I stood on my front verandah last night, digesting the news of sentences of seven men in an Australian Court for crimes they had not committed, when the Southern Cross hit me square in the face.   It brought back the memory of Peter Lalor, leader of an uprising against the governors of Victoria, who lived to become a Speaker of that State's Parliament.

Perhaps if I hadn't watched V for Vendetta for around the thirtieth time, seen the way this country treated Halliburton activist Scott Parkin, the farcical attempt to villify the Pine Gap Four ((let alone the South Australian Government's villification of defence industry protesters) and  witnessed the botched capture of Mahommad Haneef, I could have had faith in our country''s notion of "justice" regarding the possibility of terrorsm.  Our assistance incarceratng tortured "terrorism supporter" David Hicks for deeds that were not crimes in this country has not been helpful to my sentiments, nor were the illegal activities of polce that I witnessed as a Human Rights Monitor at the APEC march in Sydney.

If any one of these people deserve to be incarcerated, it might be Benbrika.   He appears to have perceived himself to be a Macchiavelli of Jihad, In a quest to cause an Australian troop withdrawal from Iraq.  he collected what appear to be disgruntled members of a community, motivated them towards and showed them ways of  committng acts of mass terror. 

The only trouble is that these people, to the casual observer, probably couldn't organise a fart in a baked bean factory!  Surely the fact that an ASIO officer found himself with more knowledge than they about exploding a tree stump suggests to anyone that there was bugger-all likelihood of the MCG ever going up in smoke, no matter how much the evidence of a witness found by the court to be a liar and a cheat had been previously publicised.  Media Watch's expose of the "West Gate Brdge Plot", circulated through the press when the trials were over, most lkely belies the level of understanding and ability these folks possessed.  At the end of the day, though, Benbrika hoped to create a "fighting force" from these people.  He showed them footage of Jihadist beheadng, he showed them how to learn of making homemade ammunition, he told them that stripping the engines of stolen cars was religiously cool as a Jihad fundraising technique.

I wonder now how my leaders ever allowed to me to watch the movie V in the first place. From that film I have received the concept that no people should fear their government, but a government should fear their people. I have learned that attacks on public monunents should be carred out with explosives whose ingredients are commonly available in shops.  I've seen a visual portrayal of a successful revoluton created by the psychological effects of such an attack.  In short, I've probably received a similar educaton to that which Benbrika gave his disciples.

By the way, I'm aware that I have been investigated within the Department of Defence by Federal security operatives to determine my likelihood of participating in what was later described in print as an averted violent activity.   I more than strongly suspect that this is not the first time my activities have been examined.

With my "knowledge" and "history" what would be the result of my attempting to recruit others to my cause by making a movie such as V?   It could be called "E for Eureka", and portray a people so suppressed by the financal regime its government had imposed that, on the rallying point of the explosion of Australia's Parliament House, a revolution occurred that would, out of anarchy, create a new system of government.  Spoiler warning... ok I won't, but if you haven't I suggest you have a look at the end of the template flick.   Anyway, if I make such a film, and distribute it with the intent of evoking anarchic sentiments that might possibly lead to the destruction of Australian cultural icons, am I not as guilty as Benbrika?

Justice Bernard Biongorno, according to the Australian [1], said yesterday that:

..he accepted that the group did not have a firm target and had not obtained explosives or weapons, but they were in the early stages of planning some sort of attack that could have led to the deaths of innocent people.

He said the group was committed to carrying out "acts of terrible violence" within Australia in an attempt to force the Government to withdraw troops from Iraq.

At the end of the timeframe in which the media has acceeded to AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty's "requests" to be silent while the true nature of terrorism in Australa was revealed, it's not a monumental result.  No weaponry, no targets, but they talked about nasty deeds a lot., and therefore should be in jail.  Benbrika gets twelve years, his followers around seven.  Their sentences are lessened by the three and a half years taken to reach such a decision.

I reckon that I'm not the only one who should be keeping an eye and ear alert to who's listening to my words.   You should be too.  

I wonder how many years Peter Lalor would have been given had the Battle of the Eureka occurred today.  I also wonder if Benbrika's followers,in the sanctuary of ther own Stockade, truly thought they could go to jail just for talking about Jihad. 

Maybe, in some future history, Benbrika will be read of on the same page as Lalor.  Now that he's being jailed for his ideas, when the objective of his words (Iraq troop withdrawal) is underway,  you could guess that the man might be quite pleased with himself    In his shoes, wouldn't you?  It's like Eureka all over again.