maelorin: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 10:20pm on 12/12/2005 under , , , , ,

AFP still evaluating anti-terrorism laws: Keelty

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty says new anti-terrorism laws which give police more power to tackle home grown terrorism will come into effect next week.

He says the country's law enforcement agencies are still working through the ramifications of the new legislation.

Even though the laws will play no part in charges against men arrested in raids in Sydney and Melbourne last month, Commissioner Keelty says they are essential.

"People who are saying we didn't need the new laws don't understand the circumstances under which we're operating," he said.

"We need the new laws, we need the new laws to provide, as I say, a level of safety and security in this country in a new environment and we will be using the new laws as appropriate and with wide consultation with the agencies concerned."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1529451.htm

Mr Keelty clearly thinks we're incapable of figuring out the possible impact of new laws - or that we don't pay attention to "the circumstances under which [the AFP] are operating". Unless he means that there is a truckload of information that the legal profession is unaware of, something that is so significant - yet so secret - that we as yet have no inkling of it, he might just be being patronising.

It's a little concerning that a law enforcement agency could be in the middle of analysing the ramifications of the laws, yet be quite happy to pronounce that "new laws to provide ... a level of safety and security in this country" -that 'level' being better? higher? chakra-aligned? The only "new environment" I can fathom here is the one created by the new law.

The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005 of itself does not "provide ... a level of safety and security"
. The new powers it creates does change the environment we live in because each and everyone of us is now potentially subject to treatment that had previously been deemed illegal and an affront to the Common Law for many, many years (can any of us say hundreds?).
Mood:: 'cranky' cranky
There are 6 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] mrabyssal.livejournal.com at 12:29pm on 12/12/2005
And with all the riots in Sydney we can expect even less civil liberties in the future. What's next? Honestly I don't think that the higher ups think the rest of the country has people with IQ's higher than 80 in it. I think I'll join you in being insulted.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 04:18pm on 12/12/2005
unfortunately, both the population and the media seem to be living down to that expectation :(

the reporting we've been subjected to on television has been apalling. the language used has been inflammatory and just plain wrong.

the attitudes and opinions being given airtime smack of worst kind of 'patriotism' and just plain racism that i've heard in some time. as i was watchign the reporting, and then the advertising of tomorrows beat-up-in-waiting, i was thinking "this is just fuelling the fires".

i am left wondering how it is possible that our police, and our media, could not have learned from the experience of the riots in england, or in america. i learned from them, and i'm just some unemployed guy with a brain and not enough to do.

this is all going to get much worse before anyone will get on top of this slide into a self-created shithole our political 'leaders' seem to be rushing us towards.
 
posted by [identity profile] enkorvaks.livejournal.com at 11:00pm on 12/12/2005
I'm going to have to post a link here to another journal, and direct you to the comment I posted there. I still think that comment is appropriate, and the politicians are stupid. Those two things are not related in any way, other than both being true.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/leminkainen/47159.html

maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:12am on 13/12/2005
unfortunately, politicians are not stupid. nor are their minders. they a very aware (in general) of just how much they can get away with not saying, and not doing O_o

it's the masses that are stupid, sleepy, and slow ... but then, a little conditioning hasn't gone astray there ...
 
posted by [identity profile] enkorvaks.livejournal.com at 01:26am on 13/12/2005
I know that they are not stupid - they are possibly (as a group, not as individuals) psychopathic. In the same way that corporations are.

Also, as has been pointed out by many people in many places, people defer to authority. If you are well dressed, and have a clipboard, you can ask people almost anything, and they will answer. If you speak with authority, and look like you have it, people will tend to follow your instructions. Politicians have both the looks and the actual authority - therefore people do as they say.

So, while the masses are stupid, sleepy, and slow, the politicians allow for this, and play to it, rather than actually get the people to become involved and aware.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 04:40am on 13/12/2005
as a group they're just as herdy as everyone else. they suffer from the silo effect too. [hence, howard can accept that he's doing good for everyone not just his friends' friends, without being able to see how that's not really true.]

i've been thinking i wouldn't mind being a policy advisor to a pollie. if i'm gonna be this frustrated and annoyed, i might as well get paid for it - and at least i'd be inside the system rather than outside.

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
2
 
3
 
4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31