NationStates Jolt Archive

A quick Summary of the Anti-Terror Bill 2005 (www.greens.org.au/hotissues/terrorismbill/factsheet.pdf)

Particularly the "Sedition"-Laws are of interest, here is what Media Watch, an independent watch-dog says about them:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1499125.htm
http://www2b.abc.net.au/guestbookcentral/list.asp?guestbookID=270

And then, conveniently, both to shut the media up about the new Industrial Relations Laws (very, very unpopular, not really necessary at this point, but an ideological pet project of our PM) and to make sure the first bits of this Anti-Terror Law is pushed through quickly, the Australian Police did large anti-terror raids, with the media having a field-day demonising the suspects.
http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/page/Media/2005/mr051108terrorism.pdf

Now, today the Australian Police finally made the charges public:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1505846.htm

What do they think they are doing? This is ridiculous!
Do you agree with all this? Why?

How the fuck can they even be allowed to introduce this shit?

How the fuck can they even be allowed to introduce this shit?
This (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_Releases/media_Release1551.html) is what our friendly little Prime Minister says about it.

To be honest I don't know how it can even be constitutional. But people would rather have him, afterall, he told them that interest rates might go up if Labour was elected...

That being said, Labour agrees with the laws.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

good work by the authorities to prevent a possible attack

And the new Western police states will use the following to watch you all the time, and follow you around... It's the size of a small coffee can...

DRONES 'TO FLY OVER CITIES'

HONEYWELL is developing a micro flying spy drone -- that would be used for civilian law enforcement!

The device, a hovering robot carrying video cameras and other sensors, is being created and tested at HONEYWELL's Albuquerque, NM plant.

The first round of testing on the drone [MICRO AIR VEHICLE] has been completed, reports Bob Martin of CBS affiliate KRQE.

The battery powered craft can stay in the air for 50-60 minutes at a time, and moves around at up to 55 kilometers an hour.

The Micro Air Vehicle has flown more than 200 successful flights, including flying in a representative urban environment.

"If there is an emergency, you could provide "eyes" on whatever the emergency is, for police or Homeland Security," explains Vaughn Fulton of HONEYWELL.

In the meantime, the U.S. Army has prepared a promotional video showing the craft zooming over war-zone streets.

Drones have been given to the military to test during training exercises.

"It has the same system most fighter jets would have," explains Fulton.

The vehicle, nicknamed "Dragon Eye," will be used for reconnaissance, security and target acquisition operations in open, rolling, complex and urban terrain; it will be equipped with Global Positioning Satellite.

HONEYWELL and government officials are meeting to discuss the status of the project.

Troops in Iraq could get the craft in a year or two.

The spy drone would be deployed for domestic use shortly thereafter.

*puts on tin foil hat*

This (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_Releases/media_Release1551.html) is what our friendly little Prime Minister says about it.

To be honest I don't know how it can even be constitutional. But people would rather have him, afterall, he told them that interest rates might go up if Labour was elected...

That being said, Labour agrees with the laws.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry, but how exactly is it unconstitutional? Keep in mind that Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, or anything similar.

This is the domino affect. First the US with the Patriot Act. Now Australia with this. And they both hide under the same reason. National defence. Next they will be able to break down your door without a permit. (Wait they can already do that in the US.)

Sorry, but how exactly is it unconstitutional? Keep in mind that Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, or anything similar.
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_2967.html

good work by the authorities to prevent a possible attack
What's your reasoning?

I've held off, for some time, posting anything political, as there just seems too much to get pissed off about these days. However, I am sick to the teeth with what's happening in this, once great, nation.

Firstly, there is the state of perpetual fear in which half the country seems to be living. Historically, Australia has been largely protected from external threats by, what Geoffrey Blainey called, the tyranny of distance. We are so far from nearly everywhere that if anyone thought to attack us, they would need to seriously consider the logistical nightmare that would ensue. But, now that we have a government determined to rattle its rusty sabres over the so-called terrorist threat, people are panicking. A young friend of mine rang my partner, worried because she saw two Muslims on the train with ... wait for it ... backpacks!!!!! The fact that she was on her way to uni, where she would find thousands of backpacks, didn't seem to occur to her.

This is symptomatic of the current political climate in Australia; the climate of fear. Let's pass shoot to kill laws! Let's lock people up with no charge! Let's threaten judges and lawyers with serious sanctions if they are perceived as bucking the system. Bloody hell! This is not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. We don't need these new laws. Existing state and federal legislation more than adequately covers any potential threats. Sedition laws? Who decides what sedition is? And now, little Johnny wants to turn the army on us. I shouldn't expect anything less from the party of fear. The Liberal Party has not run a positive campaign, at federal or state level, in my memory. The sad fact is that most voters seem to react to this more than any positive message. What happened to the egalitarian ideals that Australia was founded upon?

The new IR laws are another case in point. Australia was once known as the social laboratory of the world. Now, the hard fought rights and conditions are being rapidly eroded. We were the first in the world to come up with the concept of a living wage. We led the world in pensions and other benefits. Now people who have worked and payed taxes all of their lives are being conditioned to the fact that there may not be any pension when they retire. Not everybody has access to a decent superannuation scheme or have only been paying into one for a relatively short time. The perennial bullshit arguments are back. The boss should have the rights of a feudal lord; hiring and firing at will, with little or no recourse from the employee. We were the first nation on the planet to legislate for an eight hour day. Now the eight hour day seems to have gone the way of the Dodo. Must we refight battles already won? It appears so.

I've lived all of my life in this country. I've lived in nearly every state and although there are state rivalries, we all counted ourselves as Australians first. Each new wave of immigration has enriched us. Yes, we told wog jokes and slopehead jokes, but we ultimately accepted the newcomers. At least, we did until the recent wave of boat people were put in concentration camps in the middle of the desert! What happened? Even some of the earlier migrants and refugees that we had welcomed got sucked in to this paranoia. The sooner this country rediscovers its social conscience, the better.

bravo to the poster right above me!

Really, how much is Australia in danger? Are they in so much danger of an imminant and deadly attack they their current security structure is not adequate? Come on people! These draconian measures called for in this bill are not nessicary, and I have yet to see any proof otherwise (you know, the stuff you usully need to provide before calling for a drastic reaction), and I doubt I will.

It's just the politics of fear to hold onto political power.

Government is broken. Politicians want power for power's sake, when it should be a means to the ends of ensuring the rights and safty of the people governed. Dispicable.

bravo to the poster right above me!

Really, how much is Australia in danger? Are they in so much danger of an imminant and deadly attack they their current security structure is not adequate? Come on people! These draconian measures called for in this bill are not nessicary, and I have yet to see any proof otherwise (you know, the stuff you usully need to provide before calling for a drastic reaction), and I doubt I will.

It's just the politics of fear to hold onto political power.

Government is broken. Politicians want power for power's sake, when it should be a means to the ends of ensuring the rights and safty of the people governed. Dispicable.
Hehe, you're location mocks Dante... Sorry, I mean you're absolutely right. There is no need to push for a removal of civil rights when there is no imminent risk. Pre-empting the rightists that will point out the recent arrests of terror suspects, I remind you these arrests were a result of over two years of investigation and the arrests were carried out using excisting laws.

Sorry, but how exactly is it unconstitutional? Keep in mind that Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, or anything similar.
I'm surprised to hear that.

Is this because the laws in effect in Britain when Australia was formed as a nation didnt all get 'transferred' over, or is it the result of repealing or superceeding (ie legislating laws that voided existing provisions) law.:confused:

I'm surprised to hear that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution#Bill_of_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitution#Bill_of_Rights
Thanks for posting that link Neu Leonstein.

Only problem, so far as I can tell, the page it goes to doesnt appear to answer my question....

Is this because the laws in effect in Britain when Australia was formed as a nation didnt all get 'transferred' over...
Well, Britain doesn't have a Bill of Rights either. But previously to Australian independence, Australians were subject to British law.
When Australian politicians had to draft their own new constitution, they thought about adding a Bill of Rights like in the US, but decided against it.

...or is it the result of repealing or superceeding (ie legislating laws that voided existing provisions) law.:confused:
Not really. Obviously British law was not completely taken over, although much of it was, but they didn't delete anything regarding basic rights, AFAIK.

Well, Britain doesn't have a Bill of Rights either.
:confused: Do you mean other than the Bill of Rights 1689?

But previously to Australian independence, Australians were subject to British law.
When Australian politicians had to draft their own new constitution, they thought about adding a Bill of Rights like in the US, but decided against it.
Aha, that much I did get from the link (which aside from not seeming to have the particular info I was after was quite informative, so thanks again for taking the time to post it). ;)


Not really. Obviously British law was not completely taken over, although much of it was, but they didn't delete anything regarding basic rights, AFAIK.
I'm as confused as ever. I know that across the ditch (Tasman) The Bill or Rights 1689 still applied in a couple of decades ago, and as far as I know, it still does, as I suspect does the Magna Carta. If it hasnt been repealed or superceeded in Australia by some particular legislation, then I'm confused as to why it wouldnt apply....?:confused:

:confused: Do you mean other than the Bill of Rights 1689?
Yes, but that doesn't say all that much about individual rights either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Basic_tenets
It's more to do with the rights of the king and parliament than the rights of the peasant...

I'm as confused as ever. I know that across the ditch (Tasman) The Bill or Rights 1689 still applied in a couple of decades ago, and as far as I know, it still does, as I suspect does the Magna Carta. If it hasnt been repealed or superceeded in Australia by some particular legislation, then I'm confused as to why it wouldnt apply....?:confused:
I must confess right now that I'm not a specialist either. If it is indeed true in NZ then I must assume the same for Oz.
But again, the courts have apparently had reservations, but didn't outright say it's unconstitutional.
I'm sure it would be impossible in Germany for example, but the constitution there has a very different focus there.

:confused: Do you mean other than the Bill of Rights 1689?


Aha, that much I did get from the link (which aside from not seeming to have the particular info I was after was quite informative, so thanks again for taking the time to post it). ;)



I'm as confused as ever. I know that across the ditch (Tasman) The Bill or Rights 1689 still applied in a couple of decades ago, and as far as I know, it still does, as I suspect does the Magna Carta. If it hasnt been repealed or superceeded in Australia by some particular legislation, then I'm confused as to why it wouldnt apply....?:confused:
No, it does not apply to Australia. Neither does any English Court, Legislative Body or Ruling, save a decree of the Crown, issued whilst on Australian soil.

Yes, but that doesn't say all that much about individual rights either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Basic_tenets
It's more to do with the rights of the king and parliament than the rights of the peasant...
Oh, I must have been unclear, I was asking in relation to the statement that there was no Bill of Rights (in relation to Australia) rather than in regards to how that might relate to anti-terrorism laws currently being considered. Sorry for any confusion caused by my lack of clarity.


I must confess right now that I'm not a specialist either. If it is indeed true in NZ then I must assume the same for Oz.
Aha, that's why I asked. I figured that since it's true for NZ it would be true for Oz unless specifically repealed or superceeded by more recent legislation.
A matter of curiousity (or nosiness) more than anything else.

But again, the courts have apparently had reservations, but didn't outright say it's unconstitutional.
I'm sure it would be impossible in Germany for example, but the constitution there has a very different focus there.
Unconstitutional! How 'bout just ruling it insane, downright dangerous and a good reason to have Howard's head looked into?

When the Australian colonies federated in 1901 our legal system largely maintained the British legal and political system with some major differences. We have a written constitution. Britain does not. It was decided not to have a bill of rights because those rights are largely covered by English common law. The US had to draft a bill of rights because their constitution is quite a vague document, containing little that is specific. The Australian constitution is a carefully worded legal document which spells out what areas are covered by the federal government and those covered by the states. Anything not covered by the constitution is therefore covered by English common law. We must have referenda to change the constitution, something that does not happen in Britain. Our upper house, the senate, is an elected body, unlike Britain's House of Lords. Where there is competing jurisdictions, federal law supercedes state law. This is all written in the constitution. Any constitutional arguments are settled by the High Court.

Hope that helps.

Unconstitutional! How 'bout just ruling it insane, downright dangerous and a good reason to have Howard's head looked into?
You should be grateful that the laws don't cover you just yet...

Just so everyone knows, the trade unions have called rallies against the IR and 'anti-terror' laws for Tuesday. I don't know about the other cities (call the Socialist Alliance, Democratic Socialist Perspective, ACTU, CFMEU or MUA for details), but for Brisbane, the rally starts at 9am at Southbank Cultural Forecourt (just off Victoria Bridge). It is predicted to be one of Queensland's largest rallies (bigger than the 10 000 2001 rally against the Iraq War and the 20 000 June30 rally against IR reforms). Come along, everyone. Go to the strikes in your city.

Also, unlike many other nations the High Court has the power to write law. (ie in the case of "Implied Rights). Effectively this only applies to ares where the Commonwealth has neglected to legislate and where the protection of Australian Citizens is required.

Just so everyone knows, the trade unions have called rallies against the IR and 'anti-terror' laws for Tuesday. I don't know about the other cities (call the Socialist Alliance, Democratic Socialist Perspective, ACTU, CFMEU or MUA for details), but for Brisbane, the rally starts at 9am at Southbank Cultural Forecourt (just off Victoria Bridge). It is predicted to be one of Queensland's largest rallies (bigger than the 10 000 2001 rally against the Iraq War and the 20 000 June30 rally against IR reforms). Come along, everyone. Go to the strikes in your city.
500,000 are expected. Including my grandparents. They're Whitlam-ites from way back and normally get photgraphed on in front of the AWU march on Labour Day. The funny thing is last year my grandmother only walked for a couple metres because she'd just had a hip operation and still made it onto the front cover of a number of Quest newspapers.

When the Australian colonies federated in 1901 our legal system largely maintained the British legal and political system with some major differences. We have a written constitution. Britain does not. It was decided not to have a bill of rights because those rights are largely covered by English common law. The US had to draft a bill of rights because their constitution is quite a vague document, containing little that is specific. The Australian constitution is a carefully worded legal document which spells out what areas are covered by the federal government and those covered by the states. Anything not covered by the constitution is therefore covered by English common law. We must have referenda to change the constitution, something that does not happen in Britain. Our upper house, the senate, is an elected body, unlike Britain's House of Lords. Where there is competing jurisdictions, federal law supercedes state law. This is all written in the constitution. Any constitutional arguments are settled by the High Court.

Hope that helps.
Aha, thanks for that.;)

So basically common law from Britain was retained and is still in effect (other than where it has specifically been repealed/ammended/voided by legislation/court rulings made after Australia's law became independent of British legislating bodies and court jurisdiction), but not the Acts/legislation that were in effect in Britain when Australia split off entirely from the British legal system?

Aha, thanks for that.;)

So basically common law from Britain was retained and is still in effect (other than where it has specifically been repealed/ammended/voided by legislation/court rulings made after Australia's law became independent of British legislating bodies and court jurisdiction), but not the Acts/legislation that were in effect in Britain when Australia split off entirely from the British legal system?
Correct-ish. British common law was not practically transfered over to Australia. However, when Australian Courts made their first rulings they did so without Australian precedents and so refered to British law. As a esult of this, anywhere where the early lawmakers neglected to cover, the courts effectively implimented British Common Law.

Also, unlike many other nations the High Court has the power to write law. (ie in the case of "Implied Rights). Effectively this only applies to ares where the Commonwealth has neglected to legislate and where the protection of Australian Citizens is required.

The High Court CANNOT write law, as you put it. It can only interpret existing laws in relation to the constitution. "Implied rights" are just interpretations of the relevant sections of the constitution.

The High Court CANNOT write law, as you put it. It can only interpret existing laws in relation to the constitution. "Implied rights" are just interpretations of the relevant sections of the constitution.
The Courts did it numerous times since Federation to fill in legislative gaps. I will try and get you some case studies.

Sorry mate, but this is my area. You are wrong. Have you actually read the constitution?

I think I might go to the protests tomorrow...just need to organise a few friends to come. It'll be boring otherwise.

Anyone from Brisbane...send me a telegram if you wanna meet up.

It's all worth it, when we're keeping out those filthy illegals...keeping those interest rates down...and squashing those friggin' unions. Right?

:(

Where's Sir John Kerr when you need him? :D

Where's Sir John Kerr when you need him? :D

Doesn't matter, there's nobody to replace Howard with.

Unless you count me. ;)

Doesn't matter, there's nobody to replace Howard with.

Unless you count me. ;)
I would vote for you

What's your reasoning?
I could explain why people with bombs is bad, but during my long time here, ive learned that there is no fucking point explaining an argument. It achieves nothing, lets just be happy with you having your opinion and me having mine.

I could explain why people with bombs is bad, but during my long time here, ive learned that there is no fucking point explaining an argument. It achieves nothing, lets just be happy with you having your opinion and me having mine.

This is the BEST post that I have read in my not so long time in NSG Forum ...!!!
Is there any way that it can be made part of a "Sticky" or something?
I agree with you, and I am sure that most of the "silent majority" in Australia do as well.
Keep up the good work.

I would vote for you

Cool. I should form a party. :p

I could explain why people with bombs is bad, but during my long time here, ive learned that there is no fucking point explaining an argument. It achieves nothing, lets just be happy with you having your opinion and me having mine.

This is the BEST post that I have read in my not so long time in NSG Forum ...!!!
Is there any way that it can be made part of a "Sticky" or something?
I agree with you, and I am sure that most of the "silent majority" in Australia do as well.
Keep up the good work.

No, you see, when you make an assertation, you gatta have evidence to back it up. You say people with bombs is bad, I agree with you, I just say that there is no evidence that the current security and judicial structures are not adequate to keep people with bombs from blowing them up. For the post to be "the BEST post," you would have to have some sort of evidence to the contrary.

But if you don't want to debate, fine, but what's the point of comming to a debate forum if you're not willing to debate?

"It is inevitable, that eventually the people will demand absolute security from the state... And absolute security is absolute slavery." -- Taylor Caldwell

We may not have a bill of rights but the High Court has ruled on many occasions that the constitution implies things that aren't even mentioned. One of the arguments against a bill of rights is that once it is in the constitution it can be removed.

Its interesting to note that the law societies of Australia, normally blue blooded liberals are coming out in force against the anti-terror legislation. It may not be technically unconstitutional to introduce these laws but they go against everything I have been taught to think about Australia.

We don't need these laws, the police have demonsrated that. If the police know someone is about to blow something they will act regardless of the law anyway.

No one I know supports these laws, no one but Johnny, even the Liberal party seems unsure about them.

John Howard is underminining the Australian way of life and our ethos for his pathetic idealogy.

I could explain why people with bombs is bad, but during my long time here, ive learned that there is no fucking point explaining an argument. It achieves nothing, lets just be happy with you having your opinion and me having mine.

Why the hell are you even posting then? Secondly no one here is saying we want people running around with bombs. We don't these laws to stop that and we resent the way John Howard is ruining Australia.

The jaws of the police state have yawned a little further open...

It's all very well to have this discussion online but i hope that all of you who are also against this legislation are getting involved in protesting these actions, these pieces of legislation will be a watershed in Australian history and how ironic that this should occur at that last great (progressive) watershead, the anniversary of Whitlam. Oh and something for the fellow Perthies...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Tom86/466px-Death_of_Marat_by_David2.jpg

Unconstitutional! How 'bout just ruling it insane, downright dangerous and a good reason to have Howard's head looked into?

Or a good reason to have his head removed. From politics at least. Though after the new laws go through, I may well have ASIO kicking my door down and detaining me without charge on the nebulous basis of 'sedition' for that remark.

Or maybe if I say "Hey Zagat, let's go besiege the Lodge with siege towers, crossbows and flanged maces!" I could be arrested for "planning a terrorist act."

The jaws of the police state have yawned a little further open...

It's all very well to have this discussion online but i hope that all of you who are also against this legislation are getting involved in protesting these actions, these pieces of legislation will be a watershed in Australian history and how ironic that this should occur at that last great (progressive) watershead, the anniversary of Whitlam. Oh and something for the fellow Perthies...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Tom86/466px-Death_of_Marat_by_David2.jpg

I want to, but I couldn't get the day off work :(

Sorry mate, but this is my area. You are wrong. Have you actually read the constitution?
Yes, admittedly not recently. It's sitting on my desk. I abandoned studying constitutional law after like two weeks.

I want to, but I couldn't get the day off work :(
F*cking IR Laws...

I want to, but I couldn't get the day off work :(
I'm going on my lunch break ;)

This is the BEST post that I have read in my not so long time in NSG Forum ...!!!
Is there any way that it can be made part of a "Sticky" or something?
I agree with you, and I am sure that most of the "silent majority" in Australia do as well.
Keep up the good work.

:D thanks mate

I just say that there is no evidence that the current security and judicial structures are not adequate to keep people with bombs from blowing them up.
But the problem with our judicial system is that someone needs to do something bad before they are stopped, in this case Blowing shit up it is generally too late. Cause im pretty sure you dont need 500Kg of fertilizer to grow roses

Then ofcourse then the government would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

But if you don't want to debate, fine, but what's the point of comming to a debate forum if you're not willing to debate?

I can state my opinion, I dont need to debate anything. You obviously wont change your opinion and im not going to change mine so having a debate is futile and next to complete lunacy.

Then of course then the government would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.
The point is that nothing bad happens!
The chance of getting blown up is smaller than the chance of getting killed by a falling coconut - yet we still run around with no helmets. :eek:

The point is that nothing bad happens!
The chance of getting blown up is smaller than the chance of getting killed by a falling coconut - yet we still run around with no helmets. :eek:
I havnt seen to many palm tree's around here so maybe that statistic doesnt apply. Get something relevant

I havnt seen to many palm tree's around here so maybe that statistic doesnt apply
Replace with lightning strikes, kangaroo attacks and deadly bush bilbies.

Replace with lightning strikes, but thats why I own a surge arrester and saftey switch for my power
kangaroo attacks and deadly bush bilbies.
Dont see many kangaroo's or Bilbys in the city either

The point is to minimise the chances not just say it wont happen to me.

but thats why I own a surge arrester and saftey switch for my power
What about when you leave the house? You could be killed!

Dont see many kangaroo's or Bilbys in the city either
And, see any terrorists lately?

I want to, but I couldn't get the day off work :(
:D oh the irony

What about when you leave the house? You could be killed!
thats a necessary risk but then im generally inside during lightning storms, I dont go dancing down the street. Again the idea is to minimise risks

And, see any terrorists lately?
possibly how could I know? they wouldnt be very successful if they advertised the fact

These sort of arguments are why I said it is silly to debate this.
Yet here I am :rolleyes:

The point is to minimise the chances not just say it wont happen to me.
Aha!

There we go, finally a statement.

You're now talking about a cost-benefit situation and probabilities.

The chance of you getting attacked by a terrorist is miniscule, we both now that. Let's call it...0.05%.
The damage done is pretty high. Let's call it 1000.
There are no anti-terror laws yet, so the damage done by them is 0, and the chance of getting affected is the same.

Total Expected Damage = 1000 * 0.005 = 5.

Now we get anti-terror laws. Let's say they hurt us by 20, ie on aggregate the damage is only a fiftieth of what a terrorist attack would do. But since these laws include the media, anyone who says anything considered bad, and various other people we say that the probability of being affected is 20%.
On the other hand, they halve the chance of a terrorist attack (I'm being generous - see London).

Total expected damage = (1000 * 0.0025) + (20 * 0.2) = 2.5 + 4 = 6.5

You see that I was generous with my estimates, the actual damage from the laws is going to be much greater.

EDIT: So I conclude that it is ludicrous to kill the freedoms of everyone in order to save a few...and the methods aren't even reliable.
As harsh as it might sound to the few that might die in an attack, it is simply not worth it.

Trying to reduce the value of human lives to a number are you kidding me?

-blah blah blah-
Now we get anti-terror laws. Let's say they hurt us by 20, ie on aggregate the damage is only a fiftieth of what a terrorist attack would do.

So yes saving lives is a good thing.


But since these laws include the media, anyone who says anything considered bad, and various other people we say that the probability of being affected is 20%.
On the other hand, they halve the chance of a terrorist attack.

I cant see anyone I know or care about being effected at all so I cant see how the hell you get 20% anyway being part of the 80% I dont care, we are halving the chance of a terrorist attack, you should really stop listening to the media anyway

You see that I was generous with my estimates, the actual damage from the laws is going to be much greater.
I completely disagree, I cant see how "halving" the chance of a attack is worse then offending a few people, who obviously have something to fear from these laws.

EDIT: So I conclude that it is ludicrous to kill the freedoms of everyone in order to save a few...and the methods aren't even reliable.
As harsh as it might sound to the few that might die in an attack, it is simply not worth it.
Your right that is harsh, I guess you dont care about life, since you would rather have a terrorist attack I hope you would trade your life for someone else who is hurt by an attack, maybe donate your organs if an attack occurs.

I would rather the police search my home then have people murdered on the street.

However I dont believe in the shoot to kill policy unless the person has been confirmed as a threat ie wearing a explosive belt or some other weapon

bravo to the poster right above me!

Really, how much is Australia in danger? Are they in so much danger of an imminant and deadly attack they their current security structure is not adequate? Come on people! These draconian measures called for in this bill are not nessicary, and I have yet to see any proof otherwise (you know, the stuff you usully need to provide before calling for a drastic reaction), and I doubt I will.

It's just the politics of fear to hold onto political power.

Government is broken. Politicians want power for power's sake, when it should be a means to the ends of ensuring the rights and safty of the people governed. Dispicable.

How about the terrorist suspects trying to break in to Lucas Heights

Trying to reduce the value of human lives to a number are you kidding me?
Nope. Economist, I'm trained to do exactly that. It's called "using your head" rather than violent gut feelings.

I cant see anyone I know or care about being effected at all so I cant see how the hell you get 20% anyway being part of the 80% I dont care, we are halving the chance of a terrorist attack, you should really stop listening to the media anyway.
Have you read any of the links I provided in the original post? I assume you don't care to have the media turned into a government-propaganda machine.
I personally do fear that I can be affected. People on these forums can tell you that I'm not the type to agree with this government, or the war on terror.

And even if you personally, or I personally weren't affected...wasn't it rememberance day just a few days ago? What do you think those guys fought and died for?
I can tell you that detention without trial and media censorship is not it.

I completely disagree, I cant see how "halving" the chance of a attack is worse then offending a few people, who obviously have something to fear from these laws.
Like me?

Your right that is harsh, I guess you dont care about life, since you would rather have a terrorist attack I hope you would trade your life for someone else who is hurt by an attack, maybe donate your organs if an attack occurs.
I'm an organ donour - as soon as I don't need them, they're there for the taking. Afterall, I am just as likely to get killed as you are. But I am realistic enough to know that the chance is tiny, compared to the chance of me dying every single day when I drive to Uni.
And anyways...the people that die don't care. They're dead.
The people that survive suffer, that is true...but can you honestly say that the suffering of those, say, 100 people is in any way enough for this country to just throw aside its principles and create this police state.
Remember the Ben Franklin quote?

How about the terrorist suspects trying to break in to Lucas Heights
You're kidding, right?
They have no evidence other than that they were going for a camping trip in the area. There is no intelligence to support the case. It's all normal police work - not anti-terror work. These new laws are in no way necessary to this case.
And besides, until they are convicted, I assume they didn't do anything.

Nope. Economist, I'm trained to do exactly that. It's called "using your head" rather than violent gut feelings.

so how much is a life worth??

Have you read any of the links I provided in the original post? I assume you don't care to have the media turned into a government-propaganda machine.
I personally do fear that I can be affected. People on these forums can tell you that I'm not the type to agree with this government, or the war on terror.

everyone knows the media is for propaganda if people stopped listening to it what affect would it have?

And even if you personally, or I personally weren't affected...wasn't it rememberance day just a few days ago? What do you think those guys fought and died for?
I can tell you that detention without trial and media censorship is not it.

well my grandfather fought in world war II, and you dont want to know what he thinks about foreigners.

Like me?

thats right

The people that survive suffer, that is true...but can you honestly say that the suffering of those, say, 100 people is in any way enough for this country to just throw aside its principles and create this police state.

If it keeps those 100 people alive, certainly


And besides, until they are convicted, I assume they didn't do anything.
exactly so the current laws can stop anything before it happens, they have to actually commit the act before there is justice, by then it is too late.


edit -
This message has been deleted by Neu Leonstein. Reason: I hate Jolt so much...
on this we agree :)

I want to, but I couldn't get the day off work :(

I took a sicky.

so how much is a life worth??
You really wanna know? I don't know the current estimates for an Australian, but one American life is worth US$7million.

everyone knows the media is for propaganda if people stopped listening to it what affect would it have?
That we would all be left in the dark about stuff?

well my grandfather fought in world war II, and you dont want to know what he thinks about foreigners.
:rolleyes:

thats right
I'll ignore that comment and be glad to be outta this country in two years.

If it keeps those 100 people alive, certainly
It's pretty obvious right here that Australia never had to fight for its democracy. In Germany we value what we have, and we wouldn't give it away for nothing.

exactly so the current laws can stop anything before it happens, they have to actually commit the act before there is justice, by then it is too late.
Look at the Anti-Terror Laws in Britain, then tell me whether they might have had a few people killed a few months ago...

But the problem with our judicial system is that someone needs to do something bad before they are stopped, in this case Blowing shit up it is generally too late. Cause im pretty sure you dont need 500Kg of fertilizer to grow roses

Then ofcourse then the government would get blamed for not doing anything to prevent it.

I'll admit that I'm not as up on the goings on in Australia as you, seeing as you live there and I don't, but weren't there recently a few arrests of terror suspects? So it seems the current laws caught these guys before they had the chance to kill anyone.

How about the terrorist suspects trying to break in to Lucas Heights

Arrested under the current laws. Doesn't show a need for new ones.


Basiclly where I'm comming from is that you have to justify any erosion of rights and freedoms by the government by first proving that it is nessicary. Far too many regimes have come to power, with tragic results, on the platform of "protecting the people."

It seems I just have more distrust and fear of the government then you do, while you see terrorism as a bigger risk then I do, hence our disagreement.

On that note, I'd like to point out that governments have killed many more people, and committed many more atrocities then non-government terrorism.

I'll admit that I'm not as up on the goings on in Australia as you, seeing as you live there and I don't, but weren't there recently a few arrests of terror suspects? So it seems the current laws caught these guys before they had the chance to kill anyone.

you are partly correct only the new laws were rushed through parliment so these arrests could be made


Basiclly where I'm comming from is that you have to justify any erosion of rights and freedoms by the government by first proving that it is nessicary. Far too many regimes have come to power, with tragic results, on the platform of "protecting the people."

agreed

It seems I just have more distrust and fear of the government then you do, while you see terrorism as a bigger risk then I do, hence our disagreement.

Spot on

On that note, I'd like to point out that governments have killed many more people, and committed many more atrocities then non-government terrorism.
Quite likely, but I cant say I know, yet ill conceide the point, as nazi germany and such governments are still governments, and would distort the figures.

You really wanna know? I don't know the current estimates for an Australian, but one American life is worth US$7million.

No I didnt really wanna know, but I didnt expect any sane and civil person to know.

That we would all be left in the dark about stuff?

okay fine, as much as I hate the media, we need it, but if you realise that most "news" is biased, you look for facts and make up your own mind, people shouldnt be lazy and let Tv and Newspapers make their mind up for them

:rolleyes:

Well im just being honest, as he fought against the japanese he has a lingering prejudice against them and by extention most Asians, its sad that he feels this way but he does. As 90% of the Asians I have met have been extremly nice and are absolute champs

I'll ignore that comment and be glad to be outta this country in two years.

bye

It's pretty obvious right here that Australia never had to fight for its democracy. In Germany we value what we have, and we wouldn't give it away for nothing.

Try to look at things from a different point of view for a change, maybe I think of these laws as protecting my freedom. To choose a religion (or not), to live as I want, not how some church wants me to.


Look at the Anti-Terror Laws in Britain, then tell me whether they might have had a few people killed a few months ago...
Britain has always been suffering from terrorism, just proof that the government cant watch everybody, we are far from the thought police. But these laws make it easier for the authorities to act on intelligence and save lives, imagine if they didnt have anti terror laws.

Try to look at things from a different point of view for a change, maybe I think of these laws as protecting my freedom. To choose a religion (or not), to live as I want, not how some church wants me to.
So you assume they could actually win by doing a few attacks? I ask you: How would that work?

But these laws make it easier for the authorities to act on intelligence and save lives, imagine if they didnt have anti terror laws.
Then they'd use normal criminal law. They did it with the raids now, didn't they?
No reason to lock away Lateline because John Pilger argues that "Iraqis have the right to resist an occupation".

Remember the Ben Franklin quote?

I wasn't born then

I wasn't born then
Fair enough...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

you are partly correct only the new laws were rushed through parliment so these arrests could be made

Actually, the Bill is still before the Senate committee. It hasn't been passed of legislation. They were arrested using the laws of 2004, not the amended laws. You can check on the government's wonderful informational site about its antifreedom actions here (http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurityHome.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/9F291545F46DC7B9CA256E43000565D4?OpenDocument)

The real point is that a lot of this draconian law came in last year anyway. And before that we had states passing crap like their religious villification laws (so now one cannot say, e.g., Bevadorism (to make up a religion) is a religion of hate, without the risk of prosecution). Not to mention the whole guns thing...

Heres how it works
The terrorists hate our freedoms
So the government takes our freedoms away
and everybody is happy!

Heres how it works
The terrorists hate our freedoms
So the government takes our freedoms away
and everybody is happy!

I must admit I think paranoia is playing a large part of these arguments.
Freedoms are not really curtailed under these laws, or it would infeasible to apply on the scale that others suggest

Control Orders
Why bother unless considered a legitimate threat? Like all laws, can be used wrongly but police enforce this, not John Howard.

Preventative Detention
Police are too busy too do this with out reason, and even then lawyer and family are permitted.
'Shoot to kill' means 'Aim at the body and shoot them if they fuck around, pull wepaons or do not comply'

Random Stop and Search Powers
Again you have to alert police suspicion, and not really oppressive.
"Oh no! Police are going to search me to stop me from killing innocents."

Sedition
Defination of Sedition (Wikipedia)
Sedition refers to a legal designation of non-overt conduct that is deemed by a legal authority as being acts of treason, and hence deserving of legal punishment. The term is deprecated in most countries, though equivalent language may still be in use in totalitarian and fascist jurisdictions.

Critical speech, political organization, and mere association between individuals may be considered as "sedition." And though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify are highly subjective, and typically left to the whims of state agents. Legal definitons of sedition often include subversion of a constitution, or incitement to rebellion or insurrection toward the lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

Because "sedition" is typically considered the subvert act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under "sedition" laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution.

The legal difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of "levying war" against a government nor of "adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (Article Three, U.S. Constitution). Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful, non-violent protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Thus legal, non violent protests are safe.
Illegal protests are still illegal, just punished more.

What I find interesting is the fact the documents are from the Greens.
They are bloody nutcases.
Why wasn't a more reliable, less biased source used.

Katzistanza
Was not talking about the laws, talking about those on terrorist charges trying to break into a nuclear reactor facility

Neu Leonstein
As to your sceptism.

Nuclear attack in terror plot
From: By David King
November 15, 2005

THE order from radical Islamic cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika was to inflict "maximum damage" as the Sydney terror cell planned a violent jihad in Australia.

The Melbourne preacher met members of his alleged Sydney bomb-making cell in February and then again in July to offer guidance on how to wage a holy war, court documents say.
The Sydney cell used coded text messages to organise early morning meetings to plan their conspiracy, which had as its potential target Australia's only nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney, a police statement of facts released yesterday by Sydney's Local Court reveals.

"If we want to die for jihad we have to have maximum damage. Maximum damage. Damage their buildings, everything. Damage their lives to show them. In this we will have to be careful," Mr Benbrika is alleged to have said at a meeting with members of the Sydney group in Melbourne in February.

The fact sheet outlines how far advanced the plans of the alleged terror cell were. Casings for a potential explosive device were purchased just 11 days ago.

Eight Sydney men are charged with conspiring to plan a terrorist act by manufacturing explosives.

Mirsad Mulahalilovic, Mohamed Ali Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan, Omar Baladjam, Khaled Sharrouf, Moustafa Cheikho, Khaled Cheikho and Mazen Touma face a possible life sentence if found guilty. They are currently in high-security prisons in NSW after being arrested.
Ten men from Melbourne were also charged with belonging to a terrorist organisation.

The police fact sheet names Mr Benbrika as the spiritual leader of a radical Islamic sub-group and describes how, at a meeting in February, Mr Sharrouf allegedly told him "I want to die".

The document details the men's covert efforts to hoard commercially available chemicals, including acetone, hydrogen peroxide and hydrochloric acid, to create explosives.

"During the course of this investigation various members of the conspiracy have arranged covert meetings in public places during the early hours of the morning," the fact sheet says.

"These meetings were organised using coded text messages from mobile phones which were obtained using false details."

In December last year, Mr Touma, Mr Elomar and Mr Rakib Hasan were stopped by police near the Lucas Heights reactor.

They claimed they were in the area to ride a trail bike, but gave differing accounts of their activities that day. Police said the lock for a gate to a reservoir near to the reactor had recently been broken.

If they can't get riding a trail bike right, there is some thing wrong

In December last year, Mr Touma, Mr Elomar and Mr Rakib Hasan were stopped by police near the Lucas Heights reactor.

They claimed they were in the area to ride a trail bike, but gave differing accounts of their activities that day. Police said the lock for a gate to a reservoir near to the reactor had recently been broken.

If they can't get riding a trail bike right, there is some thing wrong
Note my comment about the media having a field day? I wait until they are convicted, and then I look at the evidence and make up my mind. Until then they are considered innocent.

Do you have the transcripts of the interviews?

What I find interesting is the fact the documents are from the Greens.
They are bloody nutcases.
Why wasn't a more reliable, less biased source used.
Because the actual text is many hundreds of pages long, Labour supports it, Liberals support it - and the Greens summary was the first one to come up in a Google search.

The Greens are not nutcases, it might be good for you to do some research on them.

And besides, did you go through the MediaWatch links to the legal advice they got in relation to the sedition laws...it's the media I am worried about moreso than protests. And besides, what does a wiki source about the word tell you about these laws?

The part that I find particularly Kafkaesque is that under the new laws you can be held without charge for ... criticising the government for bringing in the laws.

Also, a journalist can be held without charge for reporting the fact that you are being held without charge ... and if their editor asks why they are being held ...

The "good" news is that we have 2 mothballed concentration camps ready to be reopened at a moments notice :eek:

What is ironic is that questioning the law is labelled as 'hysterical' or 'paranoid', when these laws are really only being brought in for what could be described as 'paranoid' or 'hysterical' reasons. Also, the problem with the laws (from my point of view) is that they give the police and ASIO powers to arrest people without a clear indication of what they've done. Which of course means that these powers could be used to arrest people for reasons other than being a terrorist or planning terrorism.

you are partly correct only the new laws were rushed through parliment so these arrests could be made

As I said, I'm not as up on events as those of you who are Australians, so I'll let you all handle this one.


agreed

ok

Spot on

sweet

Quite likely, but I cant say I know, yet ill conceide the point, as nazi germany and such governments are still governments, and would distort the figures.

People like the Nazis are the kinds of people we're scared of. And J. Edgar Hoover.


It seems we have nothing more to debate. I acknowledge the validity of your point of view, though I still disagree with it, and understand from where our differences come. All in all, you seem like a good chap, I wish you the best. May neither of our fears come to pass.

Then they'd use normal criminal law. They did it with the raids now, didn't they?
No reason to lock away Lateline because John Pilger argues that "Iraqis have the right to resist an occupation".

Exactly! When you start limiting freedom of speach, freedom of ideas, that's when I start stockpiling ammo and rallying the troops.

"when you begin by burning books, you end by burning people."

Heres how it works
The terrorists hate our freedoms
So the government takes our freedoms away
and everybody is happy!

No, they don't hate our freedom, that's just a stupid sound byte.

Thus legal, non violent protests are safe.
Illegal protests are still illegal, just punished more.

Did you miss the part where it said "Critical speech, political organization, and mere association between individuals may be considered as 'sedition.'"?

The part that I find particularly Kafkaesque is that under the new laws you can be held without charge for ... criticising the government for bringing in the laws.

Also, a journalist can be held without charge for reporting the fact that you are being held without charge ... and if their editor asks why they are being held ...

The "good" news is that we have 2 mothballed concentration camps ready to be reopened at a moments notice :eek:

Exactly! No one here is against stopping terrorists before they kill people, my problem is 1) the "sedation" laws and infringements on freedom of speach 2) the massive new police powers of the government that have a huge potential for abuse.

It seems we have nothing more to debate. I acknowledge the validity of your point of view, though I still disagree with it, and understand from where our differences come. All in all, you seem like a good chap, I wish you the best. May neither of our fears come to pass.
ditto