Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Terrorism summit to be held tomorrow. The Comrade is not happy.

By Thumper - 26 September 2005 17

It would appear that not all parties involved are not happy about the new proposed federal terrorism laws.

Although I think we should be alert about these matters one has to begin to think that some of the measures may becoming just a little draconian.

[ED – The Chief Minister has put out a well reasoned media release on this.]

However, having said that, I am drawn to the comrade’s comments as to why it is a bad thing (he seems to have already made up his mind). For one he complains that the AFP will be severely understaffed in the ACT, which it already is, yet doesn’t suggest that any more officers would be put on, which would cost the ACT money. Indeed he quotes that it will have, “significant implications for our capacity to provide a necessary number of police in the ACT”.

There is of course a simple solution to this, and that is that the Federal government makes up the shortfall in funding for those officers that may be deployed elsewhere.

Secondly, he bangs on about his usual mantra of human rights, stating that ” It’s the most startling abrogation of human rights imaginable”.

On the second point he may have a point except I can imagine much worse deprivations of human rights, being blasted to kingdom come is just one that springs to mind. As well, given the Comrade’s penchant for championing human rights everywhere and at all times except when it does not suit him, I feel this is simply an easy out.

With an issue such as this i believe he should just shut up until he has heard all the facts rather than leaping into print before being fully informed, or before the public has any real information about it.

Interestingly he manages to bring the judiciary into the arguement, which, given his recent words about the state of the ACT legal system, would appear slightly hypocritical.

Anyway, CT article here;

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
Terrorism summit to be held tomorrow. The Comrade is not happy.
Thumper 6:57 pm 27 Sep 05

One was definitely a Blackhawk, the other I just caught a glimpse of as I was in traffic and kind of concentrating on the road.

The other may have been a Kiowa, as you may be aware, a fast observation chopper.

They weren’t Seahawks as I’ve seen plenty of them, they’re grey and big, and I believe the Seahawk fleet is currently grounded unless they are needed for essential ops.

And no, they weren’t Iroqouis as I’ve flown in them many a time quite a few years ago. Not to mention that my godfather used to be a door gunner in Vietnam in one.

Mr Evil 6:47 pm 27 Sep 05

Thumper, were they Blackhawks or Seahawks? I certainly heard them, but I couldn’t see them properly from my tomb/office.

Comrade should be careful about voicing his “grave concerns”, or someone might start to think he’s a terrorist, which would certainly add a new twist to the 2003 Bushfires. ASIO should take him in for ‘questioning’: it’s amazing the confessions you can extract from someone with a car battery and a pair of pliers.

Thumper 6:16 pm 27 Sep 05

It would appear that after the Comrade has heard the argument and discussion from those in the know, such as ASIS, ASIO, defence and AFP, to name a few, that his views have changed somewhat.

As I said previously, he should wait until he hears all the discussion before he shoots off at the mouth at the federal government. Cheap political points are not what we need.

I will, however, still add that I am slightly uncomfortable about it all given the new laws do appear a little draconian.

By the way, did anyone see the Blackhawk choppers buzzing around Black Mountain at around 1630 this afternoon? SAS on readiness? Its rare to see Blackhawks wocking around here.

Samuel Gordon-Stewar 6:05 pm 27 Sep 05

I just heard Stanhope on 7 News, he mentioned “grave concerns” but this time they weren’t his, they were instead those of ASIO.

Is there a broken record lodged in one of his bodily openings with “grave concerns” on it? Can he for once allow people to have concerns without having to call them “grave”?

Sorry, but I am very sick of that phrase.

che 2:33 pm 27 Sep 05

they would leave the legislation in place because it is easier to keep it there and stay quiet about it than having to go thru all the work of getting it approved again (which is the same reason little johnny doesn’t want a sunset clause)

Thumper 12:01 pm 27 Sep 05

The ALP regain power? *snigger*

Okay, it could happen next election. However, if the terrorism situation has worsened by that stage I think the ALP would continue to support such legislation.

In fact, they will probably support anything to get back in power again.

bonfire 11:57 am 27 Sep 05

problem with the sunset clause is that you dont know when to set it. the war on terror may last another 25 years. it may last 6 months. it may never end.

im sure that if the alp gained power they would immediately repeal the legislation.

Thumper 11:43 am 27 Sep 05

Yep,

I’d feel more comfortable with a sunset clause on this issue. After all, it can always be revisited.

David Heidelberg 9:54 am 27 Sep 05

The federal government’s reluctance to include a sunset clause in any legislation makes me suspicious.

I thought conservatives believed in a small non-intrusive government. Bullcrap they do.

che 9:51 am 27 Sep 05

The Law Council came out with a good statement yesterday saying something along the lines of –

Hows about everyone stop grandstanding and scoring political points, or being obstructionist just for the sake of it, and they actually put forward some good policies for the benefit of Australia

PS. They weren’t advocating either side

DT 9:44 am 27 Sep 05

Coming from a Northern Irish family, I applaud the Chief Minister’s caution when it comes to this “preventative custody”. Fourteen days is a long time to torture, threaten and beat someone into a confession – the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six are just two examples.

Kerces 11:01 pm 26 Sep 05

I had the current laws — not the new ones — explained to me year before last as being that you could be locked up, without legal representation or beign able to contact anyone, if They suspected you might know something related to a threat to national security. Note not if They KNEW you were a threat, but if they suspected may know something.

Not sure how accurate this interpretation was, but it sure scared me at the time.

Tempestas 8:25 pm 26 Sep 05

So these new laws, does this mean I say something like “the PM is a total tosser and he deserves to pay” and next thing I now its 14 days in custody without being charged?

I appreciate that security comes at a cost, but at some point we need to ask, hang on, maybe the price is too high. We may not be there yet, in fact I hope we are no where near that point but now legislation is getting through parliament in a rush how do we know that we are not going down the paths that the Comrade seems to be suggesting.

Wonder whether the new workplace laws will allow 14 days paid leave for being locked up by security agencies whilst they worked out if they could charge me with something?

johnboy 7:45 pm 26 Sep 05

Personally the attitudes of the local liberals v. the chief minister on this issue are making me likely to vote labor at the next election.

bonfire 5:03 pm 26 Sep 05

i note a media release last week in which the comrade claimed that the act human rights act was incompatile with the federal terrorism laws.

of course its also incompatible with common sense, but this is the act.

no doubt howard has convened a crisis cabinet meeting to discuss the issue.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site