Not happy, John

[Platypus]

Little Johnny has said there is a threat of an 'imminent terrorist attack', and passed through anti-terrorism laws that are extremely far reaching and a total invasion on our civil liberties, with the support of the ALP, Premiers Iemma (NSW) and Beattie (QLD), and obviously his own coalition. These are pretty bad laws, at least as harsh as the new british proposals, but rushed throuh with a bare-bones debate.

He's also used the media coverage of this 'threat', which comes at an extremely convenient time, to pass the IR changes in the lower house, after 5 days debate, in which 11 ALP members were ejected from the chamber basically for disagreeing with the government. Rather loudly

These changes basically take away many significant rights of aussie workers, such as gauranteed right not to work on national holidays, etc.; lots of klittle things and a few big things, but generallyy pretty bloody bad.

The Aussie diggers didn't fight for this. They fought for the Australia they knew and loved, the one with the 'fair go' spirit, the claseless commonwealth; the golden and lucky country. Now, the 'cotton wool' generations, baby boomers and below, are throwing it all away. The average 40 year old suburbanite sees the term 'anti-terrorism legislation' and automatically supports it, but if you ask them if they support detaining people for two weeks with only suspicious of cause, they say no. The IR changes are opposed by the general community, of course; but that doesn't stop the government spending hundreds of millions trying to convince people that they're positive.

It's time for this government to go. Faking a terrorist threat, introducing legislation that will take civil liberties from Australians for a reason that is just stupid (if they're not going to get terrorists with the cureent, far-reaching lasws, they're not going to get them with these dictatorial, bullsh**t ones) and changing the Australian workplace forever in a massive way, after not even presenting the possibility of it occuring duriong the election campaign...

I can only hope that Howard steps down. Tomorrow. I have little confidence left in any Liberals, but Costello would be an improvement. Not as big as I once thought, but better then Howard. In 2007, I will be doing everything I can to aid an ALP victory. They are far from perfect, but anything would be better then a continuation of this government.




I tried to limit my rant to two issues, but I should probably explain a little bit about my scepticism that this is a real threat.

1. The timing is just way too convenient. Parliament sits all of 55 days a year, and it just happens that a threat arises on one of those days...whilst they are debating the IR and anti-terrorist legislation.
2. Howard and co. have totally fabricated events before, for political support. Biggest of these were the 'Tampa' and 'Children Overboard' issues in the lead-up to the 2001 election. Just days before the Tampa situation, Howard had signed an agreement with the Indonesians that people smugglers and their 'cargo' would be kept and (in the case of the smugglers) tried in Australia, but he wanted to send them backm to Indonesia in direct violation of the treaty. Also, against the law of the sea, Howard refused to allow the Norwegian ship, Tampa to dock on christmas island. He suggested that the refugees were terrorists, and took a hard-line approach. Eventually they were sent to Nauru, New Zealand and PNG (the 'Pacific Solution'). Basically, if there wasn't an election and his approval ratings weren't in the low 40s, he'd have allowed the Tampa to offload the refugees, processed them in the 'normal' way, and tried the smugglers.

Children Overboard involved another boatload of 'asylum seekers'. A picture was taken of some asylum seekers in the water, and the government said that they were children and their parents were throwing them overboard so they would get sympathy. The people in the water were all adults, no children were thrown overboard, and the government managed to confirm the image that these were bad people that would threaten the Aussie way of life and that they all-even the youngest children-had to be imprisned in detention camps. For three years or so.

3. Australia isn't a likely target, because the terrorists can easily attack Australian interests in Indonesia. It's a lot easier and almost as effective to kill 590 aussies in Bali then it is in Sydney.

These concerns are probably made up, if they aren't, then I'd be very surprised. Once the Liberals are finally out of office, they';ll be doing a lot of shredding. This is just about the most manipulative, cynical government Australia has ever had, and i'm NOT happy with it. It's time for them to LEAVE.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The proposed laws over here are going to be softend a wee bit; Parliamentary democracy at work basically (they only just squeaked through the Commons last night).

[Platypus]

yes, but parliamentary democracy breaks down when the opposition is fully supportive and there's no debate on it. Luckily, these particular laws still need senate support, which is almost certainly going to come, but hopefully there will be some debate on it. It has to get at least four premiers in support, as well. So far, Howard's got Iemma (NSW) and Beattie (QLD), Bracks (VIC) will if someone else does, Gallup (WA) might...not sure; Lennon (TAS)...he probably will; hard to judge, and Rann (ALP) has been pretty quiet, too. I expect Bracks and Lennon to sign it, and Gallup and Rann to make it 6/6. Martin (NT) might, Stanhope (ACT) won't; but neiother of them really matter.

[Platypus]

well, im not sure who the third and fourth were, but the states have agreed.

[KEmperor]

Leave John Engle alone, he brings the light.

[Democratic Hawk]

The proposed laws over here are going to be softend a wee bit; Parliamentary democracy at work basically (they only just squeaked through the Commons last night).

Yes, they have been softened in the UK much to my annoyance. Civil liberties? What about the civil liberties of the 56 who died on July 7? Personally, the glorification of terrorism should be a crime

Dave

[afleitch]

The proposed laws over here are going to be softend a wee bit; Parliamentary democracy at work basically (they only just squeaked through the Commons last night).

Yes, they have been softened in the UK much to my annoyance. Civil liberties? What about the civil liberties of the 56 who died on July 7? Personally, the glorification of terrorism should be a crime

Dave

I agree. I also believe the Conservatives are wrong to oppose the government on this. If they themselves wer in power they would have rammed through far tougher and more appropriate legislation. They of course, have no Muslim voters to have to sweeten.

[Democratic Hawk]

Is there anywhere I can find a list of the Labour rebels?

Dave

[dazzleman]

The proposed laws over here are going to be softend a wee bit; Parliamentary democracy at work basically (they only just squeaked through the Commons last night).

Yes, they have been softened in the UK much to my annoyance. Civil liberties? What about the civil liberties of the 56 who died on July 7? Personally, the glorification of terrorism should be a crime

Dave

Say it loud brother, say it loud.  I can't understand why so many people can't focus on the rights of people to live their lives without a bomb going off in their faces.  I don't care about the "rights" of people who intend to set off bombs.  I don't think they should have any rights.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is there anywhere I can find a list of the Labour rebels?

Dave

Not checked but www.revolts.co.uk might have it

[Democratic Hawk]

Is there anywhere I can find a list of the Labour rebels?

Dave

Not checked but www.revolts.co.uk might have it

Thanks Al. It just says David Winnick led an amendment

Dave

[MarkDel]

I just wanted to bring this thread back to the top so everyone can see Hughento's GENIUS insight into his belief that John Howard manufactured a phony terrorist threat for political reasons. I guess the Howard government should have let those terrorists carry out their plot just to prove the threat was real...one of these centuries, maybe the well-intentioned Utopians on the political left will grow up, and will wake up and discover reality banging them in the forehead.

[Platypus]

Christine Nixon, Victorian police commissioner, has stated, completely correctly and very publicly, that the arrests would have gone ahead without the new legislation.

There was a) no reason to change the laws; b)no reason to rush the industrial relations laws through in 5 days whilst everyone was concerned about this, and c) (as the judge in the committal hearings said) absolutely NO reason for it to be held up this long from all the evidence they have seen (which leads to at least as suspicion of delaying the arrests until a politically opportune time).

Maybe he didn't make it all up, I'll accept that. But he was certainly irresponsible, certainly used the opportunity for every political gain he could squeeze out of it, and certainly has to go.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, they have been softened in the UK much to my annoyance. Civil liberties? What about the civil liberties of the 56 who died on July 7? Personally, the glorification of terrorism should be a crime

Dave

Say it loud brother, say it loud.  I can't understand why so many people can't focus on the rights of people to live their lives without a bomb going off in their faces.  I don't care about the "rights" of people who intend to set off bombs.  I don't think they should have any rights.

I must be mellowing in my old age

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

This is up again in the House of Commons again, with The Sun labelling Davis and Cameron 'dumb and dumber' for opposing Blair; though The Sun urges them to change their minds

There is speculation that Labour rebels could be backing down and that some Tories are beginning to rattle and may feel shamed into supporting it

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The 90 day proposal has been rejected by MP's 322 to 291. Votes on compromise measures (60 days and 28 days) are either about to begin or have begun.

EDIT: nice bit of misreporting by the BBC here; "...as MPs reject his proposed anti-terror laws..."

Not so. The anti-terror laws have not been rejected; only one part has.
And the same article also contains this weird line: "...but it does not mean he will have to stand down as prime minister..."
Well, duh. Have a look at this: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/defeats.html

[minionofmidas]

Yes, they have been softened in the UK much to my annoyance. Civil liberties? What about the civil liberties of the 56 who died on July 7? Personally, the glorification of terrorism should be a crime

Dave

Say it loud brother, say it loud.  I can't understand why so many people can't focus on the rights of people to live their lives without a bomb going off in their faces.  I don't care about the "rights" of people who intend to set off bombs.  I don't think they should have any rights.

I must be mellowing in my old age

Dave

There's no reason to assume these are the people these laws are going to be used against - it's not as if anyone needed new laws to be able to incarcerate actual terrorists.

[MarkDel]

Christine Nixon, Victorian police commissioner, has stated, completely correctly and very publicly, that the arrests would have gone ahead without the new legislation.

There was a) no reason to change the laws; b)no reason to rush the industrial relations laws through in 5 days whilst everyone was concerned about this, and c) (as the judge in the committal hearings said) absolutely NO reason for it to be held up this long from all the evidence they have seen (which leads to at least as suspicion of delaying the arrests until a politically opportune time).

Maybe he didn't make it all up, I'll accept that. But he was certainly irresponsible, certainly used the opportunity for every political gain he could squeeze out of it, and certainly has to go.

Hughento,

So you admit that your comment claiming Howard fabricated the terror alert was wrong? Is it still your contention that the leader of your great nation, and I do believe Australia is a great nation, would stoop to the level of inventing a phony threat for political reasons?

[Platypus]

I admit that the threat was not totally fabricated. I maintain that the way Howard dealt with it involved deception, political manoevering in a way that may have harmed the 'great nation', and i have no doubt he would 'stoop to the level' of fabricating events for political reasons; he has done so in the past and I believe would be willing to do it again.

[MarkDel]

Hughento,

Wow, that's really, really sad that you would think that of a great leader like John Howard.

[Platypus]

You don't seen him every day, you haven't studied his thirty year career. You can't stay in politics for thirty years and not do a heap of dirty sh**t, both within political circles and the general community.

I don't like Beazley terribly much either, if that helps.