One of the most striking things about the Rudd era is the virtual disappearance of terrorism as a political issue. Aside from a passing reference in his 2020 Summit introductory speech, I have barely heard the words mentioned. While this can be partly attributed to the passing of time, it’s not the only reason. Look at what’s happening in the UK, where Gordon Brown has just bribed and blackmailed a bill authorizing 42 days of detention without charge for terrorism suspects through the Commons, despite widespread rebellion from Labour backbenchers.
The details of this grubby bill, and the tortuous process of getting it through the Commons, can be read at length at the Guardian, for those interested. In short, even the police and intelligence services (who never see an additional power they don’t like) seem remarkably unenthusiastic about the idea; the head of MI5 has even publicly stated that they haven’t requested it. The odds of it actually becoming law are not particularly high, either; the Lords will likely block it, and a court challenge is highly likely (and stands a good chance of succeeding). Regardless of the idea’s merits, however, Gordon Brown thinks he’s going to get a desperately needed win with the wider British public.. The Guardian quotes a poll with 69% of the British public approving the new measures.
It’s a moderately interesting hypothetical whether similar “tough on terrorism” laws would be a political winner in Australia at the moment. I’m very, very glad that Australian Labor don’t seem interested in finding out.
Well, not until they read about it here on Australia’s Most Influential Political BlogTM
Given Rudd’s febrile media relations habits, I think the government is about 3 bad headlines away from trying something like this on.
Why don’t we revisit this point in, say, 42 days’ time…after you get out?
What is the current state of the legislation in Australia? How long can you or I be held before charge on suspicion of Terrorism?
The reason it is not an issue here is (IMHO) simple. Rudd knew that this was one issue where the ALP was seen as being out of step at the last election, so they did all they could to kill it as an issue. In this they were successful. Bringing it up now would remind people of this perception - and therefore would be damaging his standing.
A successful attack against Australian interests or, worse, in Australia, would be very damaging to him - making his more softly, softly approach look dangerous.
They will be happy not to give this area any oxygen if they can avoid it.
Personally, I happen to agree that a more “liberal” approach to this is the best long-term strategy, but politics is notorious for short-termism. A single attack on Australian territory and I would expect that this attempt at a “no policy” policy would become politically untenable.
I hope that I will never have the chance to see this one tested.
It’s takes a very special thought process (see Reynolds, A) to argue why terrorism scaremongering is no longer a political winner in Australis, without mentioning Dr Haneef.
That shabby episode left the coppers (see Keelty, M) and the politicians in charge (see Andrew, K) looking like idiots or worse. By victimising Haneef so blatantly, so maliciously and so incompetently, they not ensured that legitimate measures to counter actual terrorism, not to mention superficial ones strictly for political show, will be infinitely harder to introduce. No wonder Rudd’s not going there.
Brown’s 42 day incarceration got by with 9 votes (315 to 306). Originally the Labour Party under Blair wanted a 90 day lockup and, from memory, accepted 28 so why the big deal on getting an extra 14. Supposedly the terror experience in the UK is a lot raw-er than here but you have to wonder what Brown’s motives are.
As Robert has pointed out in another post the easy acceptance of the Brits to modernising their Trident nuclear armed submarine fleet dumbfounded me more than this terror extension.
If there is ever any appeal in this for Rudd watch out for the tactics. He may also request a far longer period and then appear to be relenting by accepting a shorter ’stay’.
Gawd, the anti-terror laws Howard brought in are bad enough.
I think Spiros is right. The Haneef stuff-up made the whole country aware of how these laws rhreaten hard-won civil liberties, even if now its only a murmur in the back of our minds, because Labor’s not pushing it.Not that I think Rudd is going to modify them anytime soon. At trhe risk of provoking howls of protest from the RWDBs who occasionally frequent this blog,I think the general distaste for treatment meted out to Hicks and Habib may also have contributed to a less paranoid attitude.
But then again, Camden is a useful corrective to optimism, isn’t it?
As far as Armidale is concerned, thge world has not fallen in with the establishment of a mosque on the UNE campus, and I understand the Muslim students are very well-regarded.
Mecurius the First
They’re not arresting the mighty Merk, are they? Just ‘cos he was critical of some Minister? Or does he terrorise other road users on his bicycle every morning?? Let’s hope you don’t get that standard phone call from Robert M: “I won’t be seeing you for a while but I’m safe”.
Poor old Robert, I’ll miss him
Perhaps Gordon Brown wishes that the dog had eaten the top secret and damning assessment of Bush’s Iraq fantasies left “accidentally” on the train.
[link]
Then again, perhaps not.
What better way to build a case for bugging out of Bush’s morass?
It doesn’t get any better as time goes by, Katz.
Years ago we were told the story that Saddam had been trying to buy yellow cake from Africa - story based on forgeries. Now someone mislays a Secret doc or two. Nice to see we’re still in the club, though: “for UK, US, Canadian and Australian eyes only”.
What a testament to the power of modern communications technology, Katz. For hardly has this document been left on a train but it then falls into your hands so that you have read it and can make the confident judgement that it is a “damning assessment of Bush’s Iraq fantasies”. Since you obviously have it in your possession can you share it on-line with us so that we can all form our own opinions of its content?
Or perhaps you are going on the Independent report which quotes a Mr Gardner, whose role, position and competence to pass any judgement of his own is not identified by the Independent and who is not claimed by the Independent report, in any event, to have said what you have claimed.
Could this Mr Gardner be, perchance, Mr Chauncy Gardner?
I think we should be told.
Well, gosh GregM.
You could be right. This document, which spokespeople for the British government have owned up as one of their own, may indeed be full of nothing but tosh. This document may even be very complimentary of Mr Bush as a man of singular vision. And you’re correct. That would be very embarrassing for HMG.
[link]
Now, this “explanation” itself may be nothing but a pack of lies.
Which raises the question, why would a document full of tosh regarding Mr Bush as a man of singular vision be left on a train?
But that of course begs a prior question: why would the British government construct a document full of tosh praising Mr Bush as a man of singular vision?
Thank you for your clarifying remarks GregM. I can dimly perceive now why the spokesperson for HMG would be very upset about these unfortunate events.
Actually, the BBC correspondent’s name is Frank Gardner.
GregM,
Well, what do YOU think the document says? Hmmn?
Juan Cole says one of the documents was a “‘top secret and in some cases damning’ assessment of Iraq’s security forces.”
But who knows? Maybe it’ll say that everything is going much better than the damned liberal media reports, and it will all be fantastic before November 2nd. Ya think????
There has been a whole LOT of highly sensitive data misplaced in the UK over the past few years, while the govt keeps making anti-terrorism laws ever tighter (and anti-Western militants ever more angry). Hard not to conclude that some senior Cabinet ministers are just not on the Blair-Brown wavelength, innit?
This story could be related: a top Tory MP has just resigned.
Reality check: yes, the man is a Tory!
I can’t believe that this passed the House with DUP support. The Labour party was pushing this vote as a show of strength for Gordon Brown but he needed the support of another party to actually get this through. Without the DUP enough Labourites voted against this to scuttle the bill.
Gordon Brown is so screwed, with luck his demise will bring down Jacqui Smith as well.
I have no idea what the document says, gandhi. I have not read it. That was my point, after all. I would form my opinion about what a document says after I have read it. That is, after all, what sensible people do.
Has Juan Cole read it? If not, how can he say:
?
If he has read it will he post it on-line so we can all do so and then form our own opinions?
I think your post here has just demonstrated the very point j_p_z was making about the primal nature of irony as a force along with gravity and electro-magnetism on the “Is LP Australia’s most influential blog” thread.
LOL.
More here:
You know, it’s funny how much of our Australian news now comes from the USA rather than the UK, innit? And yet the future of our democracy could depend on how well the British can manage theirs (I don’t hold out much hope for the USA becoming a true democracy in my lifetime).