Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (XII)

[JGK]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

[Big Dog]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

[taipan]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Rent a crowd only attended for the "Free Mandelas" anyway.

[Big Dog]

I see Q & A are getting a well deserved bollocking over allowing that terrorist on to their latest show. The ABC have always been Islam Apologists. Some heads deserve to roll over this latest affront.

[JGK]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth  property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

That doesn't remotely follow.

[JGK]

I see Q & A are getting a well deserved bollocking over allowing that terrorist on to their latest show. The ABC have always been Islam Apologists. Some heads deserve to roll over this latest affront.

Their bollocking should be for so cravenly saying sorry in the face of the government's faux outrage.

[Big Dog]

I see Q & A are getting a well deserved bollocking over allowing that terrorist on to their latest show. The ABC have always been Islam Apologists. Some heads deserve to roll over this latest affront.

Their bollocking should be for so cravenly saying sorry in the face of the government's faux outrage.

Phurt!! Did'nt they also try some ambush journalism with that qunt David Hicks during an interview with John Howard? The ABC are just a pack of Gay Lefty Arsholes...or at least their editorial staff are.

...now ther'es a thought. Maybe Hicks will lose his citizenship as the new laws are retrospective.

[embee]

Where else is he a citizen?

[Big Dog]

Classy stuff from the Tories:

Well lets put this in perspective. This was a campaign run by the Victorian Libs without authorisation from the Feds.

[Ethics? The Gall!]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth  property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

are you even capable of comprehending any concept that doesnt fit into a straight black and white scenario?

[JGK]

Where else is he a citizen?

He spent long enough in GitMo to probably qualify for Cuban citizenship.

[Big Dog]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth  property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

are you even capable of comprehending any concept that doesnt fit into a straight black and white scenario?  

Yes

[Ethics? The Gall!]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth  property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

are you even capable of comprehending any concept that doesnt fit into a straight black and white scenario?  

Yes

ive yet to see it

[Big Dog]

Some pretty scary stuff in the new Citizenship Bill.

Arguably if you attended a concert to support Nelson Mandela back in the day you could have been guilty of supporting terrorism.

And apparently* damaging Commonwealth property is an offence that is caught as well which has nothing to do with terrorism.

Presumably you are happy to have trained jihadists running around the country then & letting damage to Commonwealth  property (which is OUR property) go unpunished?

are you even capable of comprehending any concept that doesnt fit into a straight black and white scenario?  

Yes

ive yet to see it

I know

[lardbucket]

the false dichotomy is greatly inflaming Australian politics, except when it's passé

[lardbucket]

I see Q & A are getting a well deserved bollocking over allowing that terrorist on to their latest show. The ABC have always been Islam Apologists. Some heads deserve to roll over this latest affront.

unfortunate turn of phrase

[Big Dog]

Its a simple case of quid pro quo. Musi Terrorists don't give stuff about our freedoms or rights so why should we give a flying f**k about theirs. Yes, its a simplistic viewpoint but it works. The lefty Lawyers are just muddying the waters, its really a case of common sense but then i guess common sense runs a poor second to political correctness in this day & age.

[Big Dog]

and there goes the whole concept of separation of powers.  fascism here we come

might be a good time to move to new zealand

... those other Fascist countries like Great Britain which already has these laws in place ?.

[Ethics? The Gall!]

its nothing to do with common sense. you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to penalise people for unproven suspicions or vaguely defined activities and it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power

[embee]

its nothing to do with common sense. you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to penalise people for unproven suspicions or vaguely defined activities and it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power

Are you talking about the ATO?

[Merlin]

its nothing to do with common sense. you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to penalise people for unproven suspicions or vaguely defined activities and it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power

Firstly, my apologies for entering this particular Aussie based  thread ...
however ...
the above bold typed statement is the stupidest left field uttering I have ever come across.

Kinda like reaching the conclusion that  2 plus 2  = 6.375 recurring.

So ... how do you protect the citizens of a country - viz.  the law abiding, tax paying ones
who make up the massive majority -  from the extremists who calculatingly carry out the most disruption
to said law abiding society as a result of their conscious unacceptance of the rule/law of that country?!

And why on earth should law abiding citizens fear politicians imposing such laws which are
put in place to offer them protection?

Are you seriously lumping everybody into the same "dishonest and disruptive" category to suit
your radical liberal views or is it just plain stupidity on your part?!

Here in the UK the vast majority of the population welcome Theresa May's (Home Sec) proposal to
implement laws which single out Imams, Jihadists, radical Muslims - indeed radicals of whatever
creeds or casts - who  incite hatred and defy the law of the land.  
However, the leftie Libs and the scarlet tinged Socialists all condemn this law as 'draconian' ...
Hmmm ...no surprise there then!
And why do they condemn this law?
Because, they claim, it "infringes" a person's basic rights!

Basic rights?!
What basic rights?!

The rights which the perpetrators themselves willingly forfeit when spewing out hatred & inciting riotous behaviour?
The rights of those who scarper to Syria and Afghanistan to fight for ISIL taking their families with them?
The rights which Imams and their like spit in the face of by openly declaring a jihadi war on Westerners within the
country they actually live in?

...it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power...

The only "abuse" I see is here that exhibited by said extremists - not the government who seek to
protect the majority of the population who would rather live peaceful lives than be subjected to said
extremism, especially extremism practised within their own country.

[taipan]

its nothing to do with common sense. you give politicians & bureaucrats the power to penalise people for unproven suspicions or vaguely defined activities and it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power

Firstly, my apologies for entering this particular Aussie based  thread ...
however ...
the above bold typed statement is the stupidest left field uttering I have ever come across.

Kinda like reaching the conclusion that  2 plus 2  = 6.375 recurring.

So ... how do you protect the citizens of a country - viz.  the law abiding, tax paying ones
who make up the massive majority -  from the extremists who calculatingly carry out the most disruption
to said law abiding society as a result of their conscious unacceptance of the rule/law of that country?!

And why on earth should law abiding citizens fear politicians imposing such laws which are
put in place to offer them protection?

Are you seriously lumping everybody into the same "dishonest and disruptive" category to suit
your radical liberal views or is it just plain stupidity on your part?!

Here in the UK the vast majority of the population welcome Theresa May's (Home Sec) proposal to
implement laws which single out Imams, Jihadists, radical Muslims - indeed radicals of whatever
creeds or casts - who  incite hatred and defy the law of the land.  
However, the leftie Libs and the scarlet tinged Socialists all condemn this law as 'draconian' ...
Hmmm ...no surprise there then!
And why do they condemn this law?
Because, they claim, it "infringes" a person's basic rights!

Basic rights?!
What basic rights?!

The rights which the perpetrators themselves willingly forfeit when spewing out hatred & inciting riotous behaviour?
The rights of those who scarper to Syria and Afghanistan to fight for ISIL taking their families with them?
The rights which Imams and their like spit in the face of by openly declaring a jihadi war on Westerners within the
country they actually live in?

...it strips everyone of basic protections from the abuse of power...

The only "abuse" I see is here that exhibited by said extremists - not the government who seek to
protect the majority of the population who would rather live peaceful lives than be subjected to said
extremism, especially extremism practised within their own country.

Well as you put it like that, every law infringes on a basic right to some extent.

Of course in the US one of their basic rights is to bear arms.

[Merlin]

I am, of course, referring to a specific Law which, according to etg's broadbrush reference ,
enables the power to penalise people for unproven suspicions or vaguely defined activities.

Basically a law which serves to protect the people.

The US and its gun laws are an entirely different scenario,
and, my never having been subjected to them, I really cannot comment about specifics
relating to the carrying of arms, other than the fact that I would be extremely concerned
(and against it) if this law were ever to be introduced in the UK..

[taipan]

I was actually agreeing with you. The fact is that any law impinges on personal rights. We all batter on about freedom of speech but where do libel and slander come in?

[Merlin]

I was actually agreeing with you. The fact is that any law impinges on personal rights. We all batter on about freedom of speech but where do libel and slander come in?

I know and accept that you were agreeing with me!
I just thought I'd clarify the US "Gun Law" scenario ...

I believe that, in certain circumstances, what appear to be "heavy handed" laws have
to be implemented to ensure that fire is fought with fire ... rather than pussyfooting and
tip-toeing around the subject before finally dealing with an issue when it's too late.

Who knows, had said laws been in place at the time, perhaps we might have been
spared 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.....

[Sponsored content]