On the eve of the terror summit, Andrew Bartlett puts a novel proposition - there are already laws which criminalise conspiring to kill people. As due process and civil rights are torn up in favour of criminalising speech, surveilling people who haven’t been charged, and detaining people without charge, what evidence is there that current laws are ineffective in protecting our security? It’s not just a matter of balancing rights and security. I’d like to see some actual evidence that these laws serve any good purpose whatsoever. Assertion seems to have replaced evidence in this debate, and when we’re talking about destroying the fundamental liberties that we ought to cherish, that is not good enough.
62 Responses to “Terrified by Terror”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Exactly, our prior and current laws have not been tested and there is no evidence to suggest that they will not work in an event. It seems like we’re trapped in some kind of game of one upmanship between the two major parties, one wedging away at a furious pace and the other seeing and raising in an attempt to avoid the wedge.
Treat the acts and consequences of terrorism as the crime it already is, do the police work, and apply the sentence in a court of law. Simple really, we already do this for murderers why not terrorists?
Current laws already criminalise speech (wrongly), and allow surveillance of people who haven’t been charged (rightly). These things are hardly new or radical departures from existing policy.
I’m a bit leery of detaining people for lengthy periods without charge, and would like to hear more arguments supporting that proposal.
The chief difference between terrorism and normal criminal activity is that terrorism is a form of warfare. Civil laws don’t work on a battlefield, and may need to be adjusted when the battlefield is in our cities.
Of concern also is the greatly increased potential for mayhem when terrorists gain access to weapons of mass destruction — which is inevitable in time. Greater risk means that current laws may be inadequate to address the situation.
This is not a criminal issue, it’s a defence issue.
EP, as far as I’m concerned, if there is to be a war on terror, the only thing worth defending about our society are the protective civil laws and freedoms we have. Freedoms are far more potent weapons against ‘terrorists’ than search warrants. I don’t mind the threat of being bombed by people who don’t represent the State, but I would very much mind being fucked about with by people who do.
You’re an anarchist, or at least you claim to be. What’s your wierd attachment to the nation-state?
Will the Premiers stand up to be counted? We wait with bated breath and not a great deal of confidence.
EP — what is a war? Seriously.
If I shoot a random innocent stranger because (1) I want their money; (2) I’m just fucked in the head; or (3) I don’t like US foreign policy… why does the last one indicate an act of “war” and the others don’t.
If we need to military to prevent (3) above, why not use them for (1) and (2)?
From the best I can tell, and with regards to trying to use the English language in the most consistant way possible, shooting somebody because you don’t like US foreign policy is a crime and should be treated as such.
In all honesty, what is the definition of a police state? Is it ever possible to become a police state by slowly decreasing civil liberties — or is that impossible by definition? If it is possible, how do we know when we get there?
If this is a war, what is the goal? The total end of all terrorism? That will never happen. A reduction to pre-S11 levels of terror? The number of terror attacks never went up (according to the US government).
I like this webpage. Reasonable debate. Not too many nutters (myself excluded of course). Of course, you’re all commie bastards, but we all have our flaws.
Exactly Liam, its a surrrender on terrorism. Howard is a coward. Good thing this ‘war’ is largely imaginary - I wouldnt want that weak-kneed surrender monkey up front in a proper stoush.
It makes you think, given that the necessity of these laws is a case *they havent even bothered to make*: why are our leaders so quick to rid us of our burdensome rights? I suggest its because they dont support them enough.
its funny you know, i could have sworn this was already illegal too. Maybe law has its limitations … how about ASIO gets extra funding for intelligence gathering, John, and we’ll keep our rights, thank you. Deal.
I’ll stick my hand up. Im not scared of half-arsed Ali bin Baba and his 100-odd psychos, almost managing an annual attack. Im very scared of unbridled state power over individuals.
That’s a straw-man argument, John.
The terrorists we’re fighting aren’t just random people committing random acts of violence because they don’t like US foregn policy, as you pretend.
They’re an amorphous group of organisations and individuals, international in scope, with a common ideology and a dedication to maximising casualties. They have many active members, and even greater numbers of sympathisers, both within our community itself and overseas.
This is not a bunch of isolated criminal acts, but a global struggle with an ideological enemy capable of inflicting mass casualties and willing to do so. And while we’ve been lucky in the years since 2001, we can’t count on our luck lasting forever.
That’s why we need a comprehensive, co-ordinated, international effort to stop Islamist terrorism and the religio-political ideology that drives it.
As always, governments have a difficult job balancing risks and costs, espacially when it’s only possible to judge outcomes hypothetically. There will always be people who disagree with ehere the line is drawn, and as I indicated in my initial comment, I haven’t yet made up my own mind.
But pretending that Islamic extremism is only a minor threat, or that we’re not at war, is to hide one’s head in the sand.
We are not at war. Various nutters like George Bush like to call themselves war presidents ‘cos it evokes the sort of BS patriotism/exceptionalism that brain dead rednecks love to wallow in. Apocalyptic religious right nutters get a buzz out of it as well. Johnnie loves it ‘cos he loves the photo ops with Georgie but in the scheme of things Howard reminds me of the bacteria inherent in the man’s colon.
Here, the danger is that our own rednecks do not understand that when a civil liberty is lost, ie without sunset clauses, it’s hard to get it back. Pollies love to control things, bigger budgets and more pork to go round, (although it must be said we don’t have so many Halliburtons, yet). The Senator however is 100% right. Our existing laws even before the last lot are/were more than adequate.
I have been banging on about anti-incitement laws for some time, for example, as part of a common thread of all legitimate criminal law, but our pollie clowns seem determined to criminalise indirect incitement (saying for example that the Iraqi insurgents have a right to evict western occupiers) with a supposed cop-out for academic/journo speech. Not hard to decipher that one : no exceptions for ‘Ragheads.’
The anti-terrorist laws in the UK which will likely be copied here, eventually, now proposes administrative detention increased from 14 days now, to 90. This is the perfect excuse for cops to lock people up and delay finding the evidence for a conviction. Got plenty of time, right? Luckily the UK has the House of Lords.
The greatest threat here in my opinion, comes from the threat to strip people of their citizenship, this is the Catch 22-FU for opponents of the Liberal Party, once stripped, and no other country will accept you, per the 2004 HCA case, and without a visa to stay, it’s ADMINISTRATIVE detention for the rest of your natural LIFE, and no appeal ever to the courts.
How much do people trust Howard not to do this shit? Most don’t know and remain in blissful ignorance. That these victims will initially be Muslims will not be the panacea for preventing acts of terrorism, it will most likely create or help to create more radicalism here. Don’t forget, the Menzies crowd stripped (I think) that communist journo of his citizenship—Wilfred Burchett. (Who incidently turned out to be right on certain matters)
Tighten your seat belts if not one’s mouth. We are in for a rough ride. Like the Republican party, Howard would like very much a one party state, and these shit laws criminalising innocent people, may be the ultimate in wedge politics.
You’re a fine piece of work, Peter.
You want to criminalise speech that disagrees with your personal prejudices, yet you get on your high horse about civil liberties.
Hypocrite.
EP is too ignorant to understand the difference between direct and indirect incitement. You’re off thread as well.
Twit.
Yeah, I was going to say something similar. Stasi Pete the thought-crime guru talking about civil liberties. Ha!
“You‚Äôre off thread as well.”
See what I mean.
It’s hard to fathom the level of cognitive dissonance required to support criminal penalties for people who criticise religion, yet excuse incitement to terrorist acts as legitimate free speech.
EP - Wow, I think I agree with you comment about there being a real religio-political struggle going on. I think that we have to be a bit more careful about our approach in dealing with this threat than we have been so far. In “protecting” our society we have to be careful not to destroy it. We need to be certain about what it is that underpins our society and, well, makes Oz a pretty nice place to live in.
Personally, I think the defining characteristic of our society is the freedoms that we have fought for (one way or another) won. Freedom of speech, association, religion, etc are the things that make our society distinct from others. I think these things are worth fighting for. If we start taking away civil liberties we might (imagine there are italics around the “might”) reduce casualties on our side, but we also lose the ideological battle.
Really dumb EP, the cognitive dissonance of those who wilfully refuse to read/understand.
(1)direct incitement/vilification–Victorian law.
(1a) ditto —all criminal law with penalties against incitement/murder etc, by ANYBODY–the reason we don’t need all the BS laws Howard wants.
(2) indirect incitement ‘insurgents have the right in Iraq to fight the COW’–proposed Federal law.
Plyus-one on what others have said about what it is that we are defending from terrorists in the first place.
I simply just don’t trust Howard (and the shifty lot that have coalesced around him and the even scarier lot hiding under various rocks nearby) to in anyway prevent such laws from in the future, becoming the instruments of a totalitarian state. Even if you are a committed big-L Liberal and think the Labor party are a bunch of rats then laws like this have to give you pause - because the opposition will eventually gain power. From either perspective it’s just not good lawmaking.
Additionally, look at what security experts like Bruce Schneier say about such laws. They rarely keep anyone safe. There’s no rational case being made for their introduction other than a blind assumption that stronger laws will magically help “stop” terrorists. That assumes that you can identify the terrorists, cannot make a clean arrest or detention under current law, and cannot devote the resources to additional surveillence and intelligence gathering as allowed currently. If that’s so the government ought to come clean on how many people we are talking about already under suspicion who currently cannot be touched under current laws.
Peter, you really are a dullard.
How can “vilification” be classed as direct incitement to violence — when it doesn’t actually incite anything?
How can advocacy of terrorist acts not be classified as incitement to violence?
Your double standards are so blatatant as to be laughable.
And its the perfect cover for a government which wont be resourcing intelligence gathering sufficiently.
My prediction: Beneath the beaten chest will lie DIMIA -levels of incompetence and budgetary miserliness.
Mick, like you and Liam I think our rights and freedoms are of critical importance.
However, it’s important not to get stuck in a black-and-white world of absolutes, which considers any restriction of rights as the loss of all rights.
We don’t have unlimited rights, and different people will regard different rights as having greater or lesser importance. All rights need to be balanced against the safety of the public.
So the choice is not between a fascist Howard who wants to take away all our rights and the perfect freedom we would have otherwise, but about where exactly to set the line that defines the existing demarcation between individual rights and security.
I think Howard has placed too many restrictions on firearm ownership, while others think he didn’t go far enough and all guns should be outlawed.
Governments in democratic countries almost always settle on compromises that most people will accept, and rarely ever impose absolutes.
”How can advocacy of terrorist acts not be classified as incitement to violence?”
I never said it could not be so classified, see 1(a), incitement to murder, incitement to GBH etc.
Per 2, indirect incitement is not direct incitement (sheesh). Under International law, point 2 is arguable, despite UNSC resolution 1483.
Vilification is a form of incitement. Espousing hatred of somebody on the basis of their religion has a historical record of inciting violence, and killing a lot of people as you may have noticed.
Couldn’t agree more, Rex.
EP - You are right of course, absolutes are always dangerous. However, I wouldn’t mind seeing a bit of debate about whether it is possible at all to come up with some set of common principles that we want to stick to. I’d like to know a bit more about what it is that we are fighting for. I have heard a lot of abstract talk from our leaders about “defending our way of life”, I guess I’d like to know what it is that we are defending exactly? I don’t think that as a society we know this yet. Why don’t we? Well, I think the ALP (and the Dems in the US) has a lot to answer for here, a real opposition might actually debate this rather merely nodding there heads and saying “Yes, we should defend our way of life. Vote for us, we’ll do it better.”.
I don’t think that Howard is a fascist. I think that he is putting these laws in place because he genuinly doesn’t want to be caught in a situation where they are incapable of responding to a threat because of a lack of legislation. The only problem is, it’s always easy to misuse laws once they are in place. All it takes is a poorly run ministry or two (and at the state level, there is an aweful lot of “poorly run” ministries) and all of a sudden the laws are being misused.
Espousing hatred of somebody on the basis of their religion has a historical record of inciting violence, and killing a lot of people as you may have noticed.
You assume that criticism of a religion constitutes espousing hatred of people who believe in that religion, which is not true.
But even if it were true, it still wouldn’t constitute “direct incitement”, as you claim.
For that to be the case, it would require someone to actually call for violence, not merely vilify or criticise.
EP - the double standards are much more obvious than you thought. Peter has yet to explain why vilification on the basis of religion is unacceptable, yet vilification on the basis of wealth is acceptable (meaning any espousal of Marxist ideology, or advocacy of collectivist policies). Of course, the latter has caused far more death, destruction and misery in the last 100 years than the former, yet, strangely enough, I haven’t heard any Leftists calling for the banning of Karl Marx’s works despite the fact that he defamed and vilified private entrepreneurs, and provided the ideological basis for the greatest mass murder in history.
Peter, naturally, has no right whatsoever to object to Howard’s “anti-terrorist” laws (which I believe are unjustified given that you probably have less than a 1 in 500,000 chance of being killed by terrorists in the next year, and that there is no evidence that Howard can prevent future terrorist attacks at an acceptable cost), on the simple grounds that once you propose to “ban hate” on whichever basis you nominate, you have instantly forfeited any right to object to the “banning of hate” on some other, random, grounds nominated by conservatives. There is simply no consistent basis for banning vilification on some arbitrary criteria alone unless you accept the logical extension of “ending hate” on all grounds, including politics, wealth, occupation, etc.
Personally, I oppose all “anti-vilification” laws (and am not particularly bothered by the famous views of Sheikh al-Hilaly, who believes that “Jews control the world” using “buggery” and “economic hoarding”, and who was appointed to the position of “Grand Mufti” by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils - itself guilty of gross hypocrisy in supporting anti-vilification laws), for the obvious reason that there is no natural limit to their ambit. Howard’s latest power grab is a direct and inevitable extension of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, and no amount of Leftist sophistry will change any of this.
No strawman EP — serious questions.
You didn’t answer my questions about when the “war” would be won.
I didn’t say terrorists commit random acts. Neither do criminals, or criminal gangs. And while they may have many motivations — my point was exactly that I don’t see why the motivation matters. You haven’t explained a different motivation for the same crime terms a normal crime into a “war”.
To justify your claim of “war” you say that terrorists have a common ideology. Putting aside whether that is true or not, that is true of lots of other groups that are simply called criminals. You also say they are coordinated and international. So are other criminal gangs.
More to the point — why is it a war now but not 10 years ago? The number of terrorist attacks hasn’t increased. The liklihood of dying from terrorism is still so small as to be almost irrelevant. The only thing that has increased is irrational fear driving people lovingly into the arms of bigger government.
You say that we’ve been lucky since S11/2001. We have also been lucky prior to S10/2001. It seems there was really only one unlucky day. Somehow the pro-war camp have talked themselves into believing that all of history is an outlyer and only S11 shows the true trend. That doesn’t seem like a sensible conclusion to me.
Just because a rare things happens (a successful big terrorist strike) doesn’t mean it is more common. That is like saying that because lightening struck your house once it must be becoming more common. Sure, the poor lightening victim might become paranoid for a while, takes out extra (unnecessary) insurance and perhaps hides under their desk for a few days… but hopefully they soon re-gain perspective and get on with a normal life.
You argue for a comprehensive, coordinated, international effort to stop islamic terrorism. Seems like a reasonable request. My only quibble is that I think the enemy should be defined as islamic socialism, as terrorism is simply a tactic.
As for governments balancing risks and costs with regards to policy… us people who are skeptical of government would suggest that they are more likely to balance risks and costs with regards to votes. You seem to have a lot of faith in the state. It’s track record doesn’t justify it.
But pretending that Islamic extremism is only a minor threat, or that we’re not at war, is to hide one’s head in the sand.
Fact — islamic extremism is a minor threat. Fact — we are not at war given any sensible definition of war. I am not making a suggestion. I am not asking your opinion. I am stating facts. 2+2=4. Terrorism is a minor threat. We are not at war.
All the fear mongering with terrorists under the bed sounds like the global warming scare campaign. The parralels are spooky… even down to how both groups scream bloody murder when I bring up the similarities.
EP - there was one point I forgot to mention.
Peter has claimed that “anti-vilification laws” imply that we are preventing “direct incitement”; i.e., “direct incitement” to commit a crime. This is patently false. “Vilification” is not “direct criminal incitement”; even if it may qualify as “indirect incitement”.
The definition of “incite” is “to provoke and urge on”. Yet the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is not about “provoking or urging people on” to commit a crime against others on the basis of their religion. The appropriate clauses merely say that you cannot incite “hatred”, “revulsion” or “severe contempt”. But since when were human emotions illegal?
Clearly, this is neither “direct incitement”, nor is it a “natural outgrowth” of anti-incitement laws, unless you believe that we should ban actual thoughts and feelings (such as “hate”). The logical implication of Peter’s argument is not that one mustn’t incite a criminal offence… it is that we must criminalise emotions, undoubtedly the most totalitarian action a government could possibly take. It is thus hardly surprising that the Soviet Union (a form of government clearly more palatable to the likes of Peter) was the pioneer of “anti-vilification” laws as far back as 1936.
On the other hand, if an Australian Sheikh was to say “Muslims should fight the occupying forces in Iraq, including Australian troops”, then this is clearly a case of “direct incitement” to commit a treasonous act. Still, I tend to think Australian Muslims should be free to commit direct or indirect criminal incitement if they wish. There is no reason why we shouldn’t keep our enemies in the open, and besides, by allowing perpetrators of criminal incitement to go public, the vast majority of Australian Muslims will have no choice but to condemn their recalcitrant co-religionists, and to encourage their family and friends to reject violent, extremist ideologies.
If a radical Mullah is already guilty of sedition, what has Australia to gain by encouraging them to commit conspiracy (by forcing them underground) while they’re at it?
Peter also writes: “I have been banging on about anti-incitement laws for some time, for example, as part of a common thread of all legitimate criminal law, but our pollie clowns seem determined to criminalise indirect incitement (saying for example that the Iraqi insurgents have a right to evict western occupiers) with a supposed cop-out for academic/journo speech”.
Well isn’t that just too fricking bad? How dare the government apply Peter’s own legal principles to their logical conclusion? It’s just not fair!
The old hoist/petard lesson can never be learned often enough, methinks.
Don’t you just love it when the the Paleo Right agree with the Jurassic Left?
Steve E: ‘But since when were human emotions illegal?’
When they incite people to commit a crime.
No, Peter, the point is that the Victorian Act defines hatred, revulsion and severe contempt - all human emotions - as crimes.
No, it doesn’t.
Should have been ‘all of which are human emotions’.
And yes it does.
I see. Tell me, in the Victorian Act, what is the punishment for feeling the human emotions of hatred, revulsion or severe contempt?
I’m not seeing it either, ab. Surely the Act is directed against the articulation of comments designed to vilify, not emotions.
Which is contemptible enough in my view, Kate. We don’t need to label it a ‘thought-crime’ law to get the message across that it is a bad law.
If the case of the two Dannies is any guide, it will depend on the nature of the complaint, the finding of the judge, and the pleadings of counsel on both sides.
What on earth have I said to give offence this time? (Awating moderation.)
It is both a bad law and a ‘thought crime’ law. In fact it is the former principally because it is the latter. So there.
Rob, you haven’t demonstrated this. In what way is it a “thought crime” law?
Word confusion here.
The act doesn’t say that hate is a crime. Steve’s point was that the anti-def laws apply if somebody incites hate. If the laws only oppose direct incitement to commit a crime (as claimed by some), then than implies hate is a crime.
Peter says that human emotions are illegal when they incite people to commit a crime. That is not true. It is the crime that is illegal, not the emotions.
I tried to find the Act on Google and couldn’t. Anyway, Evil and I argued this to death with you LWBC guys a few weeks ago, making the same points as here.
Rob, the best online source for legislation is the Austlii site - contains all state, territory and Commonwealth acts and most leading decisions by superior courts.
The act is online here.
Apologies, Kim! I thought you were Kate. Will it wash if I just say that your views seem so closely aligned that I should be forgiven for mistaking you for her? Do I also need to apologise to Kate? On whom does this error most poorly reflect?
LWBC = Left Wing Baying Chorus.
Peter says that human emotions are illegal when they incite people to commit a crime. That is not true. It is the crime that is illegal, not the emotions.
John H, my expression was clumsy, I should have said ‘ human emotions can lead to the illegality of incitement’.
So, Peter, I take it you now admit that the Victorian RARTA is clearly not a case of “direct incitement to commit a criminal offence”, as you previously contended, given that:
a) the Act does not criminalise the incitement of a crime
b) the Act does criminalise the incitement of “hate”
That necessarily leads me to conclude that, unless “hate” itself is a crime, the Victorian RARTA cannot possibly have anything to do with “direct incitement”. (Of course, if you really want to make “hate” a crime, which I suspect the Left does, then be my guest - but don’t pretend to care about civil liberties in future)
In conclusion, there is little practical difference between the RARTA and John Howard’s draconian power grab, except to the extent that Howard’s latest outrage is probably more defensible than Bracks’ abominable legislation. Those commmentators who maintain otherwise do so dishonestly.
Say, Mark - have you ever shilled for this legislation too?
Just an aside on the issue of the relation between speech and action, how often has the world been saved in discussions between friends over a meal, or a BBQ? And how often have these words led to actions being taken?
Talk is talk.
There is a difference between informal organisations discussing criminal activities and planning for them; and innocent banter. These anti-terrorism laws against talk about terrorism [and with the secrecy provisions which conceal public debate about the content of any supposedly pro-terrorism talk - absolutely anything could be used by the authorities if Ruddock wants it to] seem similar to the Right’s silly fear of heavy-metal music.
I just hear that the COAG meeting gave Howard what he wanted…
No, Steve, and as I’ve said on a number of occasions - I’m abivalent about it and leaning towards being opposed to it.
“I just hear that the COAG meeting gave Howard what he wanted…”
Great. Wonderful. Just frickin’ fantastic. Thanks Peter! Thanks a lot buddy! Well done matey!! You must be cock-a-hoop!
Pharoz - all expressions of gratitude are to be forwarded to one Peter Kemp, in case you were wondering.
“No, Steve, and as I‚Äôve said on a number of occasions - I‚Äôm abivalent about it and leaning towards being opposed to it.”
That’s nice to hear! At the very least you have retained the right to oppose the federal government’s tyrannical power grab. Unlike Peter, of course, who is an objective supporter of the federal government.
So, clearly Mark is acquitted of the charge of shilling for Bracks’ tyrannical laws (and, ipso facto, supporting Howard’s dictatorial extension of the Bracks precedent).
But what of the other commentators here? I think Kim and AB sound like “anti-vilification” shills. I’m sure I’ve read their police state apologia somewhere before, but I’ll need verification. Is this true, guys? Do you support the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act?
You must be cock-a-hoop, Stevie.
This is a thread about legislation - that you oppose - which infringes civil liberties, and you’ve derailed it onto your favourite whipping boy of dodgy religious vilification laws down Mexico-way.
You could have said something meaningful about this GWOT farce, but no, you had to whinge about the terrible times suffered by Muslim-bashers. Well done, matey!
Um. Fyodor. I did not derail this discussion. You’ll notice that I joined about half-way down the thread after Peter and EP had already derailed the discussion, and attempted to put Peter right. You have Peter to thank, not me.
BTW Fido - I’ve written about the GWOT farce just today:
http://libertarian.org.au/blog/readArticle.jsp?articleID=6091206
By my reckoning it was EP who derailed it first, Stevie. You’re just his sock-puppet in this stoushette. Which is ironic, because he’s a dopey authoritarian from way back - he’s simply swapped from left to right. You, however, lay claim to some libertarian instincts.
On reflection, it seems you’re right on the first count: EP wrote, “Current laws already criminalise speech (wrongly), and allow surveillance of people who haven‚Äôt been charged (rightly).” Peter then replied with a lengthy, cognitively unhinged, defence of the RARTA.
But then you write, “You‚Äôre just his sock-puppet in this stoushette”. Funny kind of “sock puppet” that disagrees with 50% of what the hand is doing.
Sock puppet is a favourite insult here. It must be really hurtful.
In response to ab’s comment:
No biggie! And I can recall at least one issue where Kate and I disagreed, though it would be fair to assume (I think - I can’t talk for Kate) that our views would be close on a lot of stuff.
As to the Victorian legislation, on balance I’m against.
But, Steve, I agree with Fyodor that this thread is off the rails (and don’t particularly care who first derailed it) and I’d also observe that if you want to do inquisitions, you should take a trick off Rafe. How many commenters here condemn the Vietcong? How many have studied Popper and Hayek on political economy? How many admit their responsibility for Stalin’s crimes?
No biggie.
I’m sure Kim and I agree more than we disagree. But I am not her sock-puppet, nor is she my tag-teamer.
I’m also against the Victorian legislation, BTW.
Steve E, your ‘medicine’ is over on the new Saturday Salon.