TOPIC:

I am far less concerned about changing a few words in our very dull national anthem, than I am about the APF stomping all over the press, and ultimately, out democracy.

In my view the Federal Rozzers have been an instrument of the executive for probably 5 years now, starting with the raid on the NBN whistleblowers. Egregious actions such as the East Timor ASIS action, the FairWork raid on the AWU, and the 2 raids in the last week on the News Corp journalist and now the ABC.

It was pretty easy to predict this was going to happen, after the slew of draconian new "national security" laws introduced over the past few years, with the meek compliance of Labor - who did not want to get branded as weak on security.

We should all be very worried when the free press is muzzled, whistleblowers are scared off, and we can only find out what the government wants us to know - particularly a government of of this political conservatism.

I'm inclined to agree with you jack. It's my understanding they've already got the person who leaked classified info on some of the actions of our special forces in Afghanistan and that's before the courts but now they're having a crack at the messenger being the ABC which I think is wrong for the reasons you've outlined....the same could be said of Assange being in the crosshairs of the authorities in the US. I don't know enough about the leaking of secret information on our security agencies spying on citizens which prompted the raid of the News Corp journo in Canberra but think the AFP's searching of the ABC is just wrong.

I just saw online jack that offences may have been committed pursuant to section 79 within Part 7 of the Crimes Act whereby under that section, any person who receives or communicates a secret document without permission has committed an indictable offence and faces up to seven years imprisonment.

I thought and still think Sco-mo a good bloke.Hope we don't get another Howard government 2004-07.
The Senate looks easy for the government with 35+Bernadi+2 one nation.

yep...I prefer ScoMo to ANAL...aka Anthony Albanese.

Even setting aside the JS gift for the hysterical overstatement, his derogatory use of "Dutton" & "Jackboots" in his Topic is offensive and not just to the person to whom it was directed. Congratulations on achieving the impossible, your :Bar" has dropped even further!

Everybody should be most concerned with recent developments. Not just journalists!
When governments start suppressing information, there is a huge problem.
Heard a report where 2 senators are seeking a constitutional amendment so future raids like the ones witnessed will
be much more difficult to occur. Apparently Australian journalists can invoke a "public interest" legal defence under national security laws. However it doesn't stop them being raided and charged. Not sure if the same applies to Whistleblowers or not? When people speak up by telling the truth and get pinged for it, it makes one wonder.

gtrxuone wrote: I thought and still think Sco-mo a good bloke..

Well the "daggy dad" campaign certainly seems to have worked then.

I reckon he is a smug, supercilious arsehole - and dangerous to boot.

I see he and Dutton are coming out with the Sgt Schultz defence, backed up by the acting poodle.

Anyone who has worked in the Commonwealth Public Service for a time will tell you, there is no way known that such a politically explosive action as raiding the ABC would occur without the prior knowledge and tick-off from very high up the political chain - a la Cash and the AWU raid.

wag...I'm not sure there is a public interest defence contained in these particular parts of the Crimes Act that the journos could use...I think they might be strict liability which means if you do it, you're stuffed. In these instances it's probably not the journo who'll go the high jump but the person up the food chain who authorised it.

Dempsey wrote: Even setting aside the JS gift for the hysterical overstatement, his derogatory use of "Dutton" & "Jackboots" in his Topic is offensive and not just to the person to whom it was directed. Congratulations on achieving the impossible, your :Bar" has dropped even further!

The derogation was quite intended. I don't consider it is possible to be offensive where Dutton is concerned.

You are perfectly entitled to differ.