http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/143732.php

Specifically, Jones’s program contained material likely to incite, encourage or present for its own sake violence and brutality, prohibited under clause 1.3 (a) of the radio code, and material likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify those of Lebanese and Middle-Eastern background on the basis of their ethnicity prohibited under clause 1.3 (e).

Far from supporting the ACMA and criticising Jones’s inflammatory remarks, Prime Minister John Howard and Labor Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd both immediately rushed to Jones’s defence.

The prime minister endorsed Jones as an outstanding broadcaster and not someone who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment. Rather, he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think, Howard said. Labor leader Rudd followed suit.

Remember, this proposed law would, like all the others, have a hidden bit, that likely the AFP people would understand if they wanted to avoid risking their jobs:

Incitement & Vilification by wogs (Terrorism) Suppression Act 2009

Couldn’t have male white shock jocks prosecuted now could we? It might be a vote loser, the ultimate political “crime.”

The ALP distinguished itself with Haneef by following the disgraceful anti-wedge policy, so destructively and nauseatingly seen in earlier ‘Tampa Times’. The ALP as I recall supported in effect Andrew’s withdrawal of Haneef’s visa: Gutlessness to the nth degree.

But just to remind us of how some pollies view the AFP:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2402675.htm

SALLY NEIGHBOUR (to Arthur Sinodinos): So are you saying in effect it’s their job to do the bidding of the Government?
ARTHUR SINODINOS, FORMER PM JOHN HOWARD’S CHIEF OF STAFF: Um their job is to work within the framework of, of policy subject of course to not breaking the law.
SALLY NEIGHBOUR: So is it their job to do the bidding of Government as long as it’s legal?
ARTHUR SINODINOS, FORMER PM JOHN HOWARD’S CHIEF OF STAFF: Ah in my view it is.

To my mind, as a general principle, judicial process exposes itself to ridicule when cases fall over because of a weak prosecution that should never have been instigated. Even with relatively simple cases, unlike the complexity of a terrorist trial which can go for a year, a weak case that falls over after a trial begins make the jury think “What a crock of s*** that was, why did they waste our time?” (When DPP is “no billed” by the defence and the case goes to trial and falls over either by DPP withdrawal after a voir dire, or acquittal, it’s not uncommon for defence legal costs to be awarded against the prosecution.)

Simply because these new laws merge into the arena of “thought crimes” prosecutions are necessarily complex and expensive. Circumstantial evidence and inferences that may be drawn from evidence of “thought crimes” is necessarily complex, abstract, nebulous: and would attract so many legislated or precedent based judicial directionsto the jury(and if slightly off track become numerous appeal points) that even a jury of lawyers would be fed up with the volume of evidence and complexity after a year of trial with numerous co-accused (as the current cases are).

It is to be regretted that McClelland appears to have joined Howard’s favorite bandwagon on fearmongering, albeit with somewhat less malevolence and rat cunning.

(I have my doubts as to whether I will ever vote for either of the major parties ever again–it would seem that on the human rights front only the Greens seem to be consistent in support of HR.)

How many have died from Global Warming since 1986?

Attribution is difficult because, climate change is one predisposing factor amongst many but …

09.30.03 MOSCOW — About 160,000 people die every year from side effects of global warming ranging from malaria to malnutrition and the numbers could almost double by 2020, a group of scientists said Tuesday. The study,Global Warming Deaths on the Rise by scientists at the World Health Organization and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said children in developing nations seemed most vulnerable.

Also:

ScienceDaily (July 4, 2007) — Global warming will cause more deaths in summer because of higher temperatures but these will not be offset by fewer deaths in milder winters finds an analysis published online ahead of print in Occupational and Environment Medicine. The Harvard researchers analysed city-specific weather data related to the deaths of more than 6.5 million people in 50 US cities between 1989 and 2000. They found that during two-day cold snaps there was a 1.59% increase in deaths because of the extreme temperatures. However, during similar periods of extremely hot weather death rates went up by 5.74%. Deaths did not rise as steeply when temperature fluctuations were less extreme.
Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn

It’s also a mistake simply to focus on deaths. One needs to account for immiseration, non-fatal ill-health and so forth.

One should also consider the other side of the ledger. Whereas the best “stopping terrorism” can theoretically do is to stop deaths and injuries at a very high cost in personal freedom, the measures to staunch climate change have positive benefits — cleaner air, water, more global equity etc ..

Hope that helps …

Fran

How many have died from Global Warming since 1986?

Absolutely.

1. Responsible politicians work to reduce exaggerated fears back to commonsense levels, rather than exploiting them in the quest for more power and less accountability.

2. Given the tiny real threat from terrorists, the true aim is presumably social control, i.e. a move towards totalitarianism. Same applies re. Conroy and his WWW censorship whackjobbery.

3. The current government was voted in as an alternative to the previous load of fearmongering totalitarians, not to complete their bloody program. They should take a hint from the current popularity of Labour in the UK, and give up on the control freakery.

4. I’d LOVE to see Conroy and McClelland gone from cabinet. They’re not up to it.

And I resent people like McLelland continuing to pander to exaggerated fears.

Wow must be nice to live in a world where such advice is used as sarcasm. Of course, in Jakarta its part of our daily routine but then eveyone knows that Australia doesn’t have any race or religion nutters.

Not convincing.

1. We should stop being ‘da Bad Guyz’ whenever possible. But in any case, terrorist-type activity can inflict itself on even the most Good-Guyzish countries. Sweden has a bit of a record for random assassination of politicians in the middle of Stockholm, for instance. There is always a slight risk of such things happening, and Oz gets off much lighter than almost anywhere.

2. The things that we object to terrorists doing, i.e. killing people, kidnapping, blowing things up, enabling the above and conspiring to do them, are ALREADY SERIOUS CRIMES, and were before the Great 2001 Panic. No new laws were ever required to prosecute people for planning to do evil things, so long as there was convincing evidence of their guilt.

3. The powers that have been enabled by new laws here, in the UK, and the USA since 2001 have a tendency to allow any random spook, cop, parking inspector or whatever to prevent any normal person doing normal things, and to harrass, arrest, torture or disappear them without notice for indefinite periods of time. Pretty much on the grounds that they don’t like your face, are in a bad mood, or that you were taking a dangerous photograph. This is a very dangerous development that should never have been allowed to happen. So long as most people aren’t directly affected, it will be difficult to get this crap rescinded, but while it is there, we are frogs in a pot and the heat has been turned on.

4. In sacrificing our liberty to the power-mad creeps who offer us ‘draconian anti-terror laws’, we have allowed our free and democratic society to be stuffed, and hence have cooperated with the terrorists in achieving what they wanted, all along.