The last days have seen some discussion in the media [far too little given the implications] about the proposed new anti-terrorism laws. Do we really need more laws than already in place? And, no less importantly, have you heard our PM, or the Cadaver [as some have dubbed Phillip Ruddock, the Federal Attorney-General] provide any reason, other than the most vague, for further new laws to be introduced? For some inexplicable reason Kim Beazley has weighed into the discussion with a suggestion that it should be possible to lock down a whole suburb. His proposal has rightly brought this rebuke as published in Crikey -
"Beazley gets it badly wrong on terrorism laws
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin writes:
Kim Beazley's proposal to "toughen" the government's security legislation by "locking down" whole neighbourhoods at times of suspected terrorist threat is at best foolish and at worst dangerously racist. Presumably he is talking about "locking down" predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods in suburbs like Kogarah or Coburg.
We've been here before. It was what the Nazis did in the Kracow and Warsaw ghettos in WW2 – they locked them down too, for claimed security reasons. It was the first step towards the death camps.
Who on earth is advising Beazley on these matters? He's an educated man. Shame on him."
"Beazley gets it badly wrong on terrorism laws
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin writes:
Kim Beazley's proposal to "toughen" the government's security legislation by "locking down" whole neighbourhoods at times of suspected terrorist threat is at best foolish and at worst dangerously racist. Presumably he is talking about "locking down" predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods in suburbs like Kogarah or Coburg.
We've been here before. It was what the Nazis did in the Kracow and Warsaw ghettos in WW2 – they locked them down too, for claimed security reasons. It was the first step towards the death camps.
Who on earth is advising Beazley on these matters? He's an educated man. Shame on him."
Comments