Sedition is revived. Perhaps the most seditious act about 50% of the populace could commit is to ‘offend’ en masse and demand 7 years of free rent. That might put some economic pressure on the new ruling class. Though they may respond with…what? Executions? Stay wherever you are Brian, there is no ‘home’ to come home to.

In a famous common law case of sedition, circa 1622, Sir John Sedley, caught short, inadvertently pissed on the King from a balcony.

Perhaps the tradition should be revived this time ‘vertently’.

And why not? After all we won’t have any jobs at a living wage. So much for Justice Higgins.

‘Transportation’ may also have been revived. There is precedent. Perhaps we should all report to a Government agency to have our ankles measured for leg irons.

About $100million could be earned by a supine media helping persuade us that this is good.

There is no ‘blood’ in the former Australia, nor in this this spring much wattle.

Perhaps Quiggin has an algorithm for the economic effects of mass civil disobedience.

Could someone fill us non-Aussies in on this one? Thanks.

ORDINARY As in “ordinary hours of work” set by law at 38 per week. But WorkChoices will allow them to be worked in an extraordinary fashion: “It will be possible for ordinary hours to be averaged over a period of up to 12 months.” So 80 here, 20 there and so on.

IIRC, this is precisely how the Jospin government in France got the business lobby to swallow the reduction to a 35-hour work week…but I could be wrong about that. Anybody?

The anti-sedition laws are a puzzler. A lot depends on how we are allowed to view the invasion and occupation of Iraq. On one hand, there were top Nazi officials executed, not for human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, but simply for waging aggressive war. If the invasion of Iraq did represent waging aggressive war then we should all speak out.

OTOH our government has a legal opinion that the invasion was authorised by an earlier UN resolution which would have been confirmed by a definitive subsequent ruling were it not for the pesky French/requirement for a 9-6 majority on the Security Council.

OTOOH other legal authorities have opined that UN Resolution 1441 did not authorise the military invasion. Certainly the invasion and occupation was not led by the UN.

It’s all very vexing. Are our leaders war criminals who should be opposed at every turn? Or are they agents for peace and collective security, attempting to carry out the will of a schizophrenic UN?

The ideal solution would be a Nuremburg style tribunal for Messrs Howard, Blair and Bush to resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. It’d be a fair trial and a chance to clear their names. Until then, assume that everyone is innocent and don’t introduce anti-sedition laws because its unclear what, if anything, there is to be seditious against.