Mushies

Even the Establishment Editors of the SMH are now accusing the Howard government of treating us like mushrooms: keeping us in the dark and feeding us manure. Its editorial today (http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html) is entitled, "Doing it in the dark", excerpts following:

"Australians ought to know better than to exaggerate ASIO's powers under the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, believes. Why ought they? Instead of scolding the electorate for its legitimate concerns, Mr Ruddock would do better to explain why the bill's draconian and oppressive powers are suddenly so necessary. He will have to do better than the combination of scaremongering and vague reassurance that he and the Prime Minister have offered hitherto.

"The laws that we are seeking to enact do not deal with curtailing vigorous free speech in Australia," Mr Ruddock says. Oh yes they do. The bill published by Mr Stanhope provides that outsiders may not even speak about whether, or why or how detainees suspected of terrorist offences are being held, or what they think of it. The penalty: five years' jail. That is a savage curb on free speech. If it is necessary, the Government has not told us why.

"[T]he state Labor governments have been terrified of looking soft on terrorism. They may regret the loss of liberties, but they fear being blamed for a terrorist incident far more.

"None of that is to deny that terrorism endangers us. Like much of the Western world, Australia has been, and will remain, under threat for some time to come. The Government is well justified in beefing up ASIO with more resources and a doubling of its personnel in five years to counter the threat. It has also wisely decided to make an effort to recruit more Australians of non-Anglo-Celtic background, specifically Muslims. There is no question that the extra resources and skills are needed in the current political and security climate to warn of terrorist threats.

"The question is whether basic democratic rights must be thrown away at the first hint of danger. If basic rights must be abrogated, the Government has to explain why, provide for a more stringent review of the legislation, and ensure its life is limited. Most importantly, Parliament must be allowed to devote as much time as it needs to consider and refine these radical changes to our democratic rights."

They're reading my blog:
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/tongue-in-check.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/fathers-know-best.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/motherless-child.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/when-voicing-opposition-is-crime.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-do-you-boil-frog.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/in-praise-of-ceasar.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/feeling-threatened.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/but-what-is-question.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/unrepresentative-swill-part-2.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/unrepresentative-swill-part-one.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/beazley-supports-individual-liberties.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/search-me.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/theyve-lost-their-marbles.html
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/sticks-stones-may-break-my-bones-but.html
You get the picture.