OP/ED: Be Afraid...Be Unnecessarily Afraid

Count me in! I'll be there for sure.

You lot should meet up there, and then come back and give us a report on ATS.

On the topic of protests, if I was in Melbourne at the moment I would be going to this one too, but I personally don't see any real positive benefit from street protests apart from making TPTB know that some people are a bit pissed. As for the negative effects, protests can cause the couch-potato public to actually lose sympathy for the cause, especially if agents provocateur or just dumb protesters are involved, (or even of too many in the crowd have dreadlocks). That's not to say that no protest has ever produced change in recorded history, but only when participation encompasses a very large portion of the population can any measurable effect be observed. That being said, I guess even the greatest rivers start out as a trickling stream.

Good luck, guys & gals!

from wecomeinpeace
On the topic of protests, if I was in Melbourne at the moment I would be going to this one too, but I personally don't see any real positive benefit from street protests apart from making TPTB know that some people are a bit pissed.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you're saying there WCIP, I'll probably go there and be more of a lurker. I'm interested to see what the cross section of the crowd will actually be. I plan to take photo's and maybe vox pop's too.

I still see this 14 days figure for the "preventative detention order" being mentioned in the news, but I can't seem to find it in the legislation. As far as I can tell, the maximum limit is 48 hours. Can anyone tell me if I've missed something? Where did the 14 day projected figure come from in the first place?

Where did the 14 day projected figure come from in the first place?

MainStream Media, most likely. If memory serves me, they were chucking that figure around before the leak.
From what I've read of the draft, it looks like 48hrs, however, they may be able to extend that. In regards to that flyer that I posted, it may have been put together before the leak occurred. I reposted it from melb.indymedia. I'm not affiliated with it in any way, so I can't speak for them. As for the MSM, well, what can I say.
Heard on the news today that Vic. and Qld. may wihdraw support for the bill.
Anyone heard any more on this?

Originally posted by fingapointa
From what I've read of the draft, it looks like 48hrs, however, they may be able to extend that.

If you're going to the protest, take a copy of the legislation with you so you can edumacate people if they're still yelling about the "14 days". Nothing worse than undermining a cause by looking like a bunch of stoopid-heads that can't be bothered to read something before protesting about it.

Heard on the news today that Vic. and Qld. may wihdraw support for the bill. Anyone heard any more on this?

Can't find any mentions on the net about it.

WCIP I read today that the legislation agreed to by the Premier's is different to that that was leaked. The story surrounded the 'shoot-to-kill' policy and how it wasnt in the legislation shown at the Premier's conference. Maybe they dropped the 14 day's from this latest draft?

Originally posted by subz
WCIP I read today that...

Have you got a link to that story?

Just for clarification, are you talking about the "shoot to kill" policy I outlined under the heading "Lethal Force"?

BTW, great post earlier with your additional analysis.

[edit on 2005-10-20 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Have you got a link to that story?

No, I read it in Mx on the way home. It said the Victorian and Queensland Premiers are considering removing their backing of the legislation.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Just for clarification, are you talking about the "shoot to kill" policy I outlined under the heading "Lethal Force"?

Yes. Beatty and Bracks said there was no mention of that policy in the draft they were shown. Now it shows up in this leaked version.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
BTW, great post earlier with your additional analysis.

Thanks, I haven't had a chance to go through it further. Im still on page 26

I really am thinking of running with the whole 'who'll support these control ordered people' idea and basing my letter to Bracks on it. I don't think they've even considered it in Britain either. How can any one possibly hold down a job under those constraints? I think it would wake up some of the more lethargic Australians if they thought their tax dollar could be funding suspected terrorists to stay in their own homes. They might not like Control Orders so much then and could even back moves to get these people back into the normal judicial process (i.e. court and jail)