WOT: a Smokescreen?

Having commented that the urgency with which the new anti-terrorist laws were enacted last week would require justification through subsequent arrests, the appropriate sacrificial lambs were duly rounded up on Monday.

Evil thwarted. Australians can breathe more easily. All in the nick of time...

Except...

Victorian Commissioner of Police Christine Nixon commented that, while the new laws helped Victorian police, they were not critical. Says she: "We were working to a point where we believe we'd have been able to take action otherwise."

and, it seems that Howard's remarks on the need for legislation actually tipped off the wannabe Bang Boys, to the annoyance of the police, who were watching them pretty closely.

So, was this just 'careless talk', or was it 'couldn't care less' talk that gives conspiracy theory #2 a boost?

WOT: Another Coincidence

Commenting on Howard's attempts to slam through new police powers, The Age's Michelle Grattan observed that the immediate need for such powers should be verified by a series of arrests shortly thereafter.

Having got them through, John Howard now says that Australians should not expect arrests...

Who to believe?

WOT: A Coincidence

The War On Terror has led to a lot of hysterical posturings and attempted panics.

Working on the theory that panicked populations are more malleable to certain soothing suggestions from their elders and betters, and that senate majorities are so convenient, choose your conspiracy:

#1: They Want to Control Them
Four years after 9/11, and three years after the Bali Bombings, the Australian govt is set to pass through anti-terror laws granting unprecedented powers to detain and monitor 'controlled persons' (How controlled persons are defined may lead to questions about juducial independence) .

These laws were initially going to be sledged through, with about eight hours debating time (nice to have a moajority). They were scheduled for debate on Cup day, when public attention was elsewhere.

By coincidence, on the same day the bill was to be debated, a 'credible threat' to Australian security was announced. (From the same folk who exposed illegal immigrants as not above throwing their children overboard? Yeah, right!)

What threat was that?

Oh! A credible one.

(Don't you worry about that!)

#2: They Want to Control the Workforce
It has been pointed out that the aforemenioned teacup sloshings are being used to divert attention from the new Industrial Reforms, which seek to replace block bargaining with individual contracts, remove unfair dismissal claims (from small companies: look to see big companies become umbrella groups!).
The Government has already been accused of trying to sell this legislation to the taxpayer with their own money.

Where does it say they can do that in my contract?

#3: They Want to Control Us
Finally, hiding away behind both of the above smokescreens, is a 464 report on the conduct of the 2004 election which has some 'interesting' recommendations:

• Closing the Ballot Enrolments on the day the election is announced
• Denying the vote to prisoners serving more than three year terms
  

Seems reasonable? Well, forget the knee jerk: check out the arguments against and how these measures might effectively deny a large chunk of the population of a vote

Relax! Just let us govern!

...Three conspiracies to choose from. Which isn't to leave out the most frightening theory of all:

#4: They Want All of the Above

Don't we all?