MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

I thought Mark did that by himself.

Theo

 

That way you can arrest anyone who disagrees with you and terrorise the rest
into submission. Practised in many other dictatorships.

Here's another thought, how can you have a 'shoot to kill' policy in a
country that abolished the death penalty for people who have actually been
found guilty of something? Death penalty is only for potentially guilty
people?

Theo

 

Well then, why make a law that makes half of Australia criminals ?

So I'm expected to trust the government to not exercise their right to
lock me up for holding and expressing views that, as you say, half of
Australia hold and express. Do you not see a problem with this ? Do you
not see why it would be better to better target the laws so they only
apply to those who *are* "the intended targets", so in fact that people
can attempt to not break the law. Rather than just hope you're not the
next to go.

This is bad law which gives the government the power to silence people
who oppose their viewpoint. I shouldn't have to *trust* that the
government won't lock me up for saying they're wrong in a democracy. I
should have the RIGHT to say the government is wrong. If I don't, it's
no longer a democracy*.

JL
*Any more than Eastern Bloc countries were Democratic, despite having
elections**, you only got to know what you were allowed to know, and
vote for who you were allowed to vote for.
**to forestall the inevitable half baked rebuttal "if you have elections
you're a democracy"- no you're not.

 

Presumably Little Johnny Ratbastard proposes to address that
discrepancy next?

G

 

Yebbut Doug told me I was being hysterical when I compared the new laws
to apartheid South Africa et al

JL

 

I'm sure his mum was really really happy when he moved out of home...
but that's
only one thing


G-S

 

IANAL as well. But I do have experience in a field of employ with a
vested interest in the nuiances of Australia's many and varied
defamation laws.
- sanbar

 

They haven't.

No problem at all. I'd expect it of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Iran. I wouldn't expect it from our government.

I'm also aware that we have the power to vote the Liberals out should
the majority of Australians deem it necessary.

We're not exactly the Warsaw ghetto here. I find your point of view to
be just a little alarmist.

You do and you do. Often. No-one will arrest you for that. You can even
march in the streets with your point of view on large banners, write
letters to the newspapers and the pollies themselves stating your
disapproval without fear of recrimination.

You're still here...so I can assume you've yet to find a better country
in which to live long and prosper... : )

 

Nice selective snipping - you cut out the part where you suggest that it
makes half of Oz criminals and then deny it. The two activities I
mentioned - being actively republican and being critical of the govt.
ARE illegal under these laws, I'd agree with the above in one respect
though,going on voting, it's probably on a third of the population that
hold both these views.

It doesn't matter whether you think they will exercise it, it matters
that they HAVE the power, and even if you trust Howard not to, what
about if Abbott or Costello takes over from him, or more to the point
for you if Beazley or Labor get in ?

Why do you think it appropriate that the government should have the
power to restrict what I can say about their activities to in fact gaol
me for 5 years for making the public statement that their actions are
wrong (and I refer you again to the legislation if, for example I say
the Government should never have participated in the invasion of Iraq
and poke fun at Johnny for trying to make up for a lack of penis by
killing Iraqis, then I am squarely against the law.) in a so called
democracy is freedom of speech worth nothing ?

And if all negative statements about a government's performance are
banned then why would they ever be voted out the voter would only ever
hear the govt's view of how wonderful they are - bit like Singapore and
China really.

I can remember the extraordinarily twitchy behaviour of Singaporeans
when I was working there and even bought up the topic of their
government, it was something they just didn't want to talk about, and it
was fear not love that was making them nervous.

If it's not needed then why pass a law that has only ever been passed in
totalitarian dictatorships - the US and the UK don't have laws of this type.

So you tell me, but it'll be against the law if these laws pass, if what
I'm doing is acceptable in a western democracy then why will it be
illegal, why does it need to be illegal, why should I be dependent on
the goodwill of the govt as to whether they put me in gaol or not ?

Hardly a fair comment, you know why I'm still here and haven't moved
yet, you even know when I'm going to move, and if you seriously think
it's about the COUNTRY you're kidding yourself that you have a clue
about what's motivating me. I'm moving o/s for a number of reasons, one
of which is financial, one is career, one is compete and utter disgust
at the actions of this government on a world and national level (a bit
of "not in my name"), one is their actions at a micro level which is
making this a significantly less positive environment for me personally,
and there's more.

The weather hasn't changed, the landscape hasn't changed the country is
still the same as it always was. What's that got to do with the price of
eggs ?

JL

 

A lawful killing like the one in the UK recently where that gentleman
was shot
because of being an imminent threat to others eh.

Oh... except that he wasn't was he...

But because it was a lawful killing the people who killed him haven't
been charged, nor are they capable of being charged.

Yah... all seems hunky dorey to me *wanders off*


G-S

 

Don't you think that is how the Police Service works? They are not
taught to 'wing' or shoot in the arm or the leg. If it comes to having
to use their weapon, they are taught to aim for the torso. The
ammunition used is designed to hit hard and STOP the offender.

In my book, that is a "shoot to kill" policy. It's designed to minimise
risk to anybody else except the offender.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s (gone on to better and brighter things - I hope)
'87 BMW K100RT (write-off)
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

I wonder how many of those people who argue that police should not shoot to
kill have ever fired a handgun?

It is very difficult to hit anything at a range of more than 25 metres, all
paramilitary and military are instructed to shoot for the "Centre of the
seen mass" to maximise the chance of a hit. After all if you dont want to
kill the only way is not to shoot at all.

Boxer

 

No, you missed the point. The police forces in this country are
understaffed and overworked as it is. To suggest they're suddenly going
to arrest and imprison all critics of the government is ridiculous.

I don't believe *any* Australian leader from *any* political persuasion
would do such a thing.

Yet you just said it in a public forum and you're still free. Try that
in China.

No, China doesn't get a vote. Media and internet access are tightly
controlled. That's a long way from the situation in Oz.

Don't worry John, you're way down the list The ABC and SBS will be up
against the wall far sooner than you.

I've no doubt you'll be able to whine and bitch to your heart's content
all the way up to the next election and beyond.

If the government was as bad as you like to make out, you'd be fleeing
the place leaving everything behind. Like a refugee.

You're just not fair dinkum.

 

I don't think Peter was arguing that the directive was incorrect. Merely
noting it already existed. Maybe it's self interest but I have less
issue with the shoot to kill directive than I do with the freedom of
speech ones. I just don't see that it's particularly necessary.

JL

 

I got your point - it was self evident, I think YOU missed the point
that making a law that can't be fully enforced and thus must be
selectively enforced on a grand scale (ignoring quibbling around the
edges it can be enforced against thousands vs the millions who would
technically breach it) is a pointless exercise.

Great, glad you're so trusting, I need only point you to history to
answer that (oh & that quote about power corrupting etc)

It's not bloody law yet ya goose. And secondly we already know that it's
not possible to implement it fully. So ? Does it mean that they won't
choose the loudest targets for example, and effectively silence any
opposition, works in Singapore.

You get a vote in Singapore, and they unanimously vote for the Govt.
Funny that.

And you keep carefully dodging the simple point, if it's not going to be
enforced why does the government need the powers as written. Powers that
the US and UK haven't tried to confer on themselves. The answer of
course is they don't need to. They're taking an extra mile because they
think they can, just in case it comes in handy.

Oh **** off Doug, that's self serving bullshit. Firstly it's only in the
last 3 months they've had the power to go town, and funnily they're off
and running with the bit between their teeth. Secondly the point of
having a democracy is that when you perceive there to be things wrong
you are meant to speak up (and I can assure you I'm not alone,
unfortunately my viewpoint is only shared by about 48% of
Australians...not quite enough). Thirdly I'm hardly a refugee and never
claimed to be - one of all those motivations that you snipped was
disgust at the things the government is doing "in my name", it's one
reason of many. I've never said it was a sole reason.

JL

 

Hmm a quick scan of the SMH while waiting for coffee seems to indicate
the laws were passed*, I'm now confused but don't have time to research
what did or didn't happen - I could have sworn yesterday or the day
before the state premiers were talking about not passing the
accompanying legislation.

It's going to have to wait until next week.

JL
*reference to the abu bakr arrest

 

Is not the execution (pardon the pun) of the death penalty, in the
technically legal sense, a lawful killing?

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

I have not read the section on freedom of speach, i will attempt to do so
later today and get back to you.

Boxer

 

I think you'll find that police are only lawfully allowed to shoot
offenders in self defence (or in the defence of others) when lives are
in real, immediate, and identifiable danger. "Shoot to kill" policy, on
the other hand, and to use the example of the London incident, legalises
killing a person on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion, who poses no
actual visible threat, and is running away from the police at the time.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

I snip for brevity. Fucked if I wanna spend all day revisiting points I
feel I've made well enough in the first instance.

A better reply to this post is in the reply to your next post.