Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (XII)

[JGK]

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.....

Isn't that the point though.  There is no real evidence that any of these "anti-terror" laws actually reduce the risk of terrorist attacks.

[Merlin]

Isn't that the point though.  There is no real evidence that any of these "anti-terror" laws actually reduce the risk of terrorist attacks.

No.
The point is that the prevention of terrorism laws were NOT in place at the time of those occurrences ...
hence it can be argued that had the laws been in place, those two atrocities might well have been avoided.

Guantanamo was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 - hence the subsequent cock-ups involving the inmates.

Prevention of terrorism laws ought to contain unyielding and unlimited powers ... now that we can see
what terrorism does to communities. The laws should not reflect a wishy-washy or softly-softly or watered
down "do gooder" approach to the matter.

That is what Theresa May is seeking from this Parliament. And that is what the lefties want banned.

[Ethics? The Gall!]

cos the so called lefties look at history and see what comes of people allowing politicians to implement laws that restrict freedoms on the basis of fear. whether that fear is justified or not

fear and a reduction in freedom is what terrorists want. we head down this road and they have won

and don't give me that bullshit about innocent law abiding people having nothing to fear. cos there's never been a case of an innocent person being railroaded by corrupt authorities has there? or even being ****** over through a mistake. never been a national administration thats used laws like this to suppress its own people. oh no not ever...

[JGK]

Isn't that the point though.  There is no real evidence that any of these "anti-terror" laws actually reduce the risk of terrorist attacks.

No.
The point is that the prevention of terrorism laws were NOT in place at the time of those occurrences ...
hence it can be argued that had the laws been in place, those two atrocities might well have been avoided.

Guantanamo was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 - hence the subsequent cock-ups involving the inmates.

Prevention of terrorism laws ought to contain unyielding and unlimited powers ... now that we can see
what terrorism does to communities. The laws should not reflect a wishy-washy or softly-softly or watered
down "do gooder" approach to the matter.

That is what Theresa May is seeking from this Parliament. And that is what the lefties want banned.

That's what I'm getting at. It might be argued but I'd prefer some harder evidence before I am happy for us to sacrifice freedoms.

For instance, since 9/11 I can't carry a freaking bottle of water onto an aeroplane, all in the name of looking like governments are taking the risk of terrorism seriously without actually reducing that risk.

[Bradman]

Isn't that the point though.  There is no real evidence that any of these "anti-terror" laws actually reduce the risk of terrorist attacks.

No.
The point is that the prevention of terrorism laws were NOT in place at the time of those occurrences ...
hence it can be argued that had the laws been in place, those two atrocities might well have been avoided.

Guantanamo was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 - hence the subsequent cock-ups involving the inmates.

Prevention of terrorism laws ought to contain unyielding and unlimited powers ... now that we can see
what terrorism does to communities. The laws should not reflect a wishy-washy or softly-softly or watered
down "do gooder" approach to the matter.

That is what Theresa May is seeking from this Parliament. And that is what the lefties want banned.

That's what I'm getting at.  It might be argued but I'd prefer some harder evidence before I am happy for us to sacrifice freedoms.

For instance, since 9/11 I can't carry a freaking bottle of water onto an aeroplane, all in the name of looking like governments are taking the risk of terrorism seriously without actually reducing that risk.  

TBF that was probably the greedy airlines idea.

But seriously. I thought what ETG was getting at (and correct me if I'm wrong) was the power for government officers to punish without recourse to the courts (our great debate at the moment).

I do have a problem with some rights (and no not the nambie pambie 21st century ones) being given up in the name of public safety. Especially when existing laws or their extension can suffice. The fact I can be held for seven days without charge, access to a lawyer or be compelled to answer questions against myself is the reason we have the Magna Carta. We seem to be going backwards and the terrorists winning by default.

And I'm not a bleeding heart leftie. I'm for juicing up treason laws, getting flexible with procedural fairness and the rules of evidence (none of this impinges basic human rights), building a hard-arse prison and throwing away the key. I'm also for prosecuting this "war" in a way understood by the Allies during WW2.

[JGK]

So, Tony Abbott's response to the ABC having a Muslim on Q&A who doesn't like our way of life?

"Heads should roll"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[Big Dog]

So, Tony Abbott's response to the ABC having a Muslim on Q&A who doesn't like our way of life?

"Heads should roll"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

That expression has been in common use long before IS started taking it literally.

[taipan]

So, Tony Abbott's response to the ABC having a Muslim on Q&A who doesn't like our way of life?

"Heads should roll"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

That expression has been in common use long before IS started taking it literally.

French Revolution?

To criticise modern day usage is PC running wild.

[Merlin]

For instance, since 9/11 I can't carry a freaking bottle of water onto an aeroplane, all in the name of looking like governments are taking the risk of terrorism seriously without actually reducing that risk.  

Wouldn't you consider that a small price to pay to ensure that one further possible threat has been neutralised?
Down the water and chuck the empty bottle away before you board - then get a free one on the plane!
It's very simple really!

[JGK]

For instance, since 9/11 I can't carry a freaking bottle of water onto an aeroplane, all in the name of looking like governments are taking the risk of terrorism seriously without actually reducing that risk.  

Wouldn't you consider that a small price to pay to ensure that one further possible threat has been neutralised?
Down the water and chuck the empty bottle away before you board - then get a free one on the plane!
It's very simple really!

No. I would happily live with the risk. Having to have certain size deodorant and having to take out those stupid clear plastic bags with your toothbrush and aftershave are other annoyances I would happily not have for the infinitesimal increase in the risk of a terrorist attack affecting me.

[lardbucket]

So, Tony Abbott's response to the ABC having a Muslim on Q&A who doesn't like our way of life?

"Heads should roll"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Err ... Nice tits, mentioned on the previous page (p 23)

[JGK]

So, Tony Abbott's response to the ABC having a Muslim on Q&A who doesn't like our way of life?

"Heads should roll"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Err ... Nice tits, mentioned on the previous page (p 23)

BD = TA?

It makes sense now.

[lardbucket]

FFS, I only just heard that the ABC replayed this clown's contribution. That's poor.

[Hass]

Geez, what a week of specious, misleading, diversionary, bullying nonsense we've seen in Canberra.

The concentration of power is dangerous. That is why our ancestors fought damn bloody hard to separate judicial rulings from the executive. These new citizenship laws are a step backwards and are seriously open to abuse at some point now that they're on the books.

Zaky Mallah appeared on QandA and asked Steve Ciobo a pertinent question. What would have happened to him if his fate had been in the hands of a government minister rather than the courts? After all, he was charged with terrorism offences and subsequently acquitted (he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of threatening to kill ASIO officers). He served his time and is now involved in deradicalisation campaigns, trying to stop young Muslims from becoming extremists. The guy still holds some pretty offensive views, but is now a law-abiding citizen.

But Steve Ciobo would have had this man - a born and bred Australian - thrown out of the country without trial (to where I don't know) purely on the government's say so. That is not the rule of law, it is the rule of autocrats, and conservatives should be appalled at the prospect. Instead, some who call themselves conservative have feigned outrage and decided to launch a campaign against the ABC with the help of their mates at News Limited. It's grubby, grubby stuff.

Disclaimer: For those of you who don't know, I work for the ABC, specifically as a producer for Lateline.

[JGK]

Good to hear from you Hass. I did wonder what your take on it all was.

FWIW - I post on The Australian blogs. I am somewhat of a contrarian to the usual mob who post there. It is has been great fun watching the ABC haters in meltdown this week.

[Bradman]

Sometimes talking to conservatives about this topic is as bad as talking to the dipshit extremists. A lot of those calling for the ABC to be censored are the same ones who rallied behind Bolt's opinion to hold objectionable views. (notably Bolt himself). Their reasoning that opinions need to be debated not supressed hold true of Mallah's.

"Shine a bright light,,,,,," etc.

[JGK]

Sometimes talking to conservatives about this topic is as bad as talking to the dipshit extremists.  A lot of those calling for the ABC to be censored are the same ones who rallied behind Bolt's opinion to hold objectionable views.  (notably Bolt himself).  Their reasoning that opinions need to be debated not supressed hold true of Mallah's.

"Shine a bright light,,,,,," etc.

Although he is generally a tool, David Leyonhjelm has at least been consistent on this point.

[Bradman]

Yeah. Sometimes you don't know whether to erect statues to him or throttle him.

[Ethics? The Gall!]

But seriously.  I thought what ETG was getting at (and correct me if I'm wrong) was the power for government officers to punish without recourse to the courts (our great debate at the moment).

exactly
i dont have a problem with people who have dual citizenship and are clearly proven to have materially assisted terrorists being stripped of their australian citizenship. i dont have a problem with severe sentences for people who do that. but it has to be proven and not done purely on the say so of a politician or bureaucrat

[JGK]

Hockey wins (in part)  his defamation action against Fairfax for the "Treasurer for Sale" story.

$200k tax free.   I wish I was a thin skinned Liberal with deep pockets.

[skully]

So that makes you a thin-skinned Pinko with shallow pockets?

[JGK]

I'd be [almost] anything you want me to be for $200 grand.

[skully]

[lardbucket]

I'd be [almost] anything you want me to be for $200 grand.

Would you really happily be defamed "JGK for sale, corrupt" in a Fairfax paper for 200K?

[JGK]

Sure.

[Sponsored content]