This regular feature is back again. The idea is that, over the weekend, you should post your thoughts in a more leisurely fashion than in ordinary comments or the Monday Message Board.
If anyone has any thoughtful comments about how we should respond to terror attacks like the one we’ve just seen in London, I’d be glad to read them. Unfortunately, the thread below went into partisan pointscoring at the second comment, and was derailed thereafter, despite a few attempts to focus on what we have in common. I’ve been too busy to respond today, but from this point on I’ll delete or disemvowel anyone who, in my judgement, is more concerned with scoring points against domestic opponents than about dealing with Al Qaeda.
That said, part of the fight involves carrying on with normal life, so feel free to comment on other topics.
Please post your thoughts on any topic, at whatever length seems appropriate to you. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
John Quiggin 
To deal with these evil people, we should
1) hunt them down and kill or capture them; and
2) put pressure on muslim leaders to control their own extreme elements.
It seems 1) is happening but not 2)
It’s good to see Chen Yonglin and his family get Permanent Residency. After too much dithering, the government has at least shown some backbone and not sold out to China in the end. There can hardly be any doubt that brave people like Mr. Chen face an uncertain fate at best if their sent back to the PRC. Let’s hope the other, less high-profile defectors in our country already receive the same treatment. Let’s also hope that this government doesn’t implement a new “pacific solution”-type of strategy to frustrate the efforts of Chinese trying to defect here as a part of our unprecedented pandering to Beijing.
Looks like the capital of infidels needs to do some negotiating next. Either that or they need to put some pressure on muslim leaders
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15868005-23109,00.html
OTOH it’s impossible to tell suicidal muslims from non-suicidal ones and it’s suicidal ones that are increasingly a big problem for infidels. Hmmmm?
x-anon,
you insist, I noticed, that this is somehow a manifestation of regious extremism, but if you read their proclamations – the essence is almost always political and nationalist: they are against colonization of Palestine, foreign troops on their soil, Iraqi sanctions and now Iraqi occupation, puppet Arab governments, cultural imperialism and so on.
I haven’t seen anything so far that might suggest that they want me to convert to Islam. At the same time I’ve seen a lot of arguments in the Western media suggesting that we need to force the Muslims to convert to our religions: Marketcapitalism and Represenativedemocracy (and sometimes even to Judeochristianity). In fact, this is now the stated goal of this project that already killed tens or hundreds of thousands.
How do you explain this? Do you really feel self-righteous now?
Thanks.
My views on this point have shifted with time and reflection, but it seems pretty clear that while AQ and its ilk are indeed religious zealots, loathing of our decadent western lifestyle and its freedoms is surely not the prime motivation behind their acts of violence. If it’s sexual permissiveness and civil society they loathe, why then have Copenhagen, Stockholm etc not been primary targets? Why pick on the comparatively straightlaced Poms and the positively wowserish Yanks? Why not hit countries whose record of civil liberties is much more liberal than the English-speaking security states? If it’s our freedoms they hate, as GW keeps on declaiming, surely the threat ought now to be receding like an ebb tide, since our freedoms are in full retreat. Comments like Bomber Beazley’s that the London Transport attacks have been carried out by ‘sub-human scum’ help fan the flames of hatred but will not help extinguish this fire. It is important to remember that appalling though they are, horrifically violent events on the scale of the London incidents are now commonplace in Iraq, in Congo, in Colombia, in Sudan and in Afghanistan. I can imagine the outrage Arabs might feel when the organised violence of US air power is casually deployed against a wedding party, and then the facts of the matter covered up and contemptuously ignored by the mainstream media. A large number of dead and maimed, made perhaps more horrible by their being confined to a single extended family. It seems to me it is not the mental process of a psychopath to derive from incidents like this and the ‘sub-human scum’ language the following message: your lives are worth nothing to us, and the only time we’ll take any notice of you is when you talk the language of violence.
It’s not religious fanaticism, poverty or lack of opportunity that sparks and fuels a terrorist campaign, it’s a burning sense of injustice. Religious zealotry certainly helps grease the wheels and fire up the recruits with willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause. But there have always been religious zealots and the victims of their intolerance have usually been found locally – heretics, the promiscuous, infidels. The disgust felt by zealots of all faiths for what they perceive as satanic western decadence is hardly new. The acts of individual fanatics like Baruch Goldstein, Timothy McVeigh or many of the various successful or would-be assassins of political leaders can be seen as the acts of individuals whose fanaticism is a manifestation of psychopathy. The perpetrators of extreme violence in London, New York and Kuta are members of the human race. Victory is not going to be achieved by an analysis that has nothing to say about what motivated these people to sign up. We could start by paying some attention to what they say their goals are. At least that’s an intelligent place to start – calling them sub-human and bleating that they hate us merely for who we are is not helpful and isn’t too far removed from the thought patterns of the terrorists themselves.
In the aborted thread below Razor asked:
“I have not had any of my civil rights eroded in any way. Please provide specific examples what “appreciable elements of civil rightsâ€? have been eroded.”
Happy to oblige Razor. Here is an extract from ASIO’s own website;
“Questioning warrants
“Under the ASIO Act, the Director-General of Security may, with the consent of the Attorney-General, request a warrant authorising ASIO to question a person for the purpose of investigating terrorism…
“For the 28 day period in which a questioning warrant, or a questioning and detention warrant, remains in force – It is an offence punishable by a maximum of 5 years imprisonment for any person to disclose, without permission (see below) the fact that the questioning warrant, or questioning and detention warrant, has been issued, or any fact relating to the content of the warrant or to the questioning or detention of a person in connection with the warrant, or any operational information.
“For the period of 2 years after the expiry of a questioning warrant, or a questioning and detention warrant – It is an offence, also punishable by a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, for any person to disclose, without permission (see below) operational information. ”
In other words, it is a criminal act even to mention the fact of the exercise of a questining warrant. Whom doe this penalise? Presumably, genuine terrorists, being very cliquey individuals, would know when one of their number is “helping ASIO with their enquiries.” Those most penalised, therefore, are persons who are swept up by accident or by malign design. Protest against this behaviour might land the protesters in jail.
Razor, can you think of any Australians in elective office taday whom you wuldn’t trust with those powers?
And that’s not all:
One of the three pending Anti-Terrorism Bills, makes it a serious offence to even ‘associate’ with any person or organisation accused of involvement with terrorism.
Detainees as young as 16 can be strip-searched and interrogated. Do you have a 16 year-old child Razor?
Perhaps most disturbingly. under the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill, the Attorney-General may license trials on terrorism, espionage, treason and ‘other security-related’ charges to be held in complete or partial secrecy. Closed court sessions will be able to hear charges, censor evidence, allow government witnesses to testify in disguise via video and, in some circumstances, exclude defendants and their lawyers from trial proceedings.
How much trust do you have of government Razor?
JQ above writes: “Unfortunately, the thread below went into partisan pointscoring”
I seems that serial offenders like Katz et al are at it again
JQ to me AQ is a complex problem stemming from multiple social historical factors that will need action and evaluation on multiple fronts.
There needs to be an acknowledgement of the problems caused by historical and modern Western foreign policy in the Middle East. In particular recent double standards shown by the US in its support of authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia –which monopolise the wealth in the otherwise poor region- and bias toward Israel when dealing with Israeli/Palestinian problem.
That means a substantive shift in US foreign policy not just PR, away from US economic imperialism >Sunday 19 June 2005 The National Interest Radio National Economic hitman
(sorry no idea why it didn’t post all my post)
try again
There is an unfortunate lack of empathy for the victims among some letter writers to the newspapers.
Take this little beauty from one Adam Bonner, in today’s Age. The money quote is
“Londoners have brought this on themselves. You can’t stand idly by while your own country wrongly invades another and then think that your own backyard won’t be attacked. Londoners have gotten off lightly with these four blasts. The media has had a feeding frenzy and made it look worse than it is.”
Of course, Mr Bonner has form. In a letter published in July last year in Green left Weekly, he wrote that “foreign fighters can bring much needed expertise and firepower� and despite their “ideological religious cause� they should be supported because “an enemy’s enemy is a friend in such desperate times�.
The Age should should show more discernment. This is the kind of f*ckwittery that gives ammunition to people like Michael Burgess.
I find the WoT a bore. Lets keep things in perspective, people. These sort of events are terrible, and we should ask our governments to take reasonable steps to try and reduce them, just as we ask them to take reasonable steps to reduce crime of all sorts. But terrible as it is 50 people dead on the other side of the world is, compared with the horrors taking place daily in Africa, trivial.
If it’s moral outrage we’re concerned about what about a focus on poverty and oppression? And if it’s personal safety we’re concerned about forget it entirely – the risk of you being a victim of terrorist attack is far less than the risk of being struck by lightning, let alone something as prosaic as a road accident. Personally, I think the induced paranoia is far more damaging to us all than the reality.
I agree, Derrida Derider. And unless Prof. Quiggin is offering to personally lead an expedition to Afghanistan or wherever else he thinks Ozzie is today, the distinction between “partisan point-scoring” and “dealing with al-Quaeda” is pretty thin. Was I only engaged in “partisan point-scoring” when I demonstrated against the war in Iraq? The real objection to ding-dongs like the “Another terror attack” comments is that its all been said before.
The partisan point scoring/dealing with Al Quaeda distinction seems fallacious. AQ (the people we refer to as AQ – in reality there is no single entity out there) are evil men (and a few women too). But evil is explicable, as is madness, and part (only part, but a necessary condition of its existence as an effective terror organisation) of the explanation is our long-term policies in the middle-east. Blair had a phrase, which sounds trite, but is nevertheless true: tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime. The sane left (and some on the right, too) want to deal with the causes of terrorism, as well as kill the terrorists. It may well prove necessary to strike hard at existing terrorists; these are people you can’t deal with. But you can’t kill them all, when you are engaged in actions which create new ones. So: how to deal with AQ? By implementing policies the elaboration of which would be regarded by JQ as partisan point scoring.
Neil – how do you know that certain actions create new terrorists when you have already said that they are inexplicably evil?
Their existence has been aided by a regional breakdown in law and order and it is argued that this may have been assisted by past colonial activities. However in the past many other communities have suffered devastation and dislocation yet have regrown into a civil societies of some prosperity.
There has already been way to much navel gazing on this issue and further firm action is needed. The suggestions of a withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an armistice with militant islam and AQ, would be folly.
I’d be very surprised if more people die from lightning strikes than terrorist attacks these days.
Different ways to die are not equivalent: preventability and intent matter. Lightning strikes and road deaths are (by-and-large) not preventable and not the result of malevolent intent. So while we do our best to minimize the probability of both, we rightly feel little moral outrage when they occur. Just as we quite rightly feel enormous moral outrage at the London events.
Do you have children DD? If so, would you feel the same way about your 5yo child dying accidently from a lightning strike as you would if she was brutally raped and murdered?
It will be a sad day when we feel the same way about the London bombings as we do about death by lightning. That would reflect a genuine degradation of our morality.
How much longer must be listen to these delusions about London? The actions were atrocious, and the those behind them should be caught and punished. Not much confusion there.
I’ve had a few things to say on the matter (http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/07/motivations.html). How much longer will we absolve ourselves, the West, for responsiblity? How much longer will we invade countries, kill thousands of innocent civilians, and wonder why some people may not like that? How much longer will the West prop up corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East?
Everything has a price. London was an atrocity, to be sure, and those behind it should be punished harshly. But continuing to support Bush, Blair and Howard is madness.
Many in the world certainly know who to blame…
Anon is on the money.
They should be hunted down no matter what the cost.
This is what bush promised but never delivered on.
no wonder they are laughing.
“They should be hunted down no matter what the cost.”
As I suggested in the aborted post, despite the blowhard bragging of the Chimp, his clique has proven itself to be unwilling to pay the price. The Bush clique has funked it.
And what are all those blog-active folks who demand the ultimate GWOT effort doing tap-tap-tapping their poisonous on their computers when they could be doing so much more useful work schlepping their M16 along the ridges of the Hindu Kush.
Blowhard braggards of the world unite! You’ve got nothing to lose but your plausibility!
Homer, they don’t wear signs on their foreheads saying, “I am a terrorist”.
Anthony, there is no doubt European-based Islamists have been fired up by Iraq, and they may be very agitated by the poor treatment that the Palestinians are getting, but these are not the “root causes” of their terrorism, as it fashionable to say.
Islamist terrorism in Europe got kick started circa 1992, when the Serbs massacred tens of thousand (may be 100s of 1000s) Bosnian Muslims , and the European powers did nothing to stop it. It was the Americans who finally stopped it by bombing Serb positions around Sarajevo in 1994. Ironically, it the West had intervened militarily in Bosnia two years earlier, we might not have the problem we have today.
It was also around that time that Algerian Islamists started massacring people in their own country, for reasons that had nothing to do with the West) and the first attempt was made on the World Trade Center was in 1993.
All these things happened long before Bush, Blair and Howard came onto the scene.
If you are looking for the very beginnings of modern Islamism and the problems it has brought the West, you might try the Iranian revolution of 1978.
Bush and his acolytes Blair and Howard might have made the situation worse but they didn’t create the problem.
Net Vigilantes and the Dog Poop Girl
Jonathan Krim in SMH today, p19, reports on group enforcement via the net by citing a case of possibly urban myth dimensions. A Korean university student’s dog fouled a railway station, and she refused to scoop it up. She was outed via cell phone photo posted to the ‘net, and was “hounded” eventually into resigning from her university, after being identified as the Dog Poop Girl.
The punishment was probably worse than any legal sanction which might have been applied. This gives rise to the possibility of Cyber Vigilantism, and pressures to conform to society’s “norms” by peer pressure.
More, for example…
http://www.kn.com.au/networks/2005/07/privacy_and_inn.html#more
Usually blogging and the ‘net are characterised as wearing white hats in the goodies vs. baddies game. Freedom vs. control, etc. This case suggests that indeed there may be a dark side to the ‘net in terms of those who favour diversity over conformity.
Dave,
I never said they did.
No enmey ever does.
They doesn’t mean you do go after them and try to eliminate them.
Homer, going after and eliminating them has been happening since September 11 2001.
If it was easy, Madrid and London wouldn’t have occurred.
Hal9000 said it well.
“Going after and eliminating them” – going after whom? Let’s say, hypothetically, someone reads in a newspaper about, say, annihilation of Fallujah or, say, another Palestinian child killed – he gets mad, he goes and blows up a bus in London and maybe commits suicide in the process. I know, it’s not that simple, but I believe that’s, essentially, the mechanics of it. Who are you going to go after, who are you going to eliminate? The whole humanity? All people who may not like bombings of Fallujah? Newspaper publishers?
From my experience yesterday in the Melbourne CBD, I would suggest retail trade was extremely low, most likely as a result of events of Thursday night. As this is likely to be only a short term effect on people, will such a bad day of trade effect the ecconmony?
Dave, the problem is they haven’t done that.
There was a token effort made in Afghnistan and then all the effort & resources went into Iraq.
The reason for london, Madrid , Instanbul is because of this.
If they can do it like that in London it won’t be hard in Sydney
Oh yes, it’s the dreaded “They” who have to be eliminated. Of course. How could I miss, it’s clearly identified in every Homer’s comment.
When Martyn Brant shot a lot of people in his own private version of terrorism then we lost a lot of civil rights. Howard moved rapidly to put restrictions on gun ownership. However I suppose a lot of people would prefer not to think of that as a breach of civil rights.
Interesting to note that gun crime seems to have gone up since then. Obviously the bad guys forgot to hand in their weapons.
abb1,
are you blind. It is AQ. There is nothing striking about.
They want to eliminate us. We have no choice but to eliminate them.
(via the iraqiexpatblog)
You come to place your bags of hate
On bus and train, you made us late
Yet we’ll be back again tomorrow
We’ll carry on despite our sorrow
Your bags of hate caused some to die
Yet we stride out strong with heads held high
You’ll never win, we will not bow
You can’t defeat us, you don’t know how
This London which we love with pride
Is a town where scum like you can’t hide
Don’t worry we will hunt you down
Then Lock you up in name of Crown
We’re London and we’re many races
Just look you’ll see our stoic faces
We all condemn your heinous act
You will not win and that’s a fact
We’ll mourn our dead and shed a tear
But we will not bow to acts of fear
You’re out there somewhere all alone
There’s nowhere now you can call home
Olympics ours we’ve won the race
Your timing then a real disgrace
Our strength you’ll find remains unbowed
We’re London and we’re very proud.
Homer, why would ‘they’ want to eliminate ‘us’? Why aren’t they trying to eliminate, say, the Swedes or, say, Brazilians? Could you share the insights, please.
“Western media suggesting that we need to force the Muslims to convert to our religions: Marketcapitalism and Represenativedemocracy”
1. The Islamic traders who pioneered the sea trade between the Near East and Indonesia did as much or more for the growth of market capitalism as any European.
The ordinary Iraqis certainly didn’t need any western influence to adopt market capitalist solutions to sanctions.
2. To suggest that representative democracy is a “western religion” begs the question of why non-westerners from China to Zimbabwe and from Burma to Egypt regularly risk torture and death to seek it.
JQ to me AQ is a complex problem stemming from multiple social historical factors that will need action and evaluation on multiple fronts.
There needs to be an acknowledgement of the problems caused historical and modern Western foreign policy in the Middle East. In particular recent double standards shown by the US in its support of authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia –which monopolise the wealth in the otherwise poor region- and bias toward Israel when dealing with Israeli/ Palestinian problem.
That means a substantive shift in US foreign policy not just PR, away from US economic imperialism> Sunday 19 June 2005 The National Interest Radio National Economic hitman
as the main driver of US foreign-resource- policy and a domestic driven foreign policy concerning Israel.
Instead, real pressure for democratic and economic reform on authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.
An even handed approach to with Israeli/Palestinian problem,-no automatic veto of UN censures of Israel by the US- with the central aim of getting a sovereign independent Palestinian state, and security for the Israelis. Blair understands this I live in hope Bush will. Throw in substantial economic aid to undermine the influence of Hamas.
This also means that the US need to back away from Iraq and allow a UN takeover to ease tensions in the region. That does not necessarily mean a quick withdrawal but it would mean that US forces come under UN control and a must, that developmental contract authority to be taken away from the US and if necessary .re-tendered
A real conversation between the West and those moderate Muslims who condemn AQ but acknowledge the injustice perpetrated by the West that has contributed to AQ.
The West in particular must understand and acknowledge how it has contributed to AQ, and the moderate Muslims must acknowledge the need for internal social/democratic and economic reform and the need to raise their voices against Wahhabism and terrorism.
There is no escaping the fact that most if not all AQ and their sympathisers must be dealt with militarily or strong law enforcement.
But this must be done in conjuncture with the above to undermine the general grievances of the Muslim world so as to take away the support that fuels AQ.
Rog,
I don’t see how you get “evil is inexplicable” from my post which says -in these words – “evil is explicable”.
There are reports that the US and UK are planning major force reductions in Iraq by mid-2006.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09407645.htm
Let’s all hope these plans are based on the real tactical and political siuation on the ground and not political expediency – a mid-2006 phase-down would tie in nicely with the US mid-term elections a few months later.
To suggest that representative democracy is a “western religion� begs the question of why non-westerners from China to Zimbabwe and from Burma to Egypt regularly risk torture and death to seek it.
I don’t think it begs this question. Buddhism is an oriental religion and some westerners practice it – so what? But try to convert westerners to Buddhism at gunpoint and you’ll see what happens.
‘Victory is not going to be achieved by an analysis that has nothing to say about what motivated these people to sign up. We could start by paying some attention to what they say their goals are. At least that’s an intelligent place to start…’
Well said, Hal9000. There’s a handy word for the ‘analysis that has nothing to say about what motivated these people’, namely, demonisation.
And contrary to what several people said above, ‘partisan point-scoring’ is easily distinguished from constructive discussion.
IG, you have confused the Near East and the Middle East. The Near East is the Levant, and the Middle East was the parts abutting the northern end of the Indian Ocean (Americans have now shifted the usage, and suppose that Israel, for instance, is in the Middle East). The Far East was, roughly, those parts east of Singapore.
And making democracy an object of veneration, as opposed to a possibly more convenient tool, is indeed a western idolatry. It is bound ultimately to lead to interfering with its use as a tool, like a car collector who keeps his collection out of harm’s way.
Correct Neil, my error.
Firstly, I apologise for using coarse language (directed at the London bombers) on an earlier post on the London attacks. That said, I do not resile from the sentiment (and I had not read the house rules).
I said in that earlier post that the tactics being adopted by our leaders are doing little to minimise the risk of terror. Predictably, some siezed upon this to say that I am blaming our leaders for what has happened. It’s an tempting intuitive leap, but incorrect. I blame the terrorists for what happened. I blame our leaders for doing so little to prevent it, for (amongst other things) being sucked into the bloody sideshow that is Iraq. That’s their job, you know – defending us. F for Failed.
The cynic in me suspects that the real purpose of the Iraq war was to distract the world from the awful truth – that our leaders simply have no clue as to how to deal with these evil bastards. Just so we’re seen to be reacting, we don’t care whether our reaction actually addresses our problem. We’ll fight the people we’ve attracted to Iraq, but did they plant these bombs? One suspects not.
Someone above said that we have to eliminate “them”, because they seek to eliminate “us”. I’m afraid this is correct, and I think we should start now, even though it’s not entirely clear that everyone agrees on who is them and who is us. But if we continue to be conned that wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are helping to eliminate the threat, then we are not even beginning to understand, let alone eliminate, the problem.
What price that these bombers were Londoners? The enemy is within? I don’t know, but I am reasonably certain that the enemy is not in Baghdad.
So the stoic in me suggests that little will change, and we should brace ourselves for the next attack. Coming soon to a city near you?
Katz – I still don’t think that my civil rights have been eroded by the increased powers for ASIO, because I have nothing to fear. I have a daughter who will be sixteen soon and I still don’t have anything to fear from the strip searching provisions. This is not much different from fearing the State Police will raid my house and take me in for questioning when I have done nothing wrong – I do not lie awake at night fearing that either. I have been in the military and worked with both Military and State Police Intelligence (at a very minor level) and I personally know Judges and Politicians. I have great faith in their ability to carry out their duties in a professional manner. Only those who have anything to hide are the ones who need to live in fear.
Razor,
As I have said may times on this blog – “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton). If we trust people with more power than is strictly necessary to do their jobs and do not have adequate oversight, no matter how pure and wonderful they are there will be a tendency to corruption. The only exception would be an omniscient, perfect being – unfortunately Christ is not available to run ASIO at the moment.
The reason why countries collapse into despotism is not because people are trying to do the wrong thing – I do not believe Marx or Lenin intended to engender Stalinism, but because they are given too much power and are trusted to do the right thing.
I also know several politicians, public servants and one or two judges. I also like, trust and respect them as people. If they are not held to account, however, they are just people, like the rest of us, and are subject to temptations. They may believe they are doing the right thing, or just following orders or anything else – but without controls, checks and balances, I would bet London to a brick that the wrong thing will eventuate.
What is happening at Guantanamo is a good example. I do not believe that the motives of those who sent the inmates there were wrong, but the outcome certainly has been.
HAL9000 and abb1,
Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It is not that I wake up feeling the weight of injustice on my shoulders, go to Mitre 10 and buy some explosives, continue to Dick Smith and buy a detonator. There are organisations that will provide the materials, training and other logistics to perform an attack. Granted, there are many underlying causes to terrorism, but none of those can be solved in the short term. What we can certainly do in the short term, is to target organisations that provide support to would be terrorists (which is no excuse for coming up with legislation that greatly undermines civil liberties).
The whole argument if terrorists are ‘sub-human scum’ or not is a distraction at best. Sections of society will go at length discussing the irrelevant. We are dealing with human beings that will not stop at any consideration to make a point and they deserve the worst punishment that is legally applicable. Of course we will also need to work on long term approaches for whatever ends up being the underlying cause(s) of this madness.
“I personally know Judges and Politicians. I have great faith in their ability to carry out their duties in a professional manner.”
Deary me Razor. Take a look at the judicial history of the Third Reich. Judges duly appointed under the democratic Weimar Constitution happily administered Nazi laws. I imagine that German demomcrats had great faith in the probity of these judges as well.
“Only those who have anything to hide are the ones who need to live in fear.’
During the Weimar regime Jews, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped and communists thought they had nothing to hide. How wrong they were.
Katz, you’ve gone off the deep end now – the Australia we live in bears no relation to the Germany of the the 1930’s and 1940’s that you refer to. I am well aware that we need to understand history in order to learn from it and I am pleased to say that in our Westminister political system with an independent judiciary and media, the type of risk you alude to are unlikely to happen.
Funnily enough for a RWDB, most of the lawyers, Judges and Politicians who I know are all Labor voters.
Razor, I’m glad to read that you are a fan of history.
So you’ll understand that I’m not talking about Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. I’m talking about Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. And as a fan of history, you’ll know that the Germany of the 1920s “bears no relation to the Germany of the 1930’s and 1940’s.”
And what was it that changed? In the juridicial sense, the Reichstag of the Weimar era surrendered its authority to the executive. This signified the end of the Weimar era.
What occasioned this surrender? The Reichstag fire — a terrorist act perpetrated either by a Dutch Communist halfwit or by the Nazis themselves who used said Dutch Communist halfwit as a patsy. (Macabrely, he was executed by means of a electrically operated guillotine. The executioner wore an evening suit,)
And what did this surrender entail? The right of the executive to administer laws without the scrutiny of the Reichstag and over the head of juridicial review. This is precisely what Ruddock wants in his anti-terrorist legislation.
So you see Razor. The end of the Weimar era was not proclaimed by the storming of the Bastille or by the sacking of the Winter Palace. It was done in a very orderly manner and sealed with a kid-gloved finger on an electrical switch.
“Only those who have anything to hide are the ones who need to live in fear.”
I’m sure Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon will be glad to hear that.
Katz – give it a break. Your doomsday prediction is as ridiculous as the ACTU’s anti-IR Law Reform adds.