New anti-terrorism laws (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

i just think the government needs to put more effort into intelligence, and better policing and security. the police dont need more power, u dont need 2 track arbitrary subjects, etc.

I disagree... I think we already have fine intelligence etc, it's our first responders (police/security guards/etc) who are going to let us down if anyone.

 

[Generator]

Terror laws put on the net

http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/whats_new.asp?title=What's New or http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/terror.pdf (the draft bill, if you have both the time and the desire to see what is on offer)

It's good to see that at least one head of government or senior minister is willing to involve the public in the debate.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Terrorist laws to lock up objectors

By Marian Wilkinson, David Marr and Joseph Kerr
October 15, 2005

Supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could carry a penalty of seven years' jail under the Prime Minister's new terrorism laws.

- Full Article, SMH

I wonder what impact this will have on people's signatures?

 

[withoutaface]

Yay, Zahid's going to jail

 

[Calculon]

To be frank I think they're shit.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Whatever guys it's just a popularity thing, and the problem with it is that u can only go further, not backwards... cuz if u go backwards you are seen as being 'soft' or as being a terrorist supporter.

 

[loquasagacious]

So you accept the whole deal is just being pushed along by public+media?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, it is just a big popularity contest over this issue. If you say "I do not support the new anti-terrorism laws" the media will make it seem although you are soft on terrorism or a terrorist supporter, the public will generally probably agree with them.

When it comes to matters of security, everyone wants more because everyone wants to be secure. It is therefore very easy to win points off any form of security bill, and the more radical the proposal is the more popular it probably will be.

 

[walrusbear]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1492408.htm

 

[Calculon]

Whatever guys it's just a popularity thing, and the problem with it is that u can only go further, not backwards... cuz if u go backwards you are seen as being 'soft' or as being a terrorist supporter.

Today in YL's council we had a motion ordering the deportation/incarceration of people inciting violence in the community, and it was voted down by at least 3/4 of the room, so that's a bit of perspective on just how well such measures are supported even within the party.

 

[Generator]

Re. the recent polls - Suburbia vs. the 'intelligentsia'. It's the battle of the century.

 

[zahid]

What pisses me off even more is that Beazley is trying to promote laws that are even harsher...you can kiss u civil liberties goodbye...I am disappointed with labors stance and have quit young labor...I have realised that on the mainstream both party ideology is the same shit...I am going join the greens.

 

[Calculon]

Young Labor is more conservative on this than the Libs it seems...
EDIT: Zahid you'd be better off planning the revolution with the retards in the Socialist Alternative.

 

[zahid]

Young Labor is more conservative on this than the Libs it seems...

For once you are starting to make sense.
Young Labor is full of wankers that all wanna be pm's one day...trust me i have been a member.

...oh and by the way the Socialist Alternative is a brilliant initiative, but i don’t think it will ever gather the momentum to become a reckoning force, the greens on the other hand have a chance. (in the australian political spectrum that is)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I probably disagree with Zahid on every political issue... but Lozacious, you are a tool.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

More humour from John Clarke & Brian Dawe --

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200510/r62507_172374.asx

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Terror-Laws Update

Thankfully the shoot-to-kill provisions have been abandoned and the detention orders look to be reviewed.

'Shoot to kill' dumped from terror bill: Bracks

November 2, 2005 - 11:56AM

Controversial "shoot to kill" provisions have been dumped from the federal government's proposed new terror laws, Victorian premier Steve Bracks said today.

Other key concessions also were secured during a telephone hook-up that involved Prime Minister John Howard and all state leaders except Queensland's Peter Beattie last night, the Victorian premier said. [...]

- SMH

PM backs reviews of terror detention

By Louise Dodson and Mark Metherell
November 2, 2005

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has agreed to state demands for a review within 48 hours of preventive detention orders imposed under his anti-terrorism legislation.

Also under consideration are changes to allow a parent of children aged 16 taken into custody as terrorist suspects to report the detention to the other parent.

The concession on preventive detention follows concerns raised with Mr Howard by the Premier, Morris Iemma, that the legislation did not allow for sufficient review of detention orders, for up to 14 days without charge, for terrorist suspects. [...]

- SMH

 

[townie]

my biggest issue with the laws is the secrecy, that u cant tell any1 where you've been. that is the scariest part in my opinion.

for all i care, lock down entire suburbs, AS LONG AS there is rigorious judicial and independant oversight and basic civil liberties. i dont see how the laws r weakened by having appropriate safeguards

 

[Kaiser Zero]

What pisses me off even more is that Beazley is trying to promote laws that are even harsher...you can kiss u civil liberties goodbye...I am disappointed with labors stance and have quit young labor...I have realised that on the mainstream both party ideology is the same shit...I am going join the greens.

Are you worried because you are a muslim?