Or so claims Gerard Henderson anyway. In addition to once again attacking the media for its alleged unbalanced coverage on the terrorism legislation, Henderson is actually making the argument that without these laws the Coalition will destroy multiculturalism.
Notice too how he continues his now weekly attacks the Age, ABC, artists, journalists (left wing?) and lawyers (which I guess are of the civil rights kind), while studiously avoiding the media elephant in the room, the Murdoch yellow press which dominates political commentary in our media landscape. Amusingly he says this.
And how many commentators defended the legislation? Absolutely zip
So in addition to not reading any News Limited publications, Gerry obviously doesn’t read himself.
But I digress…..
Coalition and Labor politicians are more likely to hold out against any demand to discriminate against Muslim immigrants, and/or to junk multiculturalism, if the majority of Australians believe there is adequate national security legislation in place.
Is the Coalition so weak that it would allow jackboot wearing tossers like John Stone to destroy one of the most successful cultural underpinnings of this country if it doesn’t get its way on national security? One that Henderson admits has made a difference in protecting us from homegrown terrorist attacks? It appears so if Henderson is to be believed.
So the really scary thing about Henderson’s column is that he is no doubt channeling some of the chatter going on behind the scenes within the Coalition, it’s clear that they may be unable to constrain their basest instincts in the face of a complex and changing world.
If, as Henderson alludes to, successful multiculturalism is partially responsible for our national security, wouldn’t the correct response to that suggestion be a strengthening of that policy rather than the obvious vilification of one section or our multicultural society under the guise of fighting the war on terror?
…And in addition to not reading people backing the legislation, he obviously hasn’t read Mark Lopez’s Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics, which he cites.
There’s a specious link in his article between multiculturalism and these new anti-’terror’ laws, in that he claims they were both products of Government rather than popular demand. Half true.
Multiculturalism was a product of two decades of policy and theory work by the Department of Immigration, churches, academics, social researchers and migrants themselves. It didn’t meet with popular support until well into the late 1970s. On the other hand it was a) never one Bill, b) a very large group of sometimes contradictory ideas and beliefs, and c) brought into being over a long period of time, gradually and carefully.
On the other hand the anti-’terror’ bills are a) Bills nobody’s read, b) one simple idea about reducing civil liberties, and c) going to be brought in quickly with as little debate as possible.
Henderson, Gerard. Fail. Please make better use of secondary sources and avoid obvious errors of fact.
Multiculturalism …
Where would we be without it?
EP: At least they’re not stealing your sperm.
C’mon Evil, you can do better than that. I thought you’d jump at the opportunity of a thread involving the Fairfax press, multiculturalism and academics.
Run out of reasons to support the laws already?
I haven’t even warmed up yet.
Did you see that Paris is celebrating four nights of multiculturalism?
Money quote: “For 30 years the situation has been getting worse in a number of neighborhoods”. That the worsening has parallelled the emergence of multiculturalist ideology is no coincidence.
Instead of peaceful integration, multiculturalism promotes separatism and social alienation, with inevitable results. Time to put the brakes on, before we get to where Paris, London and Amsterdam are now.
Henderson nails it. Moderate Muslims in this country have a strong vested interest in avoiding fundamentalist terror attacks on our soil at all costs. Islamic fundamentalism is bad for their political health in the long run. Hendo’s right to rely on the judgement of the Labor Premiers offices and the PM’s office to strike the right political balance here. That’s what we elect them for. You can give all the time in the world for unelected lawyers, doctor’s wives, artists and their talking heads to ‘debate’ the issue and it won’t change the fact that their necks are not on the line if they get it wrong. These are the same people who have supported Arafat and Co for years, denying that Arab Muslims want to wipe Israel off the map. Iran’s President has just exposed they and the Mahatirs, etc for the dangerous moonbats they really are. We don’t need to listen to their delusional ravings and chatterings any longer. It’s feelgood badge wearing stuff of no consequence, because they won’t ultimately bear any of it. Their best role will be ‘keeping the bastards honest’ in the execution of the new legislation.
Um, France doesn’t have a multiculturalist policy, EP. They believe in French universalism and integration. It’s just that it hasn’t worked – hence a shift in approach.
Nor do the UK or Holland in our sense.
Come back when you’ve done some serious historical research on European social policy. There’s no basis for your comparison.
The PMs refusal to budge on the Premiers demands to keep a semblance of judicial review, separation of powers, individual rights against the state (ie liberal democracy) makes it clear this bill is not actually about the national interest. Its Howard’s new wedge for 2007.
Junking our way of life, and 800 year old legal principles to wring another fear-based victory. He is beneath contempt.
So, ye who didnt protest when they put asylum seekers in unreviewable adminsitrative detnetion be awawre: now they come for you.
Administrative detention: for all of us.
If the premiers dont hold firm, Australian becomes a post-democracy.
I want to know why any RWDB would support us becoming a police state. This is precisely what’s happening: imprisonment on executive order without judicial review. That’s the sine qua non.
The terrorists are winning. John Howard is a traitor.
He shows some good sense, then.
Heh!
Meanwhile and onion is slowly peeled.
I’m also interested in how alienation gets confused with multiculturalism.
Please explain?
Shorter Lefty Elitist: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Multiculturalism causes alienation by encouraging separatism amongst immigrants, and promoting hatred for the host culture.
One of the defining features of multiculturalism is its doctrine that all cultures are equally valid, with the exception of the indigenous culture.
Thus in Australia, multiculturalists defend the traditional practices of immigrants, as in the example of Victorian police response to domestic violence in the Muslim community.
At the same time, multiculturalist advocates promote hatred for Anglo-Australian culture by falsely accusing it of racism, genocide, and so on.
This double standard lies at the heart of multiculturalism and is one of the reasons it is such a divisive policy.
Shorter EP: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Gerard Henderson seems concerned that coverage of the anti-terrorism bill is unbalanced because most journalist’s, commentators and legal experts voice opposition to it.
This is an interesting argument and one the flat earth society may like to run with…
If the Prime Minister is doing what he ‘believes should be done’ as Gerard Henderson asserts, then he should allow sufficient time for debate, and release sufficient information for the public to participate in the conversation.
Perhaps I’m a little confused, but I thought there is something in the word ‘democracy’ that encourages democratic engagement.
EP, Some of us are concerned about unchecked state power. Others blithely fool themselves that this slide in arbitrary executive power is of no concern.
When even National Party backbenchers like Neville are concerned about the impact on our way of life, you should be hearing warning bells.
I’d love to see the Family Impact Statement on these laws. I’d also love backers like Hendo to have a think about how they’d feel if the laws were used on them or their family, and why they seem to imagine that’ll never happen.
I’d love to see lefties approaching this issue with sanity and not hysteria.
I’d like Kitten-Little to approach ANY issue with sanity.
As if you can talk, Crazy Hair.
Great to see the left/right exchange broadening all our boundaries and challenging our preconceptions that makes the blogosphere so justly famous.
I have a medical condition. Besides, it’s only the hair that’s crazy. For you, it’s a full-time job.
In an effort to be nice to the evil Kitten Little I like to make this small offering. I just found it, neat site too.
I’m thinking cross promotional tie ins and revenue sharing EP, hell, at least a new bike……get your lawyer onto it.
A quick inspection of your link, Fyodor (don’t have time to read it carefully – must go to TAB and get a bet on) suggests that the thread is mainly about how Kimberella is the hotness.
Hang on – aren’t they all?
Yes, Mark. You might say (although, I couldn’t possibly comment) that it’s a recurring meme.
Ah, memories of FU – I believe the ABC shop has it all on dvd now!
watch out EP, those criticisms might bring out Fyodor’s grandfather who reads this blog!
Be afraid be very afraid!!
Could these laws be used unfairly on us or the innocent? Of course they could, but what is to stop that? A Bill of Rights perhaps? When Howard was asked about that he stated he didn’t believe they can give any such guarantee. Rather, the best guarantee was our parliamentary system of democracy, and an open and inquisitorial (attack dog?) media. That’s also why he wasn’t in favour of anti-vilification laws generally.
Now it is true that many on both sides of politics would be uneasy about the possibility of persecuting the innocent, with draconian law, which will not be immediately open to public scrutiny, but rather their public appointees. As Ronnie Reagan said ‘Trust but verify’ and in this we need to be comfortable that all the actors under the new laws know that ultimately their actions will be accountable. Nothing remains hidden for long in our democracy, although there needs to be some secrecy with the handling of terrorist suspects in the short run. These laws really reverse the onus of proof of guilt, which we are generally not in favour of. We’d rather the guilty walk through lack of proof positive than risk the wider ill of persecuting the odd innocent. Suicidal tendencies to mass murder, changes that perspective for most. We’d rather risk the short term injustice for the odd innocent than the alternative. It’s a tipping of the scales, but we’ll be alert to the tradeoffs involved. It’s not a Bill of Rights that guarantees any of that in the long run. Our sense of justice has evolved socially and civically and will respond to any perceived heavy handedness in operation accordingly.
As for Stanhope being odd man out with the Premiers and PM. He might think his leafy Canberra and its middle class Muslims are just like Western Sydney, but he needs to recall how quickly his punters were outraged that their public servant peers were a bit tardy in predicting and preparing for the threat of fire.
You know I always supports laws that I haven’t read just like Gerry.
you people are just soooo pedantic!
Hello? When laws aren’t available til they’re rushed into parliament, when there are no committee hearings, and when the government has a majority in both houses?
Nothing stops people being unfairly charged Observa, but our ancient system of judicial review preventw it turning into arbitrary, indefinite detention where there is no basis in law.
Some people appear to still be labouring undere the misapprehension that current laws are inadequate. In fact, we have conspiracy laws which are entirely preventative in nature. What we need to is better intelligence and surveillance of suspects while sufficient evidence is being gathered. You know , terrorism is essentially murder, or attmept to. We DO have laws to deal with this. I agree its a new situation in terms of need for greater intelligence gathering; these laws will still need to rely on intellgence anyway(unless we’re going in on hunches now). So its bye bye to key civil rights with no net policing gain.
On a lighter note: Feel the power!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4394722.stm
(Hmmm…. possibly in poor taste now Ive read it in full)
On an *unusual* note perhaps….
These laws are not denying any civil rights that have not already been denied in other contexts.
Freedom of speech has been denied by anti-vilification laws. Innocent-until-proven-guilty has been denied by Apprehended Violence Orders. Preventive detention has been enabled by laws to keep some offenders in prison even after the end of their sentence.
These laws are hardly the radical departure from tradition that their opponents claim. They are an appropriate response to a threat that is not adequately addressed by present laws. Terrorism is not crime, it’s war — and needs to be addressed as such.
The ‘threat we face’ EP is 6 to 8 whackos, who are under constant surveillance:
“The figure “800″ is believed to be a dramatic exaggeration that has angered some intelligence insiders who maintain the correct figure of “persons of genuine interest” is perhaps 60 to 80 of whom, perhaps six or eight, are considered to be a genuine danger. They are under constant surveillance.”
(From the Bulletin)
“When laws arenÄôt available til theyÄôre rushed into parliament, when there are no committee hearings, and when the government has a majority in both houses?”
The laws are devised and agreed by the State Premier’s offices as well as the PMs. Bound to have some disagreements but a consensus will be reached via collective wisdom. I would have thought that was a fair amount of stored expertise and political savvy. In the final analysis it will come down to the professionalism and ability of the actors prosecuting the new laws. Perfection is reserved for the afterlife of course.
EP,
‘Terrorism is not crime, itÄôs war Äî and needs to be addressed as such.’
I’m glad you meantioned war, because one of the tricks of the light is that this doesn’t seem like a conventional war. We can’t have any John Waynes, Robert Mitchums or Richard Burtons busting up an obvious enemy.
One thing is common to this situation though, because in a war setting there has to be a degree of bipartisan agreement about ways to protect and defend the nation. This war has too many unknown qualities to make these simple decisions, yet we may not have enough time to let the decision making process linger.
Haven’t read the whole thread yet, but I’d like EP to point me in the direction of France’s multicultural policy.
Should be an interesting search for you EP, since there isn’t one in existence. Do you actually research the crap that you write?
Oops, duplicate point. Though I’d still like to know the answer to my last sentence.
See above, David, where I said to EP:
To which there was no response, just the usual stuff about vilification laws, domestic violence and “we’re in a war”.
Comments crossed, David.
I’d like to know as well, particularly since EP is always claiming that the Internet should replace Universities.
Hey Lefty,
Step back a moment and see yourself as a Pell or a Hollingworth trying to defend the vast majority of good priests against the charge of the Light Brigade who you believe are seeing a peddo behind every robe. You’re calling for calm and due process of the law- innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz and the Church is not responsible for the odd peddo or two. You’re not even talking about life and death with this issue either. With suicidal fundamentalists plotting bigger and better attacks you are. Now do you get it? Joe Public do. So do their elected representatives at the highest level.
“Come back when youÄôve done some serious historical research on European social policy. ThereÄôs no basis for your comparison.”
Come off it Mark. My company doesn’t have lots of mission statements quoting Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill and the like, but if it quacks like a free enterprise bastion of capitalism, guess what? What sort of implicit mission statements do the EU countries sign up to there and in the UN? How do they behave? Which country raised the most eyebrows for banning the Hijab? France or Turkey? Try wearing a Hijab or building mosques in China and you’ll end up like Falun Gong quick smart. As EP pointed out, a change from PC policing is raising some hackles. So is banning piggy banks, etc, etc.
Nonsense, observa – if you believe that national and cultural approaches don’t matter except as rhetoric, then we may as well forget about EP’s junk multiculturalism line as it won’t make a slightest bit of difference. France raised eyebrows for banning the hijab in public institutions because it’s consistent with their universalist/integrationist approach but clearly possibly a bad move given that their assimilationist policy hasn’t worked.
Observa, you clown, there are tens of millions of muslims in China. As for mosques and hijab knock yourself out.
Observa, its pretty simple. Im saying police crime; diligently, and with committed intelligence. You’re saying (well, Howard & Ruddock)we should police hearsay, inadequate evidence, and lock people up for 5 years who *report* on such proceedings, even when manifestly unjust. That’s an overreation to the threat level, and of great concern.
Joe Public’s view is irrelevant to habeus corpus and limits on executive power in a liberal democracy. Its just that we usually have a political leadership who defends basic liberties,and doesnt seek to manipulate ignorance. We no longer do.
You also appear to be ignoring the number of coalition backbenchers with concerns. This legislation is NOT unreservedly supported by the people’s reps, on either side.
Incidentally, how come you want to ignore Joe Public over Telstra, but not on these issues?
The times they are a changin’ all about you Mark
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17100831-23109,00.html
But that only proves Mark’s point (and refutes EP’s) – the UK does not have a multiculturalism policy.
Can you really compare our situation with France? Their six million Muslims, if unassimilated, is a nation within a nation. A similar scenario with Germany.
Australian Muslims number around 250,000, mainly moderate Turkish and Egyptian migrants and their families, spread out across the country.
The laws need to cover potential terrorist acts by any group, regardless of their cultural background, but not be allowed to alienate or wrongly colour peaceful communities, or curtail freedom of action or speach.
OK Fyodor. Let me qualify that relative statement given China’s overall population
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/04/13/2003250234
Sounds like they’re doing a bit better than Falun Gong.
FaceLift also makes a good point. Time for a smoko, observa!
“But that only proves MarkÄôs point (and refutes EPÄôs) – the UK does not have a multiculturalism policy.”
No Kim. It means they like most EU states are wising up fast.
But they’re obviously not as wise as those inscrutable Chinese, eh Observa? Why don’t we just do away with the judicial process altogether? The Rule of Law is obviously for whimps, particularly when we’re at WAR, dagnabit.
“Islam in European Social, Religious and Multicultural Policies”
http://euro-islam.info/PDFs/Cesari.pdf
I hope the UK citizenship test includes the following:
1) Name one of the deliberately misspelled names for Fawlty Towers as it appeared on the hotel’s front sign. (A: Farty Towels).
2) Name the originator of the Daleks? (A: Davros).
3) Complete this sentence: “It’s goodnight from me and it’s _________”
4) The royals are:
a) British to their bootstraps
b) Welsh actually
c) Mostly their Scotts
d) Krauts
5) Spotted Dick is:
a) Usher of the Black Rod’s deputy
b) A bird found in the Lake district
c) The UK’s newest and most worrying STD
d) A nickname for pale redhead, Neil Kinnock
e) A famous dish
6) Robbie Williams is popular because? (A: Nobody knows).
7) Why on earth to do you want to move here?
a) The climate
Parkinson is:
b) The race riots
c) The dental service
d) The Spotted Dick
a) One of the world’s great interviewers
b) A master of communication
c) A journalist
d) A predictable star-f*%#*@
9) Prince Charles once longed to be:
a) An SAS soldier
b) A dentist
c) A podiatrist
d) King of England
e) A tampon
10) Are you or are you not a current cake to the Duke of York?
11) Is it true that Hitler only had one ball and Goering had none at all?
12) England’s greatest military hero was:
a) Richard the Lionheart
b) General Montgomery
c) Prince Harry
d) Horatio Nelson
e) Captain Mainwaring
Questions like this will keep out the riff-raff.
Hear, hear, C.L.
Particularly with regard to Robbie Williams.
Canada has a stated multicultural policy and is successful in doing so. It is the benchmark on how multicult works. It is a peaceful nation as far as community strife is concerned, in fact it’s only real community difficulties now lie with the separatists of Quebec and Alberta.
And I would go so far as to suggest that most migrants have a higher regard and commitment for Canada that those two groups of agitators. In fact it’s not a suggestion, the Quebecers and Albertans wish to destroy Canada, migrants do not.
Multicult has fostered this commitment because it has allowed these groups to feel a part of a whole without seeing their cultures destroyed because of some strange concept like the homogenous nation state held in aspic as propagaated by the white trash Alberta firsters and the ‘pure laine’ French Canadians.
As a result of multicult, migrants are bound even tighter to the idea of Canada as a great nation. I’m willing to bet the house on that here too.
At last, some definitive proof that the old laws weren’t adequate to deter violent terrorists.
Forget the fecking theory. THIS is the government we’re going to trust with these draconian laws?
We’re very lucky the danger has so far proved illusory!
On the example of Germany given above – a quite different case to France. Most Islamic immigrants to France are from former colonies – Algeria in particular – hence the tensions between neo-colonialist Universalism and an unintegrated already dissilusioned minority.
Germany’s immigrants are largely Turks – brought over as guest workers and their kids. Turks whose brand of Islam is pretty moderate and who are already used to living in a secular nation. Under Schroeder, Germany, to some degree picking up on Habermas’ idea of constitutional nationalism (recognising that history is a flawed basis on which to build a national identity but that democratic values are a good one) reoriented citizenship policy to remove its former ethnic exclusiveness.
Observa, EP, and the rest should note that precisely *one* country has to date had a problem with homegrown terrorism – the UK. The silliness that observa is talking about, by the way, was mooted ages ago when Blunkett was Home Secretary. Anyone with the slightest ability to reason can start to compare. EP’s ludicrous claim that EU countries are “multiculturalist” in practice and observa’s similar know-nothing bombast are demonstrably false. It should be very easy – as a matter of logic – to work out that alleged multiculturalism is not a cause of terror as it hasn’t been manifested in any but one country (which is not multiculturalist anyway, as I’ve argued).
Therefore it’s much more likely that there are particularly British causes for terror to emerge there – one of which probably is a lax approach to policing and immigration (ie radical Imams) in the past – but only one. The actual statements of both the bombers and those inspiring them refer again and again to British foreign policy.
QED.
The approach of the unintellectual right in its slavish desire to empower the State and disempower some citizens (with the inevitable consequence of disempowering all) is so logically flawed it’s hardly worth contesting.
Small point Phil and Mark, but I fear you both may have been somewhat unfair with Hendo. His point about the lack of commentators defending the legislation was made in the following passage:
I think it’s clear he was referring to The Age where, if I recall correctly, he is no longer a columnist.
The sky is falling
Through humid November air.
On who will it land?
Fair enough, fm, but you’d imagine from the context that he is arguing it’s representative. Also probably shows some sour grapes at The Age dispensing with his services.
The much larger question that has always interested me is why so many Muslims want to live in the West. Yes – greater opportunity for a comfortable, even wealthy life, greater personal safety, more individual freedom. But a very large number of them – by no means a minority of fanatics – actually resent and cynically play on the culture of tolerance they encounter. That is not fair to our culture.
On the example cited above by Evil: police should not be told to get out the kid-gloves when dealing with Muslim spousal abuse. As for France, it’s not inconceivable that it will end up being Balkanised or Canada-ised in our lifetime. Our Western Judeo-Christian culture is also wonderful and Europe especially is now populated by a large minority whose intention (or whose unthinking sullen myopia) is to ruin it. It’s worth fighting for, despite the sacred bovine slaughter that may result.
Furthermore, I think it is legitimate to point out that the UK, Europe, Australia etc cannot go on being liferafts for the entire world. It may sound like a an anti-migrant slogan – and, indeed, versions of it may indeed be used that way (Howard on Asians in the late 80s) – but it is true. The world’s most impoverished and/or authoritarian countries have to be reformed and it’s a shame that they lose so many talented people to the West. Most Muslims seem to want a Western rule of law culture, combined with an Islamic piety culture.
What can we do to help them create that in their mother nations? What can they do?
Ha, Ha, Ha. The multiculturalists are getting desperate and splits are starting to develop in their ranks. Of course Gomes is correct, Henderson is being illogical.
But the solution to Henderson’s illogicality is to be logical, not ideological. ie oppose both the Left’s multiculturalist cultural identity policy and the Right’s authoritarian national security policy.
If we continue to divide the nation into seperate ethnic identities then the natives will eventually have to impose custodial conditions on unmeltable ethnics. This has already happened in France and will happen in Holland and Denmark ie the most liberal jurisdictions in EU.
I am having a whale of a good laugh watching the Wets of all parties trying to square the circle of a differing multicultural identities and a strong national security. Its just like watching them trying to square the circle of differing multicultural identities and liberal civil rights for females.
No way jose.
They will never learn. I am going to really enjoy rubbing in my special “I told you so” salt into their wounds.
Unfair with Hendo? Never! Does he deserve fairness? He’s used all of his get out of jail free cards as far as I’m concerned, he’s just another apologist. What about sour grapes by Gerry at the Age FM? Absolutely. After all he was sacked by Jaspan and deservedly so, if only the SMH would do so as well, forty percent of his last ten posts have covered this same ground in much the same way. It’s like groundhog day and I’m sharing the same hole with him.
Fact is, you cannot mention media comentators without taking a broader view he was using the Age to illustrate a broader point but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
The simple fact is that the murdoch press dominates and is one voice on multicult and terrorism legislation, it’s impact is broad especially in single newspaper cities, so in the Melbourne Age it was different, big deal, the Herald Sun has a greater circulation and has stoutly defended the PM and the policy on this, as have many of it’s columnists. That more than balances his claim, a balance he does not show…..ever.
Either way, my post was not so much at his media blindness but his stupid argument.
That rather begs the question, Jack, of what would justify your claim of “I told you so”.
C.L. – I suspect that the Victorian police guidelines are being massively over interpreted by EP. Being culturally sensitive does not mean – condoning spousal abuse (though too many cops do that in the case of majority ethnic groups anyway) but just being aware that different cultural beliefs are going to shape the situation with which they have to deal.
Contrary to your other arguments, I don’t see how Western culture is at all under threat from combining the rule of law with the ability of groups to express religious beliefs or cultural practices (insofar as they don’t do harm or conflict with the said rule of law). Rather, that’s what I thought it was all about.
C’mon Mark, be a little gracious — you were wrong. And his point is pretty fair: apparently no one can be found at The Age who supports these laws. Is that representative?
I’ve accepted there’s more nuance there, fm, but three paras of his column are about what he claims to be the large majority of journos and columnists opposing the gov’t. It’s an old theme from Hendo, and a disingenuous one, when as Phil points out, he ignores a larger disproportion in the Murdoch rag.
As to “representative”, I mean that in the sense of “Hendo argues that The Age is an example of a broader phenomenon”. I don’t at all see that The Age has to “balance” its opinion pages. Now that the Oz is an openly right wing paper, what’s wrong with a slightly liberal paper? If it fails to sell in the free market, they’ll no doubt change their tune – not that there really is a market for opinion – as I doubt that many people buy papers purely or largely on their basis.
But the point stands – opinion is opinion.
Well, it might be representative of The Age, but I mean the opinions of the country at large. (And having seen Phil’s last comment, I direct my last post to him as well)
Well, the country at large is sceptical about IR, one of the things Hendo takes commentators to task on. Why should op/eds be “representative”? By definition, their aim is to form and shape opinion.
If you mean people as a whole having an opinion on the Terror Laws, that’s an entirely different question.
For the reason that I’ve outlined in the first para of this comment, there’s nothing in Hendo’s charge that commentators are “out of touch” or whatever.
It’s telling that Hendo can’t come up with any substantive arguments in support of the gov’t. Week in, week out, he repeats his elites/culture wars mantras. So what, Hendo? Why are the laws justified or necessary? In a complex and empirically based argument not just a few slogans?
Mark, Phil erroneously brought up the News Ltd papers to bag Hendo. He was wrong. Hendo doesn’t need to bring up News Ltd papers because they at least have opinions for and against the legislation on their opinion pages.
Not too many against, fm, just like the SMH doesn’t have that many for. So what?
Hang on a mo Jack. What??? I define national security as a culturally flexible society which is what multiculturalism can deliver, this can only make us strong, and it has in Canada. There is no dividing the nation into separate bits, just a recognition of our parts.
There are no squares to be circled? it can be done, and has. I contend that this is what inures us from the corrosive elements of sectarian violence etc. Time and again this has been proven. Dicscord comes when we run counter to this and seek to impose things like no wearing of funny hats or eating of foods that come from the nether parts of farm animals.
Or is it that only something like the white Australia policy is good for national security, as John Stone is suggesting?
Yes, I’m still at a loss to know what exactly Jack proposes as an alternative, Phil!
So FM has outed himself as sounding like David Flint. By what standard is News Limited balanced? Like Mark I’m puzzled by this insistence on balance by apologists like FM when this balance is clearly not practised by his favourite read.
Why should the Age be held to this standard when it’s not evenly applied to the OZ for example?
There was no error on my part FM, it’s all part of the mix if your’e going to argue Hendo’s point. He’s wrong I’m not.
Observa, EP, and the rest should note that precisely *one* country has to date had a problem with homegrown terrorism – the UK.
Is there a meaningful distinction between ‘homegrown’ and ‘imported’ terrorism in the European context, where the movement of radical Islamists between nations and continents is so free?
They’ve recently the Madrid bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the arrest of numerous terrorist conspirators in France. The importation of Islam into Europe has undoubtedly coincided with the importation of terrorism.
Radicals and terrorists are a seemingly inseparable part of any Islamic community. That being the case, we need to take appropriate preventative measures in Australia, rather than waiting for the fate of other nations to befall us.
So many category mistakes and conflations, EP, so little time.
The murder of Theo van Gogh was a politically motivated murder, not a terrorist act.
The Madrid bombings were largely motivated by Spanish foreign policy, as I’ve argued the British bombings largely were.
The arrest of conspirators is not an instance of “terrorism”, and note that France doesn’t have draconian laws like ours.
The government’s repeated justification is that “London” is the factor demonstrating the need for these laws. Again and again, from Howard down, they’ve referred to the danger of “homegrown” terrorism.
Yeah? In New Zealand or Canada?
Or for that matter, the USA, where there is a large Arabic-American community – largely middle class, still mainly Muslim, but incorporated into the community through a very different culture than ours or the British.
And how about Kosovan or Bosnian Muslim communities in Australia, EP? Worried about them?
The problem lies in the Middle East, my friend, and the interplay of Western policy and Arabic discontent.
How about Muslims in Ireland, EP?
“So what?” Mark, my point was in reply to this:
Hendo can ignore News Ltd and the SMH because, whatever the proportion, they at least have some commentary for and against. Sure, The Age can package opinion anyway they like to make a buck, but for a serious publication commenting on serious legislation, you’d have to admit no commentary whatsoever in favour of the legislation (when no one would deny that there is something approaching bipartisan support for it in State and Federal parliaments) it is somewhat strange, extremely partisan and certainly worth pointing out.
Phil, you made an error mate. Whatever problems you might have with Hendo and his arguments, I’m sure you don’t need to rely on your errors to put the boot in. And BTW, I don’t think you’re engaging with my argument with the David Flint stuff. Hendo made a point about the complete lack of contrary views in The Age, and I think it’s a fair one.
Even if it is strange etc., Hendo uses it as an exemplar of his wider (and pointless) point. Had Hendo not been sacked, and if he’d written defences of the government (not that his columns are – just poorly reasoned attacks on opponents), would that affect the argument? Is one Hendo column enough? Hendo + another commentator?
Given the lack of diversity, it certainly does put his sacking in perspective.
“The murder of Theo van Gogh was a politically motivated murder, not a terrorist act.”
Sorry Mark but I can’t let that statement pass muster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/13/wbouy13.xml
You must have a peculiarly broad definition of ‘political’. Yeah, yeah the context thingy! I think the political category you’re looking for is Nutzi!(See Slatts here)
Jack made a very interesting point about the need to “…oppose both the LeftÄôs multiculturalist cultural identity policy and the RightÄôs authoritarian national security policy”, with which I agree entirely. Of course, as recent history has established, and no doubt Jack would concur, you don’t actually have a choice between these two apparent opposites; they arrive in the same package as both the poison and the antidote to one another.
You may wish to choose one product at the expense of the other (and observa/EP are equally guilty of this as Mark/Phil), but that just isn’t on offer, and until people work this out they’re simply going to have to get used to losing all their freedoms; and the Establishment will have won yet again.
Gerard Henderson has done us all a service by inadvertently conceding the point that nobody will ever get to choose between multiculturalism and a police state, when all the clues consistently lead to a multicultural police state.
To save you looking it up
‘A Muslim extremist accused of the murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh confessed his guilt yesterday and said he would do the same again if he were ever released.
Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.
“I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion,” he told its three-strong panel of judges.
“I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same.” Earlier, Bouyeri had insisted that he did not recognise the authority of any non-Islamic court and forbade his lawyer to mount a defence.
Spectators in the maximum security courthouse in western Amsterdam gasped as Bouyeri then turned to the victim’s mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: “I don’t feel your pain. I have to admit that I don’t have any sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because you’re a non-believer.”‘
Islamic Nutzi, pure and simple.
Well Steve the right’s authoritarian national security policy is a response to the failed cultural immigration policy of the left. We should have stuck to a utilitarian (somewhat selfish) immigration policy, based on business and commercial needs, and ditch all humanitarian intakes. Essentially that would discriminate against immigration from LDCs, apart from their middle classes, who are inclined to be more secular in outlook. The tradeoff would be to up our humanitarian and military aid in response, whilst manning our borders securely. The third world don’t need our resources preoccupied with internal security threats, due to wet behind the ears immigration policies.
Good luck with that Observa, but I’m just trying to warn you that you don’t get to choose your brand of state repression – once the government appropriates the right to crackdown on “dissidents”, everybody gets targeted before long.
I was a bit puzzled by this as well. Aren’t terrorist acts politically motivated murders, or attempts at such?
Well, Rob, I’ll quote a definition of terrorism from a source that presumably won’t be accused of academic leftism or whatever – the CIA:
Perhaps Theo van Gogh’s murder does fall under that if the perpetrator was a “subnational group” – whatever that means. But I think it’s intended to refer to organised groups and/or non-state actors. My understanding was that the murder was an isolated event. Terrorism normally intends to afflict injury or death on more than one person, and their identities and actions are normally irrelevant except insofar as they can be categorised as an enemy population.
On observa’s point, I don’t see the cause as just religious. Surely conflicts about what can and can’t be said or expressed or represented are political conflicts over social norms as well, or even primarily.
Anyway, my main point is that EP – as usual – is conflating a series of events which may not be of the same nature and do not have exactly the same causes.
Which is to argue illogically, if indeed it qualifies as argument.
I agree with Steve Edwards’ last comment.
I’m still at a complete loss to understand what Jack Strocchi thinks the solution is. Probably cultural dry-ism or something, but could he please spell out his preferred alternative to multiculturalism? I invoke the three sentence rule for the answer.
A terrorist act is by definition designed to cause terror. The murder of a politician will do this to a small degree, but is not the primary motivation, instead the goal there is to end the life of the victim. I would argue that it could only be described as poilitical, after all, wasn’t he killed for his political viewpoint? Terrorist attacks have largely been indiscriminate compared with such an assasination, to incite terror in the public to fear for their own lives.
I would also argue that Mr Bouyeri was simply just nuts. A fanatic is a fanatic whatever the cover story, and sometimes they cross the line into crime etc. in the name of their cause.
That’s not necessarily the case, observa, but presumably the variant of Islam (since that’s what you’re talking about – I assume you don’t have a problem with non-secular Buddhist or animist immigrants – or with American immigrants who are evangelical Christians) that many middle-class immigrants might have is less troubling to you. Which kinda demonstrates that you’re really talking about a discriminatory immigration policy on grounds other than skills or wealth.
I do wish people like you and EP would be upfront about your desire to undermine Western civilisational values by discriminating on the grounds of race and religion.
I might add to my earlier point that concerns expressed here (largely but not solely by the Right – some lefties also oppose vilification laws) on many occasions by people such as EP and observa about issues to do with the limits to speech and expression are clearly political, just as the objection by Van Gogh’s murderer to his films is.
[cough]
It’s the three paragraph rule, Mark. Three sentences is a bit harsh.
Clare – just to clarify the point, Van Gogh wasn’t a politician but a film-maker – details of why he was killed are in this BBC report.
I’d support his right to make such a film and for it to be shown, if it’s relevant.
I think a new rule is necessary for Jack to define his solution in a way that other commenters can understand easily and engage with, Liam.
Mark’s hardcore, Liamista.
Mind you, I have come across bloggers who ought to be limited to one daily acronym.
(Present company excepted , of course! ;0)
But the target was equally a politican, was it not – the marvellous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom van Gogh’s murder was intended to terrorise?
‘The murder of Theo van Gogh was a politically motivated murder, not a terrorist act.’
Mohammed Bouyeri and his friends also played with the idea to blow up a nuclear power plant. Maybe this would not have been a terrorist act but just a statement against nuclear power plants.
‘Um, France doesnÄôt have a multiculturalist policy, EP. They believe in French universalism and integration. ItÄôs just that it hasnÄôt worked – hence a shift in approach. Nor do the UK or Holland in our sense.’
In Holland the multicultural policy was aimed at people living in the the same country, but according to their own culture. Always thought this was a true multicultural policy …
[in compliance with the new Three Sentence Rule:]
1. The discussion of terrorism is a discussion of a problem unrelated to the problem solved by the anti-’terrorism’ laws.
2. The real problem the laws solve is not controlling dangerous people but rather the problem of Governments being seen to be soft on ‘terrorism’, something imagined to be new since 2001 or so but in reality something manufactured since the demise of the Communist boogeyman.
3. I unusually agree with Steve Edwards that arbitrary Government repression is unacceptable no matter the political stripe of the repressers or the intended victims: in all cases, Government repression always turns around to bite you in the arse.
liam, you can’t possibly be serious about 2 – can you?
What Liam said.
{upping the ante with a three-worder!}
Words fail me.
For the sake of argument, if I concede your point about Van Gogh, Rob, then what follows? 1 murder demonstrates Holland has a problem with terrorism? The Dutch should photocopy Howard’s laws (if they can get access to a copy!)?
And Liam is quite right on point 2.
Mark, please familiarize yourself with Dutch society before placing these comments, more has happened than one murder. As for Liam’s point 2, maybe you should start watching Alex Jones movies for some really nice complot theories …
Most of the commentary on the ALP presumes they’re only agreeing to the laws because it’s seen to be electorally desirable. If Rob thinks that they’re necessary to protect citizens, I invite him to make a case. And I invite Phillip Ruddock to make a case.
I note in Pakistan you can be charged under the Anti-Terrorist Act for chopping off the leg of your wife and waving it in the air.
Now that’s appalling, but it’s not terrorism. Just as the murder of Van Gogh wasn’t terrorism. It’s a crime against an individual, perhaps designed to intimidate another (though that’s unclear) – but often in murders related to grudges, feuds, organised crime or whatnot that’s the case too. Had the murderer been a Christian disgusted by the nudity in Van Gogh’s film, and wanting to intimidate female parliamentarians for being uppity women, would you call it murder or terror?
You’re just trying silly semantics, Rob. Address the point of the post, please.
Mark – can we have clarification on how the 3 sentence rule applies?
eddy, well, please explain Dutch society to me. I’m happy to be corrected on this point if I’m not right. I don’t see terminologically how it’s terror though – and I can’t see either how the usual processes of the law are insufficient to stop murder or conspiracy to murder. If someone could explain how laws like those proposed in Parliament can do that, then I’d be most grateful.
Kim – it applies only to commenters who repeatedly breach the three paragraph rule, I’d have thought!
Quite right – does nothing ‘legally’ to improve our safety (which is about how much good intelligence we can get), and in fact makes our position worse vis-a-vis the arbitrary use of executive power. That’s a net loss for the Oz citizen.
What it DOES do is give the appearance that all possible measures are being taken. The fact that we are 0% safer is irrelevant to that spin. Its a political arse-cover, and a probable future wedge.
What Lefty E said.
And what, eddy, are Alex Jones movies?
[Liam's Point Two. Sounds like Kruschev's Secret Speech. Some clarification on it:]
1. Of course terrorism is a problem, nobody likes to be blown up or shot at, but that’s why there are police forces and intelligence services, and why I think they should both be better funded.
2. Have some historical perspective, and don’t imagine that ‘terrorism’ is any newer since the late 1960s when sectarian Muslims started doing it: people have been blowing each other up in assymetrical warfare since dynamite was made portable, and arguably before.
3. Go on, argue that the Left ignores terrorism, make my day, punk
Mark, I agree that the laws of terror are probably not effective, but this wasn’t the issue it was:
“2. The real problem the laws solve is not controlling dangerous people but rather the problem of Governments being seen to be soft on ‘terrorismÄô, something imagined to be new since 2001 or so but in reality something manufactured since the demise of the Communist boogeyman.”
For more info on terrorism in The Netherlands: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/ts_nm/security_dutch_dc
Or do a google search on “Hofstad group”, if you are really interested.
Kim, for more on Alex Jones: http://www.infowars.com, this guy has even wilder ideas than our good friend Mark.
I think what follows is that The Netherlands has a little bit of a problem – with unassimilable immigrants of North African origin who fail, even after two generations, to self-identify with the tolerant, pluralistic culture of their ‘host’ country, and who show a disturbing propensity to turn to terrorism to defend their version of Islam – especially against apostates such as Ali.
And liam’s point 2 is really a bit silly (sorry, liam). bin laden was the US’ #1 terrorist target long before 9/11 because of his 1998 fatwa against Americans (‘it is the religious duty of all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they find them’, or similar), and his attack on the USS Cole.
No-one ‘imagined’ it to be new after the attacks on the WTC. What was new was that for the first time in the modern era the continental US had itself come under attack.
I know it can’t be your intent, but you and liam could be read as arguing that terrorism against the west doesn’t really exist, that New York, Washington, London and Bali I and II never really happened. It’s only a short step from there to saying that the WTC attacks were actually the work of the US government (a view surprisingly – ? – widespread on the lunar left).
Eddy may not be able to answer, Kim.
I’ve just consulted with dk.au and it seems eddy has the same IP as ed and steve on the DK thread, where he started off with this charming comment and proceeded to change moniker and then do a bit of trolling.
All those comments appeared designed just to provoke or annoy without making a constructive contribution to the debate.
Use of multiple identities creates a prima facie presumption that trolling is the intent.
Therefore, ed/steve/eddy will find that his comments are now moderated. Naturally, if they’re civil and on topic and responsive to other commenters, they’ll get through. Otherwise they’ll be held in preventative detention.
Having previously expressed his admiration for Andrea Harris, I’m sure the commenter known as various names will understand.
No correspondence will be entered into.
If comments take a turn for the better and comply with the norms of civil debate, then perhaps they’ll be unmoderated again.
That would only be a small step if Liam adopted RWDB logic, Rob. I can’t see that it could possibly follow.
I clearly distinguished between terrorism and isolated crimes (for which you want to assert a structural cause – interesting for a RWDB) and indeed adopted the CIA definition of terrorism which absolutely covers s11, Bali, etc. No one denies these were terrorist attacks nor that they occurred.
Perhaps the lunar left does, but I don’t know their work.
There are violent, dangerous and politically motivated people in our societies. Read ‘n’ scroll.
I’ve just allowed one of “eddy”‘s comments through. Mind that you stick to one identity, though, and don’t troll.
Hmm. Kim – LP’s Andrea Harris.
Unless you’re referring to Michelle Malkin herself, C.L., I’d be inclined to agree with this:
Your intent may not be serious but in the Australian context, stigmatising all lefties with the actions of (say) Green Left Weekly Resistance kiddies would be as silly as assimilating righties to Andrew Fraser’s mates.
Speaking of terrorism, or should I say, freedom fighters… This Saturday – the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes’ courageous attempt to blow up the English parliament, and thereby put an end to James I’s treasonous rule which nearly bankrupted England, sending the country into ruin.
We’re all morphing into Andrea Harris now, Rob. Just advisin…
Updated comments policy soon.
Well, Rob, I don’t agree with your final point and I find it disingenous for you to say that I do.
Of course ‘terrorism against the West’ exists, in the same form as the wonderful thing called ‘the West’ exists: imagined, mythical, hated and loved at the same time. Assymetrical warfare is a fascinating topic and it deserves a bit more historical perspective than ‘they’ve attacked continental USA and they’re coming to get us etc. etc. etc.’ It has, in any case, nothing to do with any argument about arbitrary detention, which deserves to be oppose by anyone who doesn’t feel like being arbitrarily detained in their lifetime.
…Punk. Did I argue six points or only five? You know in all the excitement I’ve forgotten myself. The question you’ve really got to ask yourself, is do I feel lucky? Punk?
Well, RWDBs, imagine we’re sometime down the track, and some senior ASIO officer decides he likes he look of your daughter, who got involved with say, a uni protest. Takes her in, under the Anti-Trrorism Act of 05, and molests her.
Now, interestingly, she cant *speak* about her interrogation for two years, on pain of 5 yrs gaol.
Fanciful? Remember QLD pre-89? No checks there either. But we *could* go to the press.
I know, I know, you’re right. Just trust them. Nothing bad will happen. The state loves you….
I’m confused. So terrorism, while still existing, is ‘imagined’ and ‘mythical’?
And Lefty, that scenario is just crackers.
I think there must be at least three threads on this site where I’ve said I don’t support this legislation, because (a) it seems to me that conventional powers of arrest under existing laws would suffice, and (b) the detainees are not charged with anything, which I think is contrary to the basic democratic compact.
If you’re confused, Rob, that’s your problem. You’re the one who describes yourself a postmodernist.
Would you like someone to explain to you about national myths and otherwise, or would you like to read Benedict Anderson yourself?
No, go ahead, liam. I’m always happy to learn, and I don’t have Benedict Anderson to hand.
Well this debate is certainly throwing up some strange bedfellows (and I’m not talking about LE’s hypothetical above.) I find myself in agreement with many of the points FaceLift and Steve Edwards have made here.
For those banging on about “multicultaralism” as lockpicking the doors of hell swinging open to terror on the streets, I’d point out Australia has suffered no ethnically-motivated acts of panned terrorism on home soil for the past century. Even nice, polite and boring Canada had the FLQ.
What’s wrong with us that even the Canacks have real bogey bears and we don’t?
Let’s face it some folks won’t ever be happy unless there’s an easily demonised menace under the bed to give their daily grind a higher purpose. Russians, Chinese, nilhilists, anarchists, Bolsheviks, commies, hippies, corporations, Islamofanatics, etc.
I reckon everyone is overlooking the real threat to our way of life as we know it. The Mysterons!
Yes, for “panned” read “planned”. The other typos can stand but that one was particulary egregious.
Err, OK.
Anderson’s stoush on nationalism was that nations were, in his words “imagined communities”, and no less real for that. The point was that nations and nationalism came up due to a) dissemination of common languages and universal literacy, b) the death of absolute monarchy as a viable government and c) industrialism, modern capitalism and consumer printing. People developed common ideas and mythologies of nation and nationalism.
It’s my stoush that ‘terrorism’ is such a mythology. It’s true that there are people who have bombs and want to blow people up, but it’s also simply a mythology that we are threatened by them. Terrorism and so-called ‘anti-terrorism’, I’d argue, are not necessarily directly related.
Ref: Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
Jack Roche was convicted of a planned terrorist attack against the Israeli embassy in Canberra – in June last year, I think.
Why crackers, Rob? Would abuse of power be picked up at the [non-existent] judicial review phase, or through some sort of [non-existent] adminisitrative merits review, or just through the ever-watchful [non-existent] press?
Or is it that corrupt uses of unchecked power just ‘couldnt happen here’.
Sorry if I trust such vagaries Rob. Im from QLD. I like my power accountable. Sounds a perfect setup for a corrupt officer to conduct any sort of personal agenda.
“To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.”
- George Santayana
Ugh, sorry, but with the amount of time I have at my disposal right now, a 125 comment thread is too big an ask.
“Jack Roche was convicted of a planned terrorist attack against the Israeli embassy in Canberra – in June last year, I think.”
Didn’t happen though. And existing laws seemed to work fine to stop him.
[deleted by author: will try to stop being an arsehole, sorry everyone]
“Ugh, sorry, but with the amount of time I have at my disposal right now, a 125 comment thread is too big an ask.”
So you had nothing to say Nic, and now you’ve said it?
I do agree there should be laws against this kinda twatish comment. Shoot to kill laws.
If the scenario you enumerated were to happen, the girl or her legal representatives would have the officer concerned charged with sexual assault. The pre-existence of a control order could not possibly be a defence to such conduct.
Yes, but you mentioned ‘planned’, Nabakov, not ‘successful’.
“The pre-existence of a control order could not possibly be a defence to such conduct.”
But then you have to get the point where you can actually make an allegation or defence in court following a formal charge. Which is kinda hard when no one will tell you what you’re being charged with in the first place or unlikely to have your day in courts for yonks.
In Johland, they used to arrest you for “resisting arrest.”
Eh, Nabs, I do have stuff to say, but Im really busy. I say this to ward off those who think Im harbouring some deviant opinions or wondering why I havent been commenting, cos Im paranoid like that.
I should apologise for being far too quiet recently, but between work and the fact that Im leaving to go overseas in 2 weeks I have barely have time to update my own blog.
Dear ASIO, Russell Sq. ACT.
Nic White is thinking something. Please act accordingly.
Cheers
Liam
The cops called it “Ham, Cheese, Tomato” Nabs. Its was standard issue when a copper didnt like the look of you: resisting arrest, abusing a police officer, assaulting a police officer.
You’re right Rob, after all, unreviewable administrative detention regimes have such a spotless record , here in Australia, and overseas (Baxter, Rau, Woomera, Gitmo, Ghraib…)
It would be a quite separate issue to anything that related to the control order. Although it’s possible that a charge might be laid under the new laws themselves, given that they expressly preserve the human rights of the detainees, the right to legal representation, and legislatively underwrite the role of the Ombudsman.
As I say, I don’t like this legislation but some of the responses to it are frankly hyperbolic, if not actually hysterical.
I think we’d have to wait for a 5th Howard term before they extend the sedition laws to thought policing, Liam. Just as long as they dont make me listen to Missy Higgins I’ll be right.
“I should apologise for being far too quiet recently”
No need whatsoever for such apologies.
Yeah, but all terrorists and fellow travellers allege that sort of stuff Rob – part of their training. Hicks now claims he was anally raped on a US ship.
You cant believe a word they say.
Now that really is bizarre, Nic. There’s only one law in force in Australia that creates the offence of thought (or speech) crime: Victoria’s Racial and Religious Toleration Act.
Hello? Rob, John Howard was trumpeting the virtues of the legislation in preventing seditous speech by Imams.
Shorter RWDB line: offensive speech by pastors = free speech, offensive speech by Imams = throw away the key.
If you oppose this legislation, I fail to see your motivation for many of your comments. Perhaps I’m missing their ironic, playful, jouissant postmodernism.
It is nice that you and EP and observa have such a touching faith in the authorities. Lefty E is absolutely 100% correct about the abuses of power that went on in Queensland. There was a “Police Complaints Tribunal”, that as I recall, dismissed every single complaint ever brought. No doubt it looked nice on legislative paper, though.
Nothing substitutes for judicial review and due process at every point of the chain.
On Anderson, which is more interesting than definitional quibbles about terrorism and so on, it’s not too hard to grasp. Nations don’t exist pregiven as social facts, they are created and sustained. Part of that process is inventing an other as a constitutive outside. In other words, because “they” exist and threaten us, we are one.
Now, understanding that this process is heavily at work in the suspicions about those funny lookin people who aren’t from here with a different religion and different customs does not in any way invalidate the fact that there are people who might commit terrorist acts, and have committed terrorist acts. It just explains how disproportionate the response, and how in public discourse, politicians build it up so that they then become identical with the nation and electorally secure.
You’re a funny kind of a postmodernist if you can’t grasp that, Rob.
Perhaps this thread will end up like that ID one where every second comment is Rob saying “I don’t see that” or “I don’t understand”.
Ps – and you don’t have to be a postmodernist to understand Benedict. A sociologist or a historian would do fine. Or a thinking intelligent person.
‘Shorter RWDB line: offensive speech by pastors = free speech, offensive speech by Imams = throw away the key.’
Of course that depends on what the offensive nature off the comments were. Most religions would be offended in some way by proselytisation, but that isn’t the same as vilification, or sedition.
Most pastors would be saying let’s proselytise, but with words and good works, never violence, which isn’t actually very attractive to the person you’re trying to proselytise. Some imams seem to be saying, “if we can’t proselytise with words, it’s acceptable to wipe them out with bombs, guns or whatever”. (I did say ‘some’imams).
If you’re referring to the Victoria case, the ‘pastors’ in question were basically convicted for quoting some of the more strongly worded portions of the koran. Judge Higgins amazingly failed to pick this up. Which brings out another point; the interpretation of new laws by a court.
I don’t think that’s quite right, FaceLift, you might like to refresh your memory with this link. I’m a bit too tired to trawl around for the judgement but I did read it at the time.
On Rob’s touching faith in the authorities, see this online diary by someone who probably doesn’t have any in the UK authorities anymore. Via Nicholas at Troppo.
Mark,
I disagree, but I won’t labour the point, except to enforce the point that there are no pastors or church leaders calling for Islamic blood in Australia to my knowledge.
Well, let’s not belabour it, FaceLift. But I think that the sedition clauses have just as much chance of being a slippery slope as the vilification laws (to which I am on balance opposed). It’s not good enough to make the argument, as some do, that there are existing sedition laws. It’s the context in which they are embodied, and how they will be interpreted by officials – and perhaps courts – a fairly clear statement of legislative intent is sent, I’d have thought, through embedding them in anti-terror legislation. It’s a parallel point to the one I drew attention to with regard to shoot to kill.
Since this thread has shifted to questions of the impact of the laws and away from the Hendo concerns, and since Nic has a point about long threads, I’ll close it and discussion on the new matters can resume on this post.