It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 2000, the Coalition and the Labor parties joined hands to pass military callout legislation that enables the armed forces to be mobilised against civilian unrest ('domestic vioience'), with or without the agreement of a State government.
They include sweeping definitions of terrorism and treason, both now punishable by life imprisonment, which could outlaw many forms of political protest and industrial action.
In addition, it reverses the burden of proof for a range of serious offences, effectively requiring defendants to prove their own innocence.
Indeed, the laws appear to have little to do with protecting the Australian people against terrorism.
While citing the September 11 attacks in the United States as its justification, the government has adopted a definition of terrorism that goes beyond the Bush administration's USA Patriot Act
Originally posted by seenitall
I've recently had an argument with someone very close to me over 'protection from terrorists' versus retaining rights in Australia.
Things don't seem all that bad over here but I feel that the world is changing quickly and I don't like the way things have the potential to change.
eg. if the definition of a terrorist begins to change, which I believe it is overseas, we're going to follow suit IMO.
I found this review article from Melbourne University that I thought was good. It helped me explain my viewpoint, even though the other person involved still thought it was more important to be 'safe'. You can access the first page on google scholar.
It really has all worked hasn't it?
I am no terrorist, nor will I ever be, but I am worried that as people accept the trend further freedoms may be taken away.
It makes me sad when people cannot come to their own conclusions.
I apologise I can't link to the full text.
[edit on 13-10-2008 by seenitall]