Think Hard: Are YOU A Terrorist?

Having looked through the draft anti-terror legislation (once again, here it is) - a few thoughts.

Under the draft legislation, a person can be considered to commit a criminal act, even if a terrorist act does not occur. So, say if I posted on my blog `Hey guys, wouldn't it be a laugh if I headed out to Phillip Ruddock's house and chucked a cream pie in his face'?

Then I'm a TERRORIST.

Say I directed you all to this webpage - which, it is only fair and decent to tell you, is the legendary silent comedian Buster Keaton's guide on how to make and throw pies for maximum impact (`With shots over eight feet, you need to make sure the pie is of the right weight to fly perpendicular as it leaves your fingers')

Then I'm a TERRORIST. (and so's BUSTER!)

And I'm only up to page 8 of 107 pages of legislation!

By page 9 I'm a TERRORIST just for writing this post! Holy shit!

Skip forward a few pages and we're on the poop deck of the SS Sedition. Thar she blows! Sedition's a funny one. In Australia, we can't just say `You all suck, and by the way, FIRST AMENDMENT!'. According to this document, `seditious intention' includes wanting to `urge disaffection' in the Sovereign (i.e. the Queen), the Constitution, either house of Parliament, the government, and working to `promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between two groups so as to threaten the peace, stability and good government of the Commonwealth'. The bad news is - that's the Republic, the Dismissal, the Howard Government's control of the Senate, the Howard Government, and Barnaby Joyce off the table ... but the good news is it could become illegal for Philip Clark and Chris Smith to continue their disgraceful Muslim baiting on 2GB. See, there's always an upside ...

You may have heard the phrase `Imprisonment for 7 years' bandied around. Well, here's what you could cop it for. Most of these come with qualifiers such as `with recklessness' or `with violent intent' - it's pretty hazy though, as is the fact that if any of the below is provably done `in good faith', it's OK. Would a cream pie in the kisser count as `in good faith'? What would ??? Anyway, here's the list:

- `Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government'
- `Interfering with parliamentary elections'
- `Urging violence within the community'
- `Urging a person to assist the enemy'
- `Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities'

You guys are going to have to make your own cream pies to chuck at Ruddock though, because if I collect the pie money - and even if we don't make the cream pies - and even if someone ELSE collects the pie money for me and we STILL don't make the cream pies - well, guess what the penalty is there?

LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

But supposing we smuggled in our highly illegal supply of flour, eggs, whipped cream and, let's say, blueberries (Keaton recommends dark colours for people with pale colourings - though let's not forget this is a hypothetical attack that has not and will not happen) for our pie bake off. Having searched us for pastry-related terror implements and found evidence of such, AFP would now have `reasonable grounds' to suspect our imminent attack and would possibly take you, I and Buster into `preventative detention'. If we think this is a bit off, we can run away if we like. Here's where the legislation get's distinctly murky. It says `Now, you can't shoot someone dead or treat them like crap when you take them into preventative detention ... UNLESS that's the only way you can capture the bugger!'. Pfwah!?!?

This cream pie lark is starting to sound a bit crap. But if you start thinking that way ... then the government wins.

(I was going to say to hell with all of this and let's get all get together and watch some Buster Keaton films ... now I'm not so sure doing so wouldn't be a terrorist act. I'd only have to hope that these guys were the ones who came after me ...)