Just wrote this to Lindsay Tanner (as the Upper House looks set to pass the bill with the necessary ALP support) ...
Hope you were listening to the Delroy programme, Lindsay! The poor bloke's switchboard was still lit up like a salvo at a demo at programme's end.
And I've seen nothing from Labor that does anything to address the genuine assaults on Australian democracy implicit in this verminous document. Henceforth, the executive is to be judge, jury and executioner - all with the decisive help of a party that dares call itself social democrat.
I've heard 'social democracy' described as an attempt to balance socialism and capitalism.
Well, maybe you've finally cracked it, eh?
A Stalinist state under a robber-baron economy ...
Oh well, as your vaunted strategists are no doubt telling you, 'who else are those bleeding-heart-pinko-whingers gonna vote for, eh?'
I look forward to finding out. Rob. ________________________________________
>I understand this to have been framed directly in relation to the threat of
>terrorism at the olympics.
>I recall that they have phrased this as the threat of 'domestic violence'
>-- which I find additionally disturbing.
>But the whole thing is a terrifying proposition, also made worse by
>complaints from the police that the army shouldn't be allowed this 'right'
>because they have performed badly in simulated contexts involving
>civilians. Apparently they kill lots of the wrong ones. If in fact they are
>much worse than the police in this regard we can only imagine it must off
>the scale bad performance.
>Also, while it is clearly addressed to the olympic scenario there is no
>so-called 'sunset clause'. We're stuck with it forever (or whatever the
>political equivalent of forever is).
>Embarrassingly I'm not sure if this legislation has been passed yet, but I
>discerned a depressing absence of violent objections to it amongst the
>This vague and general sense is the best I can do. Hopefully others can do
>better but I've been out of the country a lot lately.