Lawyers say terror laws could increase risk

If it’s a pig, it might not be muslim terrorists… It took us about 15 minutes to convince our boss that the list wasn’t a joke.
I’ll send a scan to Johnboy, but I let him decide whether posting it violates copyright of “Emergency Evac Procedures Pty Ltd”.

Slightly off topic, but in my workplace (Uni of Canberra), we just had a visit from “Emergency Evac Procedures Pty Ltd”, who told us to place a Bomb threat check list under our phone.
On the check list, there’s questions to ask the caller, like “What kind of Bomb[sic] is it” and “What is your name and address”. It also asks whether the caller used foul language. &*%@$ and whether there were animal noises in the background.
In terms of the original thread, I’ll agree 100% with Maelinar. Growing up in Europe during the cold war, 10 km away from a Pershing II missile silo (1st strike target), I feel hell of a lot safer these day.After all the threat today comes from a bunch of criminals in splinter groups instead of an empire (or two).

Personally, I fail to see how a law could increase the chance of a terror attack, unless it was the kind of law that went along the lines of ‘it is legal to kill Muslims, as long as you have the appropriate license’.

If you want to talk about fighting an invisible enemy, it’s interesting to compare the military action at Te Whiti, or Parehaka. In short, the british soldiers showed up, but the enemy (maori) ignored them and continued as normal.

The Constabulary arrested the chief and the warriors, but were then so embarrassed by public opinion, that they realised the error in their ways.

In the same vein, would a terrorist organisation still feel good about themselves if they ran into a shelter to blow it up, to find that it was a handicapped childcare centre ?

It is our own media they are responding to, and the quicker the propoganda ends, the quicker terrorism as we know it will as well.

I’d interpreted the gist of your argument as being that giving up civil liberties is reasonable in the context of fighting an invisible enemy. I’d readily admit being wrong if that wasn’t your argument at all.

My point is that the definitions of terrorists and murderers etc. differs according to who is pushing the argument. That the very same lines we use to condemn acts of terror could so easily apply to the US/Oz/UK actions in Iraq. (and indeed to the many foreign policies of these countries worldwide in the name of their own ‘national’ interests)

My opinions of the self-serving acts and rhetoric of the Bush, Howard and Blair morons have nothing to do with your own views Thumper.

Hide under a rock! More scaremongering to confuse the weak, stupid and uncreative.

‘There appears to be a section of the community and the media that is quite comfortable with people blowing up innocent civilians and by standers.’ ??? – There’s nothing like a bit of hyperbole and broad generalisations to kick of a Wednesday morning.

Thumper has a good point though :’Murderers are murderers and lets never forget that people.’ Bush’s, Howard’s and Blair’s illegal war in Iraq (invasion, as opposed to defensive action) that’s murdering countless civilians should never be forgotten.

Let’s hope one day that voters will recognise the rogue elements in our own govt. and decide that nonetheless we don’t want to be a rogue nation.

this thread appears to promote sucking in those who oppose any forms of anti-terror laws, federal or state/territory, what a set-up…I wasn’t aware there were cultural minority groups in the ACT.

Then again the Chief Minister would prefer to have that sort of scenario, divide groups and appease with constant funding allotments via trumpted-up community grants…