the proposed offence is something entirely different. It is a "signal" of the Government's determination to bear down on terrorism. Not to support it is to be seen as soft on terrorism. (from News.telegraph)I never noticed before that Tony Blair is as much a belligerent little schoolyard punk as George Bush and Company are. Was I not paying attention? Is it all macho posturing, or do politicians think we really respect this kind of chest-puffery? Or, worse, do we?
Opponents, very rightly, worried about the vagueness of the law. Not only does the word "glorification" allow for a loose interpretation, but the word terrorism isnt a whole lot better.
And ("Future bills in Congress for $500, Alex") when can we expect to see a similar law passed here.
2 comments:
"I never noticed before that Tony Blair is as much a belligerent little schoolyard punk as George Bush and Company are."
Don't leave Oz's Little Johnnie "Man Of Steel" Howard out. Though I prefer "amoral power-hungry criminally-incompetent twat" myself.
And yeah, worst is that possibly this is what the majority of people think they want.
@ dave: I'm very worried every time I see political news about Australia, which I had always thought of as a kind of lifeboat.
Theocracy in the U.S.? Dont feel like freezing your ass off in Canada? Now I'm worried that if I feel like running away to Australia that it'll just be frying pan to fire situation.
Post a Comment