Censorship - don't read this

One day I will be a terrorist simply because I don’t agree with the government. This is how I, and I am sure many others, read the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock’s, proposal to widen Australia's censorship laws. The more they tweak and specify, the more likely your average person will fall into the trap of sedition.

Ruddock wants to impose a new power to ban books, films and computer games that advocate terrorism. The government has fulfilled its obligations and the period for public consultation closed last week, so now, no matter what anybody says the changes will no doubt soon become law.

Here’s an article discussing the issues “Terrorism proposal extension of censorship laws” by George Williams.

I don’t condone terrorism. Never have and never will. My issue is with who determines what is terrorism. A bunch of conservatives (doesn’t matter which side of politics) who have never really had much to do with the real world. They live at home with wealthy parents until their 30s then get jobs with mates or in the public service. By the time they start dictating what happens in our day to day lives most of us have held down several jobs, battled to pay the bills at some point or another and have seen authority and the government as playing a little or larger part in our problems. No wonder people want to protest and speak out against the government, but careful you are not being seditious.

And what about “terrorism”? One man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The Israelis are terrorists if the many UN resolutions ruling against their actions mean anything.

David Hicks was a freedom fighter in Kosovo, but a terrorist in Afghanistan. Why? US political alignment. The US were finished with their former allies in the region, the Taliban, and had swapped sides back to the Northern Alliance who they had helped the Taliban defeat years earlier.

So just be careful. One day you may think that you are standing up for the rights of the downtrodden in a conflict that seems unjust, or maybe you will be speaking up for your own rights to express your dissatisfaction with your government. The next thing you know you may be in an orange jumpsuit being brutalised by the people who declare that they are protecting us.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.

Howard tries to buy votes instead of scaring them out of people...

The Howard government has changed its policy, previous elections they managed to come-up with some terrifying threats to our way of life - which only they can save us from, but all that seems to have changed, no more DIY WMD-kits in the hands of tyrannical dictators, no more hoards of filthy refugees in rusty boats coming to invade us, no longer are we encouraged to fear that every Arabic-looking guy with a beard is a terrorists... They seem to be going with the more conventional 'pork barrel' (so far).

In the last week we've had the populist promises of an overhaul to the ACCC to investigate petrol prices, and super-duper internet access for 98% of Australians. These are truly 'election year promises'. The chance of something real happening to improve petrol prices? ZERO. ... and you only had to see 'question time' in parliament where the opposition quizzed the government about the gap between 'theoretical speeds' for the internet technologies they plan to use, and the practical reality. No one living more than 3-4km from the phone exchange will get the internet connection that the government is promising, and what else is clear is that the government know this. It's currently a problem in suburban Australia, so the chance of these technologies working properly in a rural setting, where few people live under 5kms from the exchange, is again, ZERO.

Back in question time Senator Helen Coonan was sweating, as she tried to drag one after another embarrassing questions about the nature of the proposed internet infrastructure back to the findings of the carefully worded report that relied on 'theory', rather than the largely disappointing reality. The internet upgrade might have been something that the government would have been better keeping up their sleeve until a week or so before the election, as there's too much time for the public to get an explanation/understanding of why it won't work.

The petrol investigation powers for the ACCC is a far better hollow promise, it sounds like action, and maybe it will give the ACCC the power to prosecute rogues, but that won’t reduce the price of petrol. It is overwhelmingly composed of state and federal tax, and is set in parity with the price Singapore crude, regardless of whether is comes from Bass Strait or the middle-east. So the ACCC might bust a few independent service-station owners, up to no-good, and win a few votes for the federal government, from those who know no better, but not help the public with the burden of fuel costs in any way.

It’s a good thing Mr Howard’s going into ‘involuntary retirement’, later this year.