what's the real risk again?
today from The Australian 'Editorial' section (isn't it all editorial?!):
Terror the real risk
Oct. 18, 2005
Debate, perhaps amend, but certainly adopt terror laws
IF hysteria were covered by Canberra's proposed anti-terror laws, the courts would soon be full of opinionated journalists and ostensible advocates of civil liberties with cases to answer. At the weekend, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope gave the usual Howard-hating suspects ammunition for their argument that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, are intent on suppressing civil liberties. Mr Stanhope used his website to publish a draft of the anti-terror legislation, adopted in principle by state, territory and national leaders last month. Including him. This stunt is too cute by half. Certainly, the more, and sooner, we know about the Government's plans, the better. But we cannot afford the terror law debate to be packaged as a civil liberties issue. Mr Stanhope demonstrated why on Sunday, when he proudly announced the ACT would play an important role in a national security exercise. "It is important that we test our responsiveness to a potential terrorism incident," he said. Fair enough, but it is equally important to have laws in place that may reduce the risk of an attack happening in the first place.
Story continues here
i think the editorial makes some good points but seems way to much in the government's pocket. worrying me is this"...But we cannot afford the terror law debate to be packaged as a civil liberties issue...". i firmly believe the exact opposite is true. these so-called terror laws do need to be treated as civil liberties issues. anything that infringes on personal choice and decision making is a civil liberty issue by definition:
Noun
S: (n) civil liberty, political liberty (one's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country)
S: (n) civil liberty (fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference)
sure you can hold an ideal of a perfectly working government who never make mistakes and don't hold grudges but you'll be sorely disappointed when you finally get to visit this small blue-green planet called earth. too much power corrupts and in a system that already suffered that little virus the ability to do whatever is deemed necessary to citizens, without much, if any evidence, seems a little worrysome. the sheer fact that we're looking at a system where you can get locked away for 14 days (at this stage it's 14 days) with no contact outside without even being charged of any crime is disgraceful. all you need is someone to have a grudge and call in a favour and you're locked away with your name appearing on all sorts of lists you really don't want your name on.
it even sounds like some of the proposed laws will allow the hammering of public speaking and even reporters doing their job by reporting. imagine a world of reporters like ray martin. no making waves, balls deep in the machine all the while pretending to be a real person (pretty poor job. must have rushed the training before the mothership dropped him here). up until now thought-crimes have only been the subject of science-fiction lawmakers. we've read '1984', 'brave new world' and watched 'thx1138' yet it seems we've learn't nothing. a great latest release by george clooney 'Good Night and Good Luck' covers the similar times of the 50's with McCarthy and his commie hunt. closer to now, we laugh about the cross-dressing loon Hoover but only 40 years ago he was ending people's lives on a whim both figuratively and literally. any system that no longer allows the citizens to openly question it is headed for a serious shitfight. back we go along the same roadway that great nation called Rome trucked down a while back.
one problem with these laws is where do they draw the line? when does it end? if they take an inch of freedom now will they take a mile later? you can easily see a future where people ask 'can we stop those laws and restrictions now, i mean there's been no terrorist activity for 10 years?" answered by "hell no, look how good they're working!". the other point is that if the citizens of a nation are scared of living life how they wish due to faceless terrorists or the government what's worse? i'd call it a draw.
Terror the real risk
Oct. 18, 2005
Debate, perhaps amend, but certainly adopt terror laws
IF hysteria were covered by Canberra's proposed anti-terror laws, the courts would soon be full of opinionated journalists and ostensible advocates of civil liberties with cases to answer. At the weekend, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope gave the usual Howard-hating suspects ammunition for their argument that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, are intent on suppressing civil liberties. Mr Stanhope used his website to publish a draft of the anti-terror legislation, adopted in principle by state, territory and national leaders last month. Including him. This stunt is too cute by half. Certainly, the more, and sooner, we know about the Government's plans, the better. But we cannot afford the terror law debate to be packaged as a civil liberties issue. Mr Stanhope demonstrated why on Sunday, when he proudly announced the ACT would play an important role in a national security exercise. "It is important that we test our responsiveness to a potential terrorism incident," he said. Fair enough, but it is equally important to have laws in place that may reduce the risk of an attack happening in the first place.
Story continues here
i think the editorial makes some good points but seems way to much in the government's pocket. worrying me is this"...But we cannot afford the terror law debate to be packaged as a civil liberties issue...". i firmly believe the exact opposite is true. these so-called terror laws do need to be treated as civil liberties issues. anything that infringes on personal choice and decision making is a civil liberty issue by definition:
Noun
S: (n) civil liberty, political liberty (one's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country)
S: (n) civil liberty (fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference)
sure you can hold an ideal of a perfectly working government who never make mistakes and don't hold grudges but you'll be sorely disappointed when you finally get to visit this small blue-green planet called earth. too much power corrupts and in a system that already suffered that little virus the ability to do whatever is deemed necessary to citizens, without much, if any evidence, seems a little worrysome. the sheer fact that we're looking at a system where you can get locked away for 14 days (at this stage it's 14 days) with no contact outside without even being charged of any crime is disgraceful. all you need is someone to have a grudge and call in a favour and you're locked away with your name appearing on all sorts of lists you really don't want your name on.
it even sounds like some of the proposed laws will allow the hammering of public speaking and even reporters doing their job by reporting. imagine a world of reporters like ray martin. no making waves, balls deep in the machine all the while pretending to be a real person (pretty poor job. must have rushed the training before the mothership dropped him here). up until now thought-crimes have only been the subject of science-fiction lawmakers. we've read '1984', 'brave new world' and watched 'thx1138' yet it seems we've learn't nothing. a great latest release by george clooney 'Good Night and Good Luck' covers the similar times of the 50's with McCarthy and his commie hunt. closer to now, we laugh about the cross-dressing loon Hoover but only 40 years ago he was ending people's lives on a whim both figuratively and literally. any system that no longer allows the citizens to openly question it is headed for a serious shitfight. back we go along the same roadway that great nation called Rome trucked down a while back.
one problem with these laws is where do they draw the line? when does it end? if they take an inch of freedom now will they take a mile later? you can easily see a future where people ask 'can we stop those laws and restrictions now, i mean there's been no terrorist activity for 10 years?" answered by "hell no, look how good they're working!". the other point is that if the citizens of a nation are scared of living life how they wish due to faceless terrorists or the government what's worse? i'd call it a draw.
posted by brent c. airey at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home