MAKE no mistake people.
The latest targets in this swimmingly successful War On Terr’r are you and me.
And why not?
Isn’t it proper to continue to build on the spectacular results achieved thus far. After all, we’ve rounded up and put paid to those pesky terr’rists — every last one of them; we’ve freed the world from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction; we’ve brought democracy to Iraq; and we’ve established a stable platform for peace in the Middle East. Good work everyone. Give each other a nice pat on the back.
So now, lets make sure that our citizens can be safe from further terr’rist attack (from ‘new’ terr’rists though, because there aren’t any of the ‘old’ ones still at large).
We need laws to protect us.
But we already have laws, don’t we?
Not good, strong, lawyer-proof, pre-emptive laws that allow us to act before harm is carried out.
So these new laws are to prevent people carrying out their evil intentions?
Exactly.
This is a democracy after all
Don’t we already have that?
No. Our current laws require us to have evidence of those intentions and to be able to produce that evidence to a court of law. By the time we do all that, the evil deed is done and we’re all dead.
So the new laws won’t require proof, and won’t be subject to judicial oversight?
Of course they will! This is a democracy after all.
So what’s the difference between the new laws and the old laws?
We’ll provide the proof and the judicial oversight after we’ve acted to prevent the threat.
In open and public forums?
Ah, no.
So who will assess the level of proof and conduct the oversight?
We will. There’s no need for you to worry about that.
What if there is no proof, or what if you get it wrong?
Then we’ll be very, very sorry.
Won’t you be subject to civil action for abuse of power?
That’s exactly why we need the laws.
What about freedom and civil liberties?
The price we must pay
Look, it is the responsibility of government, when faced with the very real prospect that its citizens may be killed or injured in some way, to act. If accepting that responsibility and acting on it means that some of the freedoms to which we have become accustomed are reduced to a minor extent, then that is the price we must pay.
How many Australians have been killed or injured in acts of terrorism?
Many, many, many of our beloved fellow Australians.
A thousand?
No, not quite that many.
Five hundred?
Look, one death is one death too many. You can’t quantify this. We want every Australian to feel safe from oppression and tyranny.
From terrorists?
Yes.
But not from government?
Now you’re just being obtuse.
Twenty thousand Australians die from tobacco related illness each year. Why don’t we have a War On Tobacco?
Now you’re just being silly.
Why? Twenty thousand. Every year. Why don’t you act on those deaths?
Well we’re trying, but the laws aren’t strong enough.
So change them.
We can’t do that. People have a right to smoke. There are civil liberties and freedoms in this country you know.
Earlier:
