A specific threat to Australia (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

An urgent amendent to a current piece of legislation is to be passed through the Parliament (by tomorrow) given that a specific terrorist threat has been identified. At the moment I am yet to see an article to link through (I just listened to the PM make an announcement on the ABC), but one is sure to appear soon.

Edit: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17114978%5E12377,00.html

Edit 2: It will be interesting to see what the government intends to pass through the parliament.

 

[Kwayera]

Hey Generator! Long time no argue!

With regards to this, hmm. We'll have to wait until more information is released, I guess.

 

[Generator]

Heh, I think that between us (and others) we debated the school funding issue to death, because nobody seems willing to discuss it anymore . Welcome back.

 

[Götterfunken]

Surprise---an excuse for Howard to rush his grossly unconstitutional 'enabling act' through parliament has occurred. I never could have predicted that! Well, I guess, at least it occured without Parliment House being burnt down.

What a sorry state of affairs the world is in.

 

[Generator]

Surprise---an excuse for Howard to rush his grossly unconstitutional 'enabling act' through parliament has occurred. I never could have predicted that! Well, I guess, at least it occured without Parliment House being burnt down.

What a sorry state of affairs the world is in.

In all fairness, Howard does what he does for the benefit of the country (from his point of view, course). He and Ruddock have informed Beazley and Bevis, so it isn't as though this is exactly an attempt by the Government to force through in part something that was going to pass anyway.

 

[Kwayera]

Heh, I think that between us (and others) we debated the school funding issue to death, because nobody seems willing to discuss it anymore . Welcome back.

School funding! That was jolly! I miss it

Oh well, we can start another one come next election

 

[Götterfunken]

In all fairness, Howard does what he does for the benefit of the country (from his point of view, course). He and Ruddock have informed Beazley and Bevis, so it isn't as though this is exactly an attempt by the Government to force through in part something that was going to pass anyway.

Of course, yes. I still do not feel that the new legislation is for the 'best' of the country, however. Time shall tell however.

 

[SGS05]

Do they say what the terrorist threat is? and what the new laws are going to be?

 

[townie]

it cant be very specific if the threat level hasnt been raised. i imagine there is a specific thread, but nobody said anything about it being a credible one

it will be interesting to see exactly wat powers r needed so urgently

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Surprise---an excuse for Howard to rush his grossly unconstitutional 'enabling act' through parliament has occurred. I never could have predicted that! Well, I guess, at least it occured without Parliment House being burnt down.

.... What a fast, unjustified assumption.

Of course, yes. I still do not feel that the new legislation is for the 'best' of the country, however. Time shall tell however.

I do not believe this is about rushing through the proposed laws, I believe it probably has something to do with a specific problem from the current situation. He has informed labor.

 

[supercharged]

I think it's more likely that he just wants his legislation rammed through parliment as quick as possible. Current laws are good enough, you can't pass a law that will stop terrorism from happening anyway.

The legislation is hardly 'best' for the country, it could making attending anti-war demonstrations illegal or speaking out in support of Iraqi resistance against US imperialism a crime.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The legislation is hardly 'best' for the country, it could making attending anti-war demonstrations illegal or speaking out in support of Iraqi resistance against US imperialism a crime.

What exactly makes you believe this? The second part has some basis, but not in the sense of your average person who is speaking out against the war in Iraq.

I believe there is no need for an enhancement of the laws, but I also believe you're pulling shit out of your arse.

 

[supercharged]

I heard on the radio that attending anti-war rallies (especially when the war is already underway such as in Iraq) could be interpreted as 'boosting enemy morale' and hence illegal.

 

[boris]

I think the legislation is a knee jerk reaction, personally.

 

[Lazarus]

More links -

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...st-australia-pm/2005/11/02/1130823250648.html

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1659.html

 

[erawamai]

There is no doubt that Australian has been under a terrorist thread for some time. It is just interesting to note that John Howard managed to say this the day the IR reforms came into parliament. Followed by John Howard refusing to directly answer any question about IR changes in parliament.

Howard has shown in the past that he has no quams about directly misleading the Australian people. I would hope that he did not use the direct threat as a cover. I would hope that it was merely coincidental that a terrorist threat needed to be annouced the same day the IR legislation started in parliament.

 

[Kaiser Zero]

"in a prosecution for a terrorism offence, it is not necessary to identify a particular terrorist act. The existing offences contain a subsection that provides that a person commits the offence even if ‘the’ terrorist act does not occur."

"it is not necessary for the prosecution to identify a specific terrorist act. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the particular conduct was related to ‘a’ terrorist act."

"when determining whether an organisation satisfies the definition of a terrorist organisation, it is not necessary to prove the organisation is preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering ‘the’ particular terrorist act."

Sounds pretty intense

"I'm gonna blow up the world!!!"
*Arrested and interrogated for indeterminate lengths of time*

 

[leetom]

There is no doubt that Australian has been under a terrorist thread for some time. It is just interesting to note that John Howard managed to say this the day the IR reforms came into parliament. Followed by John Howard refusing to directly answer any question about IR changes in parliament.

Howard has shown in the past that he has no quams about directly misleading the Australian people. I would hope that he did not use the direct threat as a cover. I would hope that it was merely coincidental that a terrorist threat needed to be annouced the same day the IR legislation started in parliament.

No doubt, WorkChoices should be put on the backburner for a fortnight or so in order to properly address this particular issue. To introduce both in parliament on the same day is irresponsibe, endangering to the nation and to the security of the people.

 

[Generator]

There is no doubt that Australian has been under a terrorist thread for some time. It is just interesting to note that John Howard managed to say this the day the IR reforms came into parliament. Followed by John Howard refusing to directly answer any question about IR changes in parliament.

Howard has shown in the past that he has no quams about directly misleading the Australian people. I would hope that he did not use the direct threat as a cover. I would hope that it was merely coincidental that a terrorist threat needed to be annouced the same day the IR legislation started in parliament.

Ah, given the way in which most people appear to approve of the principles of the new anti-terrorist agenda, I doubt that this particular announcement was made to somehow shift attention away from the IR reforms. The IR reform agenda cannot be shifted to the side so easily after simmering for so long, despite the views of many of the commentariat - for most, the government is doing all that it can to protect them from the terrorists, yet they aren't so sure when it comes to their jobs.

 

[Generator]

No doubt, WorkChoices should be put on the backburner for a fortnight or so in order to properly address this particular issue. To introduce both in parliament on the same day is irresponsibe, endangering to the the nation and to the security of the people.

They didn't introduce both today, leetom. Edit: This is 'merely' an amendment that appears to have bipartisan support; it isn't the actual bill (although that will be introduced soon). Besides, given the pathetic timeframes that the Parliament has to debate and investigate each bill, I doubt that there's any fear of an overlap causing a problem or two .