Saturday, September 10, 2005


I did a spot of Googling this afternoon, researching a carefully considered, nuanced piece on "PM's Blitz on Terror", as yesterday's Hun called it. I got a bit thrown by the editorial Melbourne's most respected tabloid produced on the same subject today:

... The most effective way of legislating [the proposals] is to include a sunset clause. Mr Howard has not put forward a sunset clause, but some sort of time limit is supported by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty.

Whatever is decided upon is likely to be divisive, particularly when some civil libertarians have compared such an Australia to the police state of Nazi Germany.

Such a comparison is as offensive as a statement by a Muslim leader that Australians should be free to voice support for insurgents in Iraq. Could this be said to endanger the lives of Australian troops in Iraq or is that in itself a dangerous attack on freedom of speech?

The question is how far we should go, and part of the answer is, not into a future where such laws are no longer necessary.

Personally, I'd rather not have the PM's proposals at all; but if they are necessary, I'd rather look forward to a future where they are no longer necessary than to one where they are not no longer necessary. Maybe that's just me.

No comments: