Authoritarian Governments.

[Pies4shaw]

These have been extraordinary times. From very occasional time to very occasional time, there is a need for the Executive Government to have emergency powers. The key to maintaining a vigorous democracy is the temporal limit on the emergency powers and the return to normal governance when the emergency is ended. I am far more concerned about the serious impacts on personal freedom and individual rights that have been effected in the name of the "war against terror" - those powers tend to be open-ended and have huge potential to be used against the citizenry in the ordinary course of executive governance. The powers being invoked in the pandemic have been, in my view, used in a measured and careful way. I have no doubt at all that every single one of those powers will go back into the box when they are no longer required. That's not to say that there isn't a great deal of room for reasonable disagreement about what should and should not be (and have been) done but I have (almost) no concern that executive governments in Australia will arrogate these draconian powers to themselves on an ongoing basis.

[David]

What makes you so optimistic, P4S? I would be extremely unsurprised if certain COVID-specific powers remain on the books after the pandemic. I don’t see why the approach here would be fundamentally different to how "anti-terror" laws have been handled. Police and security agencies tend to be very unwilling to relinquish extra powers they’ve been granted.

[think positive]

Pray tell what is it you think they want to hang on to?

[pietillidie]

The economic and behavioural incentives against the measures are too overwhelming to be worried. It's like having a house full of whining cats that are urinating and pooping everywhere while costing a fortune to feed. You're only going to endure them under the threat of something like death by pandemic or medical system collapse.

No one in or out of power wants restrictions, and certainly not lockdown; they are last resorts.

[David]

Pray tell what is it you think they want to hang on to?

For starters, here’s a Victorian government bill that seems to have been passed in April, and that I haven’t heard discussed much:

https://libertyvictoria.org.au/content/ ... -emergency

We’ve already seen police riot gear and weaponry beefed up as a response to the recent protests. That’s one thing you can be sure is not going anywhere.

We saw the Victorian government try to prevent media helicopter coverage of protests the other day, supposedly for the reason that protesters were using the footage to evade police. Struck down in court, I believe, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to change the law to make it possible again in future. Clearly it’s a power that the government feels they need.

Otherwise I think stuff around surveillance needs to be watched very carefully. There are already reported instances of police trying to use QR check-ins to solve unrelated crimes: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 58om8.html

That one above is a clear instance of a law that has been brought in specifically for COVID reasons that is now being used for something else. You’d be naive to think it is or will be the only one.

I well believe that many of the most extreme measures (e.g. stay-at-home orders, travel bans, gathering restrictions) will be lifted after the pandemic. But can we confident they won’t be employed again for other perceived crises, e.g. terrorist plots or civil unrest? Are any safeguards being put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen?

We tend to become accustomed to things very quickly, and it’s easy for stuff that would have seemed unthinkable a couple of years ago to become normalised. I think it pays to be wary.

[think positive]

i have absolutely no problem with either of those first 2 laws remaining in place, but then im never going to be involved in a riot with a pack of mindless gutless %$^%$! i actually get the helicoptor thing, it was clear the cops were herding the dickheads so they could maintain control. i dont have a problem with that. there was without a doubt an element, however small, of the crowd that just wanted to cause trouble.

the third, meh good luck to em! i dant have anything to hide!!

i guess we will see if there is anything else, anything that bothers me! so far, nup

[David]

[think positive]

thats not overreach at all, they broke the law, all of them, they breached the health directives, distance, masks, social distancing, congregating, if they were not there they cant get screened,

[Pies4shaw]

What makes you so optimistic, P4S? I would be extremely unsurprised if certain COVID-specific powers remain on the books after the pandemic. I don’t see why the approach here would be fundamentally different to how "anti-terror" laws have been handled. Police and security agencies tend to be very unwilling to relinquish extra powers they’ve been granted.

Have a look, again, at Stui's list - that's what I was responding to. None of those things will continue beyond the end of the pandemic.

[David]

[think positive]

is that a David movie?

[Pies4shaw]

Jesus, TP! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[David]

I know it's very naff to invoke Orwell (particularly at the moment), but I'm sorry, it's a classic for a reason!

[Pies4shaw]

It's one of the most important things that happened in the 20th Century.

I must watch the film again. I remember being a bit underwhelmed with it but everything John Hurt did (except, possibly, for his cameo in Alien) deserves a second watch.

[David]

I'm a big fan of it! One of the best novel adaptations I've seen in the way it captures the feel of the book, and I'm also impressed by Hurt's acting work. Speaking of which, I've been going through the back-issues of the magazine I edit and found a fascinating interview with him about the film from 1985. I might post it here when our website is launched later this year.