APEC lockdown

[Raskill]

Moz, PM me all the details (time, date place, real name etc) and I'll try to get your card back for you. I doubt it will occur before the end of APEC though.

Can't promise anything, but I will make some enquiries.

[jethro]

APEC= Australia's Political Entitlement Capacity on a world stage =0

[daniel_r]

APEC= Australia's Political Entitlement Capacity on a world stage =0

after being stuck on the X94 bus on the Eastern Distributor the other morning, I coined:
APEC = Angry Passengers Experiencing Congestion
APEC = All Politicians Elude Commuting

[sirhc55]

”APE”Conference

[chrisk]

this is all it takes to bypass $250m worth of security apparently.

[/img]

[sirhc55]

The mere fact that the Chaser’s Team managed to get as far as they did is an indictment of the total uselessness of the so called ”security system” for APEC.

I’m a great believer in the old adage: try too hard and you are bound to f*ck up

[Bindii]

You must be lucky, or maybe I'm unlucky - they confiscated my memory card and apparently I'll get it back after the event. Perhaps because I was inside the fence (picking stuff up from work so I don't have to go thru once they start the clampdown), or perhaps because I was on a bike. But for whatever reason, I got stopped, searched, and my card confiscated.

I haven't had time to read the thread so please excuse me if this has been asked and answered in there somewhere already... but are they allowed to do that by law...? I would have thought that its actually illegal..???

[Killakoala]

Sue, they passed these laws specifically for the APEC fiasco. (They disguised the laws as anti-terror laws.)

[Biggzie]

but are they allowed to do that by law...? I would have thought that its actually illegal..???

With the APEC laws to cover this event ... Yes
Under the new terrorism laws you might be quite surprised of how much freedom you now dont have.
Isnt it ironic that we invaded a country under bogus excuses, of which we kicked out a dictator partly because of the freedoms his people didnt have only to have terrorism used as an excuse to legally remove our freedoms to a level similar to his if our government chooses to use its powers.

[Bindii]

Sue, they passed these laws specifically for the APEC fiasco. (They disguised the laws as anti-terror laws.)

So do I take it that normally the police have no powers to confiscate our equipment then?...Its only for this thing..?

but are they allowed to do that by law...? I would have thought that its actually illegal..???

With the APEC laws to cover this event ... Yes
Under the new terrorism laws you might be quite surprised of how much freedom you now dont have.
Isnt it ironic that we invaded a country under bogus excuses, of which we kicked out a dictator partly because of the freedoms his people didnt have only to have terrorism used as an excuse to legally remove our freedoms to a level similar to his if our government chooses to use its powers.

Well said..

and yes it is rather ironic isn't it.... and yet I have to wonder if it is for our own good... terrorism is a terrible thing...and while I am all for trying to keep the country as safe as possible.. and yes I do agree that sometimes we have to accept that some of these rules are for the benefit of a 'safer place'... I still have to ask myself if its the beginning of creating a society that is even harder to live with than the threat of terrorism....

*sigh*

[Reschsmooth]

Well said..

and yes it is rather ironic isn't it.... and yet I have to wonder if it is for our own good... terrorism is a terrible thing...and while I am all for trying to keep the country as safe as possible.. and yes I do agree that sometimes we have to accept that some of these rules are for the benefit of a 'safer place'... I still have to ask myself if its the beginning of creating a society that is even harder to live with than the threat of terrorism....

*sigh*

The problem is that our fearless leaders can impose a whole range of new laws restricting our freedom under the guise of security. Whilst I would rather see no-one injured or killed as a result of a terrorist attack, my concerns are:

1. Even under the strictest security measures, it only requires a level of ingenuity to circumvent them - who ever thought of using planes as missiles? How easy was it to drive almost all the way through tens of millions of dollars of security measures? How small a device is required to create massive amounts of damage, a device that can be easily concealed? What I am getting at is that I can't imagine any level of security that will make us safe. What I can imagine is a level of foreign policy which will make us less of a target!
2. Do they put in place such strict security measures that we lose all our freedoms? Do we become a country of ultra-paranoid people (referring to the commercials for the security info line where you can dob in, I mean report anything suspicious)? I think of the thread of a few months ago about banning the taking photographs in public (beaches) because such a small minority of people may use photos of kiddies for unsavoury purposes - sure this could happen, but how would you know and do you want to be in a situation where you have such strict measures to control the smallest minority?

Sorry for the rant, but I think that I would rather not live in such a permanently controlled environment for the sake of protecting me from a very improbable event occuring (improbable both in terms of the likelihood of the event occuring and the improbability of it actually impacting those close to me and myself).

OR, do we succomb to an eventuality (my assumption) where we have CCT cameras on every street, give police unfettered search and seizure powers, give the authorities indefinite detainment powers, disallow public photography, disallow the right to speak out against the authorities (who are supposed to work for us), etc.

[Biggzie]

So do I take it that normally the police have no powers to confiscate our equipment then?...Its only for this thing..?

Under the new terrorism laws yes they can, but not as easily.

and yet I have to wonder if it is for our own good...

I dont want to start a political spin off, but it seems that this Gov has used scare tactics to get the population to bend to its will. And I also think that the opposition parties have been weak and this has allowed this to happen. Now that it appears the opposition has picked up stregnth there seems to be cracks appearing at the governments seems, but I do not imagine that the opposition will disolve these new laws.
Years ago I read about how the communist moved to gain control of the population, and its always stuck in my mind. Our Gov. appears to have read the same book and we seem to be moving slowly down the same path, Iwonder where we'll end up. [end rant sorry to get political]

[Bindii]

Well said..

and yes it is rather ironic isn't it.... and yet I have to wonder if it is for our own good... terrorism is a terrible thing...and while I am all for trying to keep the country as safe as possible.. and yes I do agree that sometimes we have to accept that some of these rules are for the benefit of a 'safer place'... I still have to ask myself if its the beginning of creating a society that is even harder to live with than the threat of terrorism....

*sigh*

[

Sorry for the rant, but I think that I would rather not live in such a permanently controlled environment for the sake of protecting me from a very improbable event occuring (improbable both in terms of the likelihood of the event occuring and the improbability of it actually impacting those close to me and myself).

OR, do we succomb to an eventuality (my assumption) where we have CCT cameras on every street, give police unfettered search and seizure powers, give the authorities indefinite detainment powers, disallow public photography, disallow the right to speak out against the authorities (who are supposed to work for us), etc.

No its not ranting I think you are merely saying what so many of us are already thinking.. we both virtually made the same point... although mine was not half as eloquent as yours..

[Biggzie]

Well said Reschsmooth
I can say so much more to this, but Im going to exercise restraint.
I have just talked 1 of my friends into upgrading from a 10x zoom compact camera into a Nikkon D40x. (Arived last Friday) I told her she should read the book and play while her daughter was playing netball the next day. She said she wasnt allowed to take a camera to her daughters netball games, the Association had banned them. Only Press ie the local rag and authorised people are allowed.
Anyway I didnt come here for Politics so I wont continue.

[Smurph]

It seems that day by day, Australia is loosing it's freedom.

Take, for example, the fact that someof the 'special' police powers that were enacted around the 2000 Olympics are still in force - in some parts of Sydney.

It will be interesting to see what parts of the security measures around APEC will be made permanent after the delegations have left the city/country.

Mr. Howard, I point you to a line in our nation's song:
"... for we are young and free"

I really hope that the Libs get ousted at the election.

[Raskill]

Whilst I do enjoy a lively debate on police powers, government responsibility and the freedoms we either have or don't have, can we keep it a tad realistic.

Anyone who seriously, for even a second, thinks that we have the same level of freedom as pre gulf war (V.2.0) Iraq is fooling themselves.

Do you seriously believe that you will be kidnapped, tortured and fed through a shredder feet first if you criticise John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown? Come on!

[Bindii]

Do you seriously believe that you will be kidnapped, tortured and fed through a shredder feet first if you criticise John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown? Come on!

No.. but they might wash your mouth out with soap...

[Biggzie]

Do you seriously believe that you will be kidnapped, tortured and fed through a shredder feet first if you criticise John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown? Come on!

I havent said that, but this Gov has the power to detain you, and you cannot inform anyone, and the media is not allowed to report it. This system is potentially open to political abuse. (I know this is simplistic)
The ballence has gone too far.

[moz]

So do I take it that normally the police have no powers to confiscate our equipment then?...Its only for this thing..?

In the current media/political climate they have a license to do so. What the law actually says is actually pretty irrelevant, what matters is whether you have the power to force them to obey it. I would rather not find out whether their threats were serious, because that would mean an unscheduled week off work, plus whatever other costs I would face. Right now I am inclined not to make a fuss in the hope that they will actually return the card and photos.

One thing to remember is that no-one has been killed by terrorists in Australia for about 100 years (if you don't count blackfellas). If the Powers That Be actually cared about keeping you from being killed they'd focus on things that actually kill people, rather than things that don't. Instead they focus on things that keep the PTB safe from their subjects. The best they've managed so far is finding some people who might be associated with people overseas who might want to become terrorists. But they can't or won't prove, it so they just slander them in the media.

If we're willing to sacrifice substantial civil liberties in the name of keeping the white folk safe, how about we start with banning tobacco and putting the morbidly obese into "fit camps", instead of banning protests and rounding up "men of middle eastern appearance". FFS, the stuff they're doing is known not to work - the Zionists have been doing it for 50 years and have only made the problem worse.

Right now the army is active against Australian citizens in two places - Sydney, and the Northern Territory. Would you rather be white and in Sydney being inconvenienced, or black and in the NT having your kids taken away?

[moz]

I havent said that, but this Gov has the power to detain you, and you cannot inform anyone, and the media is not allowed to report it. This system is potentially open to political abuse.

What makes you think it hasn't already been abused? It seems designed specifically to be abused... not only is the person abducted not allowed to tell anyone, anyone who finds out is not allowed to tell anyone else. If your child is taken, only one parent will be told and they are not allowed to tell the other parent. It's not just insane, it's the law.

[Biggzie]

What makes you think it hasn't already been abused?

I didnt say I didnt think it hasnt been abused already. I was being polite and trying to not invite ASIO in. Who knows they might have already been in and corrupted Bindii's colours.

[Killakoala]

<snip>

One thing to remember is that no-one has been killed by terrorists in Australia for about 100 years <snip>

Err, actually.

In 1972, a bomb exploded at the Yugoslav General Trade and Tourist Agency in Sydney. Sixteen people were injured, two critically. Also in 1972 there was a second incursion by Australians of Croatian background into Yugoslavia.

On 13th February 1978 a bomb exploded in a garbage bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel where delegates to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting were staying. Three people were killed and six others severely injured.

In December 1980 the Turkish Consul-General in Sydney, Sarik Ariyak and his bodyguard, Engin Sever, were murdered by the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide.

In December 1982 the Israeli Consulate-General and the Hakoah Club in Sydney were bombed.

A bomb exploded on 23rd November 1986 beneath the Turkish Consulate-General in Melbourne killing one of the bombers. Another person was later convicted for his part in the crime.

http://www.asio.gov.au/About/Content/History.aspx <- Warning, link to ASIO. Don't click if you are paranoid

And lets not forget the Port Arthur massacre where Martin Bryant acted as a terrorist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

What I'm trying to say is that terrorism is not only a very real possibility in Australia at the moment, but it has also had it's own share of it in the past, for various reasons.

Not that i agree with the 'Be alert, not afraid' campaign of paranoia that we have now. However we need to be aware that it is possible that some unscrupulous misguided fools might try to harm Australians to get their misguided opinions across.

I did live for a short while under the very real threat of active terrorism in the UK during the IRA terror campaign, but the laws and power we have now in Australia is very much stronger than the UK had during those times when terrorist acts were commonplace. The public was encouraged to be vigilant rather than fearful of the IRA. Our present lords and masters have gone much further than they need to in my opinion, and i know i share that belief. But we are stuck with it for the time being.

I always believe that, 'If you do the right thing, you have nothing to fear.' That goes for the new terror laws too. (Also check out my avatar)

My attempt at balance.

[moz]

Err, actually.

Opps. <blush> 8 since 1970 then. my Sony.

Still, the point remains that terrorism is way down the list of actual threats.

The public was encouraged to be vigilant rather than fearful of the IRA.

That seems very sensible. Pity the British have lost the plot since then.

I always believe that, 'If you do the right thing, you have nothing to fear.' That goes for the new terror laws too.

Unfortunately "the right thing" as defined by Dear Leader is unquestioning compliance, and I suck at that. But as you and Raskill point out, he has not yet plumbed the depths reached by his namesake, the last Man of Steel. Is it just me or was that an exceptionally poor choice of monikers by the famously ahistorical Bush-the-Younger?

[Reschsmooth]

I always believe that, 'If you do the right thing, you have nothing to fear.' That goes for the new terror laws too. (Also check out my avatar)

My attempt at balance.

With all due respect, who determines what the right thing is? There are no standards for this, so we often refer to the law - and if the law tightens what the "right thing" is, our freedom to do things reduces.

[Biggzie]

If you do the right thing, you have nothing to fear

When this statement appears, there is all the more reason to fear.
Polititions use this to shut the door on reasonal debate.

[Killakoala]

To all three of you above

'The Right Thing,' is the behaviour a 'reasonable' person would do. Although 'reasonable' depends on the context of an incident and who is judging a circumstance. An 'unreasonable' person would do something contrary and possibly anti-social, as being something against society.

So, IMO a reasonable person would be someone who does not intentionally breach common law. This does not include people who 'test' the boundaries of that law by demonstration, as this is a major fundamental of democracy. Such as the Chaser people did during APEC or protest marches by greenies over the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania.

We still live in a democracy, even if you're opinion is otherwise. So there is still the opportunity to dissolve the terror laws by a benevolent government, if they choose to do so. It is up to us as a group of collective individuals to make sure our voice is heard above the rhetoric that politicians love to shout in order to put some common sense into their minds. (If that's possible.)

By the end of October, we will most likely have different people in power so maybe that will be the opportunity to change the laws as they stand today.

EDIT: Just as an addendum. I have literately put my life in harm's way to protect our democracy so I am with you on the issue of protecting it.

[stubbsy]

Well I think we've probably milked all we can from the images critiqued here AND had our fill of politics for now eh

Thread locked.

And thank you ALL for having reasoned debate without personal attacks on a contentious issue.