MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:34:41 +1000

No? Reckon they'd lock a citizen up without trial for some time,
refusing medical attention? Or get rid of one who was seriously ill?

Ask the immigration dept. Dirty work done cheap.

You see the pollies don't need to "know". all they have to do is tell
the depratments that they need to solve a problem, and to be proactive
in doing so.

Then the pollies can be lily white and wring their hands when the
department is caught doing bad things and wrecking people's lives.

Has any polly resigned over Rau? Thought not.

Will any polly resign if someone's life is ruined or taken by these
laws, and innocent someone?

Well, given the laws, how will you know it has happened? And resign?
Take responsibility? Hah!

Kick a public servant if they really feel threatened, but the leaders
won't "do" the dirty deed.

They have people to rid them of troublesome priests.

Zebee

 

Better get under the bed just to be on the safe side though, eh?...

Jesus, John. If you think John Howard's government gives a rat's arse
what you think of them, then it's you who's heaping on the bullshit.

 

No. You'll just have to trust them.

Bwahahahaha...

 

If a copper reasonably believed that a suspect was a suicide bomber and
was capable of detonating an explosive device they would be justified in
shooting to kill even if the person was running away at the time.

You will never have to make that decision. Some of our coppers will.
They'll get a few seconds to make it. They're in the firing line more
than any of us. I'll trust them. What's the alternative?

 

Huh ? Could you take something any more out of context if you tried ?

The above snippet refers to the article in today's paper I was browsing
while waiting for my coffee, wherein it made reference to the
legislation being passed, an action I had noted in the earlier posting
that I didn't believe had happen (State premiers stating they wouldn't
sign up for it). Next week I'll sit down and read all the coverage and
work out where it stands - seems federal is law state isn't but not sure
now.

JL

 

In Rau's case they'd have had to've been psychic to know that she was an
aussie.

Are you suggesting that Cornelia Rau was locked up in an immigration
facility because the government wanted to get rid of her?...

Has anyone suggested that she was a threat to the government?

Did she get caught writing nasty letters to the editor of her local rag?

Did she say bad things about John Howard's willy on usenet?

John Littler ain't even in the race.

 

I don't personally have a big issue with the scenario, the issue I have
is around the information that would lead them to reasonably believe -
it's pretty clear from what happened in London that it's pretty easy to
cock this stuff up, I'd like some level of assurance that robust process
and appropriate due diligence (not ministerial convenience for
scaremongering purposes like Iraq's non existent WMDs) were going to be
involved - in other words an appropriate seperation of judicial,
administrative and executive arms of govt.

I don't trust the cops much, but I trust them a lot more than I do a
politician*.

JL
*and surveys over the last 10 years consistently show the bulk of the
population are with me on that

 

Pardon me. I thought you were concerned that the government were
stripping you of you right to dissent with the liklihood of you being
automatically designated an enemy of the state and convicted of an
offence for your comments on usenet.

Go ahead and tell me what your little tanty's really about then.

 

Sometimes you just gotta buckle your seatbelt and let the pilot fly the
damn plane.

Yes, I can vouch for the accuracy of surveys such as that...

 

Apology accepted. Sarcasm ignored.

Wrong in several key ways. The proposal (law?*) _does_ strip you of the
right to LEGALLY dissent. By making it illegal it then gains power to
choose _how much_ dissent it accepts, and be selective about what sort
of dissent.

That's not the country I grew up in. The country that refused to outlaw
the Communist Party despite how distasteful most people found them, who
had the balls to tell the Yanks to **** off when they demanded we do so.

There's not much point having a discussion with you is there.

Do you understand the concepts of freedom of speech, freedom of
association and the concept of representative democracy** ? If so, on
your comments I can only assume that you don't value these, in which
case I'm wasting my breath. If you do value these and can't see there's
potential harm to them from these laws then we have something to discuss.

If it's a "tanty" to you to express disgust at laws that undermine basic
tenets of western democracy as practised in Australia since Federation
(and US, UK, NZ, Western Europe etc)then I'm unneccessarily
inconveniencing electrons and wasting my time.

This is a country that was built in a significant part by a healthy
distrust of authority (thanks mostly to a strong Irish influence from
their experiences). You want me to start rolling over to a government
muzzling me now ? Like hell I will.

JL
* Which was the bit you took out of context - the comment quoted
referred to the question as to whether it is or is not law yet. Not a
claim to be next.
**which incorporates not just the ability to vote for your
representative , but the freedom to have sufficient information to make
an informed decision as to who you wish to represent you.

 

How about you front up like I did a couple of weeks ago and lay out your
values, we're wasting time until you do. It seems to me you believe that
the government should have the right to pass whatever laws they
perceive to be for the common good. That there are no areas of life that
a government can't and should be able to control or manage.

JL
(for the record, I don't believe the above to be true, so now you have a
choice you can try and argue why I'm wrong or you can actually put your
cards on the table and tell us what you believe)

 

Not as long as you persist in running around in circles with your
tin-foil hat on, yelling "The sky is falling!"

 

er, John, I think you are confusing belief with attitude.

Moike

 

OK, just don't carry a back-pack or a mobile phone into the subway and
you'll be fine.

Theo

 

Split me the difference then dear sir - elucidate.

JL
(or do you mean he's copping an attitude in the colloquial sense ?)

 

That would be dissent. You can be shot for that.

March in the streets? WA passed a law (since repealed) that made it illegal
for three people to stop and talk to each other in the street. And they
enforced it (for a very short time).

Theo

 

We live in interesting times. The threat we face these days is militant
islamism.

This government doesn't want to be hamstrung if quick decisive action is
required if the jihad should hit Australia.

I trust the govenment and it's agencies to use the laws responsibly.

I believe the government's wrong on IR. I have e-mailed and told them
so. I know my opposition to the laws is widespread among other liberal
voters.

John Howard is not God. He's a pollie, very experienced, cunning and
effective. He's not Satan though. He does what he believes to be for the
good of the country.

I would like to see Australia have an effective Opposition. The Labor
and minor parties these days are almost all dysfunctional. They're in
opposition because they only know how to oppose.

It's not like we had a lot of choice in the last election.

 

Government agencies staffed by Prats?

Theo

 

But Doug, quite a few people believe the sky _is_ falling...

big

 

Me for one. At one time I owned 4 handguns, from an air pistol to a .44
black powder percussion cap pistol. And yes, I could score 40 out of 50
consistently at 25 metres with the .44. The only problem was having to wait
for the smoke to clear before I had another shot.

Agreed. When I was a kid the Police were the good guys you went to for
assistance and they didn't carry guns. WTF happened?

Theo