An Unimportant Message

Recently, a mass-mailed letter bearing John Howard's signature warned Australians to "be alert but not alarmed" and "take necessary steps to protect ourselves" while somehow remaining very vague as to exactly what it is we should be alert about.

A dangerous world

The letter made reference to both the September 11 (2001) attack in the USA and the more recent event in Bali which claimed the lives of many Australians. It claimed that since these events, "we live in a more dangerous world."

Which is of course baloney. The world, as such, isn't really any more dangerous than it was before; some terrorist actions have occurred, it's true, but that's not to say that a terrorist action is more likely to occur now than it was previously.

As any good statistician would tell you, a sample of two is not really a very good sample at all. To tell Australians that the world has become a more dangerous place, then, seems a little... alarmist.

Alert but not Alarmed...

However, we mustn't overreact, if the Prime Minister's letter is to be believed; instead, we must "strike the right balance between precaution and unnecessary alarm." The act of being precautious in this case seems to be mainly concerned with reporting "suspicious activity" to the National Security Hotline.

In fact, calling aforementioned hotline appears to be the only suggested precautionary measure in the entire letter.

The Government will protect you

We now have "specialist police counter-terrorism units", a Defence Force with an increased "counter-terrorism capability" (whatever the hell that means - bigger guns?). We have new laws enacted which are "dealing with terrorism" (and perhaps infringing on a few civil liberties as well, but let's face it, something has to give in the name of progress).

So you'll be protected, just so long as you're not a terrorist yourself. If you are, or if you have some sort of assosciation with a known or suspected terrorist, then you are of course fair game. And your house may be broken into, and your documents seized and your computer seized, your university thesis along with it perhaps - why not? It's your own fault. It's your choice to become a suspected terrorist. Right?

"Our intelligence, law enforcement, defence and emergency services are well prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism," spouts the letter. I would rather hope that said services are reasonably well prepared to deal with the act of terrorism as well... we would do well to remember, after all, that the threat is only that, and that it has always been there - even if not so prominent as now. But in any case:

Uncle John needs You!

Ordinary people have prevented crime countless times by reporting suspicious activity, according to the letter. And what us ordinary people need to do, apparently, is to take the same approach to terrorism.

At least that is what it says on the paper. It is a rather uninspiring observation, though, and it seems rather redundant; The idea that we should even be able to treat suspicious activity pertaining to normal crime and suspicious activity pertaining to terrorism differently in the first place is somewhat flawed, mainly because it assumes that an outside observer is able to tell the difference.

Might I suggest that your average Joe who may-or-may-not report seeing a couple of kids spray-painting a wall near the railway track, would almost certainly feel far more strongly about reporting some man chanting a mantra while strapping dynamite to the side of a building. And that's without having read some useless drivel from some self-important git who happens to be the Prime Minister of Australia (and who has little else to say in his favour).

We have to consider also that said dynamite-strapper is not necessarily a terrorist, but could in fact be your average run-of-the-mill dynamite-strapping loony. It's not a particularly good example, granted, but where exactly do you draw the line? When the dynamite is being strapped to the wall, it's not so much "suspicious" as it is "time to call the commandos into action." Nor is it so much the time to be calling the National Security Hotline as it is running for your life.

So, the burning question is: what is this "suspicious activity"? Is a few men standing in the park speaking a foreign language suspicious, or are they just tourists? Is the fact that the neighbour never comes out during the day suspicious, or are they just a loner who prefers to keep to themself? Does that middle-eastern-looking man have a few hand grenades hidden in his turban or is he perhaps just trying to hide the fact that he's going bald? And if I see the dynamite on the wall, should I call the National Security Hotline right away, or should I just run like hell? The answer, it seems, is outside the scope of Mr Howard's letter.

Not every turban is a bad turban

Finally, more on a closing note, the letter reminds us to remember our roots. We are a "strong and vigorous democracy" (which is itself somewhat questionable since John Howard became Prime Minister) and we "respect and understand that many cultures and religions make up our society". Later: "Now, more than ever, we must work together to make sure no religion or section of our community is made to feel a scapegoat because of the actions of a small number of fanatics."

I'm glad that part was put in, otherwise I would have forgotten that most foreigners aren't terrorists and I would have dobbed them all in to the security hotline by now.

Also, it starts to clear up some of my earlier questions about what consists of suspicious activity, to the extent that it should be reported to the authorities. I can be reasonably sure that I don't need to report all those turban-clad men I see driving around.

But the question then is: what can I report, that I (in my ignorance before receiving Mr Howard's letter) otherwise wouldn't have reported (to the local authorities, if not some funky Hotline)?

And the real question: Why was taxpayer money wasted in sending a letter with only redundant information, no value to society, and no useful content, to the citizens of Australia?

And, more alarmingly, why was that letter sent many months after the events to which it refers - and rather sent now, on the potential eve of a war, the righteousness of which Australians have shown themselves to be skeptical - but to which John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, lends his full support?

- D.M.