensioners and give this country hope for a return of our social conscience we had but have lost since Howard became PM, then my vote will always go to those who give hope for a return to a more passionate society.

I am not beholden to traditional party voting ideology that some people still are.

John Herring, I am a hundred percent with you when you said: "whilst we have two major parties that have no difference on Policy, that has the Labor Party slinking at the heels of Howard and blindly following him in any decision he makes and refuse to return to being the party of Workers, Unemployed, Pensioners and give this country hope for a return of our social conscience we had but have lost since Howard became PM, then my vote will always go to those who give hope for a return to a more passionate society."

"I am not beholden to traditional party voting ideology that some people still are."

It is an embarrassment when foreigners ask us why we support Bush on such terrible policies?

I am with you John; the quicker the return of our social conscience the better!

John Pratt: "It is an embarrassment when foreigners ask us why we support Bush on such terrible policies?"

You should try explaining why the Australian 'peace movement' supports the Iraqi 'resistance'.

"At least 85 people were killed and more than 110 wounded today when three car bombs exploded within minutes of each other in the mainly Shi'ite central Iraqi town of Balad, police said."

C Parsons, you use the same bullying line that 'you're either with us or against us' which is so beloved of the Right - in your view countries who did not support the definition of terrorism recently presented to the UN did so because they are supporters of terrorism or apologists for terrorists. What utter crap.

You don't bother discussing why some countries may have opposed the definition presented, you simply slander every country which did. It’s a tactic beloved of the Right in this country. It's a way of short circuiting discussion, in the same way as calling some views 'un-Australian'. This is a favourite tactic of Howard's Media Mates.

Here is what the former British Secretary for Development, Clare Short said:

"...those who advocate a new convention on terrorism fail to understand how deeply unhappy people are about the hypocrisy of those who use state power unlawfully and cause massive loss of civilian life - and then expect all countries to sign up to a definition of terrorism that fails to acknowledge the right to resist occupation." Depression and Mistrust Prevail at the UN.

In your view C Parsons is Ms Short an apologist for terrorists?

Another concern about the proposed definition is that it said nothing about state sponsored terrorism.

I would remind you of the 1984 World Court decision in the case of Nicaragua v US. This case concerned: "On April 9,1984, Nicaragua had initiated proceedings against the United States of America in the International Court of Justice. The action was based on the allegation that the United States had supported by its policy and actions a mercenary army, the contras, in launching attacks on the territory of Nicaragua, with the purpose of overthrowing the (Sandinista) Government of Nicaragua".

The World Court found that "it was clear, after examining the facts, that, on a date in late 1983 or early 1984, the President of the United States had authorized a US Government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports." See a summary of this case here. Keep in mind that at this point in time the Nicaraguan government was democratically elected.

The definition of terrorism as presented to the UN, had serious shortcomings and that is why some countries could not agree to support it. Of course it had nothing to do with being a supporter or apologist for terrorists. The fact that some countries such as Pakistan or Iran have their own motives for opposing the proposed definition, does not invalidate other party's concerns. Nor does it make these parties apologists for anything. To claim it does is simply an attempt by you to dismiss points of view you don't agree with.

David Messiter: "What is the definition of a terrorist? Once our fearless and erudite politicians come up with a satisfactory definition, perhaps they might like to enlighten the UN."

The United Nation had a definition of terrorism presented to it.

However, it upset those UN members actively supporting terrorism, such as Iran and Syria, and their apologists in the West.

The draft would have world leaders affirm “that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and noncombatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.”

They would also affirm that any such action “to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any ground and constitutes an act of terrorism.”

Mindful of the campaign against Israel funded by Arab governments, and based largely on the deliberate large scale murder of civilians, including women and children, many Arab nations, Iran and even Pakistan, a supposed ally in the "war on terrorism", objected to that standard and blocked it.

This also accounts for the obvious delight at the failure of the UN to agree on a definition amongst 'peace' activists and other elements in the West.

G'day. From the Media Alliance weekly bulletin:

"Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Press Freedom - The Alliance has spoken out against proposed anti-terrorism laws proposed by the Australian federal and state governments. The laws represent another stumbling block to press freedom in this country. 'Notice to produce' powers for the Australian Federal Police may be used to demand information, including the identity of confidential sources. Changes to sedition laws also threaten to radically alter the nature of public debate. More at www.alliance.org.au."

The right strategy to counter terrorism is to arrest terrorists, promote inclusiveness and education, keep a careful eye on WMDs, and calling for the arrest of those who have encouraged or used WMDs such as Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Blair, Howard, etc.

Wayne Sanderson, That's a perfect quote link here you gave.

To quote your quote: "...the cumulative impact of the politics of fear is to reinforce society's consciousness of vulnerability. And the more powerless we feel the more we are likely to find it difficult to resist the siren call of fear."

Says it all.

BTW, as of 1 Oct 05, 11:06 a.m., only one other commentator responded. Do WD commentators read each other?

I'm looking forward to the day the govt bans cigarettes that are designed to be addictive. We should only allow organic cigarettes and zero advertising of them. Oh, zero advertising of alcohol would be good too.

Washington has been playing the 'blocking' game at the UN too:

As well as the definition of terrorism, the new document omitted any mention of global moves to reduce arms stockpiles and curb the development of new weapons of mass destruction. That omission, forced on the UN by Washington, was described by Mr Annan as "a disgrace".

Daphne O'Brien: No is not a crime to be too academic, and thank you for pointing out that fact.

By too academic, I meant that politicians like Latham, Beazley etc, tend to speak to the people as if they are a class room of students, they speak at you, not to you, they listen with deaf ears to anyone that may put a different view on a subject, as their belief is they know better, they never acknowledge they may be wrong, whilst an outsider to their world may be right.

Sure I have listened to Parliament, and like you say, they behave badly, that is the reason we need to remove the stranglehold that the Major Political Parties have in this country. We need ordinary down to earth people representing us in Parliament.

I have long believed that we need an intelligence test for aspiring members of Parliament, and that if they pass, they should be banned from holding elected office. My reasoning for the above, is that, when you look at the make up of any Parliament in this country, it is generally made up of people with degrees in Law, Medicine, Arts, Education etc, and the country is still in a mess, change the make up of parliament and have ordinary working class people holding the balance of power and we would see a swing away from a profit driven policy environment to a caring, fairer environment, where the people, families, indigenous communities are put before massive profits, where essential services are taken back from private companies and run and staffed by government employees.

You will probably criticise me further when I say, look back to the years after the war up until the mid 70's, unemployment was low, housing was far more affordable, we did not have all the homeless people we now have, and families had enough money coming into the household to enable a comfortable, moderate lifestyle.

Then the Academics started rolling out the economic rationalism books and Corporations, small and large, started making big profits at the expense of the people, jobs were lost, manufacturing moved off shore all in the name of the bottom line.

There is nothing wrong with a company being profitable, however, where is the need for such massive profits, forever hiking up prices, faster than wages growth or inflation. Soon the "Economic Bubble" will burst, business will have done itself a disservice as prices will go high. People will no longer be able to afford to purchase, there will be more debt from people struggling to pay for their Gas, Electricity, Water, and Public Transport Fares. There will be more homeless people as landlords turn out people whose only crime is battling to pay their rent, crime will rise, suicides will increase by people no longer able to cope with their day to day debt.

Is this your dream for the future? It is certainly not mine, we should be leaving a better country for our kids and grand-kids to grow up in and enjoy. Not one where every move they make, every decision they take, is controlled by politicians, who are good at theory, but have little experience at real life, as an ordinary working person struggling from day to day just to feed their families, and are more interested in the top 2% of income earners at the expense of the majority.