Abbott and Brandis seem to have thought that merely mentioning the word “terrorism” would be enough to ensure their policy an easy run.
Yet no matter how real the terrorist threat, the pre-emptive surveillance of every single Australian would be an extraordinary policy in every sense of the word – way outside the bounds of proportionality, and way outside the boundaries of legitimate government action in a free country.
That’s Chris writing in The Drum.
I also enjoyed this line:
But politicians ought to try to understand the laws their departments insist they introduce.
Ouch! That’s got to hurt.
Of course, not everyone agrees with young Christopher:
Across seven decades, the IPA has made a positive contribution to the political and economic debate in Australia. However, in recent times, sections of the organisation have run a libertarian line that presents human rights as of more importance than national security.
Berg seems unaware that if a terrorist sets off a dirty nuclear device in, say, the Melbourne or Sydney CBD there will not be many libertarian get-togethers for quite some time. Libertarianism is a viable entity today because libertarians are protected by the security of the state in which they live.
Ah, yes. The Colonel Jessup defence – “We live in a world with walls, Son …”. When the probability of global warming is higher that the probability of a terrorist setting off a dirty nuclear bomb in time to disrupt Friday drinkies I’m happy to take my chances.