no longer an exclusively vicarious one.

Friday, October 28, 2005

vocab test!

which will always remind me of latin. ah. those were the days. sitting on that table by myself and drawing pictures of grecian urns when i was meant to be learning my tenses and subjugations.

last night mr tony jones was having a noice little chat with mr ruddock, who is the proud owner of whatever-in-the-hell portfolio he is in charge of now. i like those interviews, and ruddock is always more interesting to watch than someone like, say, mr costello (who owns ONE facial expression). the interview was fun, i could see mr jones having fun, but there were a couple of phrases that ruddock referred to that scared the living daylights out of me. one was 'control order', which im sure everyone will be hearing about soon (ie. putting someone under surveillance, and i think possible detention without charge), and 'preventative detention' which i just think sums up the current thinking at the moment. all this 'innocent until proven guilty' dren has been effectively chucked out of the window.
another one that i thought was pretty cool is that we have a 'telecommunications interception legislation'. cool.
but anyways. the second mr jones started saying something about the 5 yr jail term for anyone who told anyone that they were under control orders (even family) mr ruddock said this:

" The carrying out of terrorist acts is a very serious matter in which people's lives are at risk and exposed. And we've seen it abroad, we've seen Australians tragically lose their lives. If people are likely to compromise efforts to thwart such acts, you're dealing with a very serious matter. I wouldn't underestimate or play down the seriousness of those matters at all, Tony. I think the provision of information when you are dealing with a terrorist act that has occurred, or is about to occur, ought to be seen as a very, very difficult issue but one which the penalties have to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. "

and started pushing hypotheticals. but what if they got it wrong? they have before, and with ruddock in charge of the place after all that stuff about immigration deportees, id say theres a pretty damn big chance theyll get it wrong, and pretty soon. say youve been wrongfully detained. youre not allowed to see the evidence against you, youre being held without charge, and youre not allowed to tell anyone where you are so they can help you out. 'yeah sorry mum, im stuck in a queue at the centrelink office' and other such excuses for two whole weeks. now i dont know what the gov thinks about the people they govern, but we're not that stupid. someone is going to notice if their husband doesnt come home for a fortnight.

im not bloody scared of 'terrorists'. i mean, i dont really think suburban sydney is anywhere near the top of their 'places to attack in the name of jihad' list, but i could be wrong. i think theres more chance of me being affected by these anti-civil libertarian legislations than being caught up in a car bomb at westfield.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home