MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

Only one of these are values, I guess I wasn't clear enough in what I
was saying.

How about yes or no answers to the following:

I believe that the judiciary should be independent of govt.

I believe there is a basic set of human rights.

I believe the ends justifies the means.

I believe that trial by jury is the most effective way of providing
checks and balances against govt.'s imposing unfair laws.

I believe it is possible for a govt. to act in a manner not in the best
interests of minority groups.

I believe that it is possible for a govt. to put it's own interest in
staying in power ahead of the interests of it's constituency.

I believe the above could never happen in Australia.

And why are under threat from "militant Islam" ?

By those pesky troublesome requirements to prove people guilty of
something before a jury of their peers before you lock them away or put
a homing beacon on their ankle for the rest of their life ? Yes, I could
see that being a hassle.

A bit of collateral damage doesn't matter does it ?

Ahh good, a values statement. OK, so why do you think the US placed a
bill of rights into it's constitution, ditto the UK and most European
countries. Do you think that was done to place boundaries around what is
appropriate for a govt to pass laws about ? If not why not ?

Opinion not belief. Encapsulates a belief system but doesn't specify it.
A belief would be that a minimum wage is necessary/not necessary, or
that individuals are/are not disadvantaged in negotiating individual
work place agreements and/or that collective bargaining should/should
not be legal etc

Agreed, partially, he does what he believes to be for the good of
himself first, his party second, his country third.

And just for the record I've never demonised anyone, kindly don't put
words in my mouth, I have been very specific in all cases as to specific
examples as to why I believe he behaves inappropriately.

Agreed.

JL

 

......and here I was thinking someone would say 'L'

ck

 

watch it John, I'll answer your Suzuki question.................

ck

 

Got me beat, Police powers already gave shoot to kill powers. (shoot to
kill, what a load of crap, how do you shoot just to wound?) Particularly in
the case of being shot at first as in Sydney today. Not sure about the
imprisonment part, wasn't it detention?

Probably a case of covering all possible legal avenues, If they want to
question suspected terrorists for a few days without charging them they will
have no argument from me. If they start feeding them into a mincing machine
like Saddam did then I would get upset.

Boxer

 

Hmm <musing> that's an interesting values issues isn't it ? Is it worse
to kill people for an ideological "cause" or to make a buck ? Is a
mercenary worse than the "committed patriot" firing alongside him ? Is
it worse for a tobacco company to allow people to buy a product that
they know will probably kill the purchaser than Maccas to sell a product
they know may indirectly kill the purchaser. There's both venality vs
ideology as well as freedom of choice issues in that mix.

JL

 

Most of MacDonalds is crap, but I have been known to drop in on the way home
from many rallies to grab some chips (i refuse to call them fries) and a
coffee (many now have reasonable real coffee) and a crap. That is 3 C's as
opposed to 3 K's.

Boxer

 

Probably not, but I can assure you the threat is not contained with today's
raid.

This is the thin edge of the wedge, these guys will be seen as martyrs for
the cause.

The riot outside the court in Melbourne today is just the beginning.

Boxer

 

I'd say you'd be pretty safe if you moved to Dargo.

Moike

 

It could be argued that choosing to live in Australia _is_ choosing not
"not to get blown up in a terrorist bomb". The historical record seems
to indicate the odds getting hurt by violent terrorism in Australia is
zero, and I don't see anybody presenting any credible evidence to the
contrary[1]. The historical record also shows that the odds of police
abusing their power is non-zero, and in my view these new laws are quite
likely to make that second problem worse - do you reckon Bilal Daye
would have got his out of court settlement under the new laws? I suspect
he'd have been locked up just for complaining about it in public...

big

[1] I was tempted to write that as "I don't see anybody presenting any
credible evidence to the contrary yet". Its _possible_ these raids today
will in fact reveal evidence of a real threat, and its even possible
that that evidence will be made public. Unfortunately, it seems at least
one of the aims of the new legislation is to prevent the publication of
that sort of evidence...

 

get back to work!

Moike




(or should that be "Get back to work, Moike!")

 

Its got me beat too - we _have_ laws outlawing terrorism. It _is_
already illegal. Why aren't the police using those laws and their
existing powers (as you've pointed out)?

Unfortunately I don't agree with you here. You say "Probably a case of
covering all possible legal avenues", I'm thinking "Its the police being
lazy and not being prepared to investigate and arrest people using our
existing laws, and wanting shortcuts where they can search, detain, and
question _anybody_ without bothering about annoying procedural crap like
convincing a judge its worth a look before getting a search warrant"

I think your "line in the sand" and my (and JL's) "line in the sand" are
quite a long way apart. Personally I'd like to see the system stopped
and made accountable _well_ before anyone's worried about "feeding them
into a mincing machine"...

big

 

By virtue of our support and involvement in the US led invasion of Iraq
our government made some particular value judgements... One being that
it is acceptable to kill Iraqi children if there is a likelihood of the
ruler of that country, or a member of his government or family also
being killed in the process... but if you suspect someone of throwing
an Iraqi child into the water from a boat you should imprison them,
demonise them in the media, and make every effort to have them sent back
to Iraq where you can bomb them and kill their children...

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

The New South Wales Police Commissioner advised the public that certain
chemicals were seised in the raids today.

Boxer

 

I now understnd that one part of tthe new laws allowed "Terrorists" to be
charged with plotting a terrorist act without a specific target being
identified. The existing legislation required the target to be identified
and proved.

Boxer

 

Police previously had the right to use whatever force was necessary to
remove the threat, but any further escalation of force once the threat
was removed is a criminal act. (i.e. if the first shot was fatal then
that would be acceptable force however if the first few shots disabled
the person and subsequent shots were fatal the subsequent shots would be
criminal. The new laws give the right for the police to escalate their
force until the person is dead, regardless of when they cease to be a
threat, with the intention being to kill the person, rather than to
merely remove the threat and even apply that in cases where no threat is
apparent.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Similarly in Queensland under Bjelke-Petersen, three people together
in the street was an illegal gathering.

Bill

 

As in "offender" in the opinion of the cop on the spot with the gun....

We already have that don't we?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

"Certain chemicals"... right - _very_ informative - they guys are
_obviously_ guilty now!

Unfortyunatly, _I've_ got a litre or so of acetone at home (one of the
"chemicals" used to manufacture, however badly, the explosives used in
the London bombings). I've also got a can of compressed propane. I
suspect the guy across the street has a sack or two of ammonium nitrate
in his garden shed.

That doesn't make all fibreglass repairers, campers, or gardeners
"terrorists!"...

big (you know that sulfuric acid in your battery can be use to make tnt!)

 

I haven't got a mission statement either...

Up to the point where circumstances dictate otherwise.

When someone decides that they want to blow me up because of their 7th
century beliefs that I deserve to die because I am not a believer in the
same branch of a murderous ideology that they are, my human rights are
going to come before theirs.

And yet you believe the end justifies the means?...

Agreed. It's hard to keep everyone happy.

Like the Whitlam government?...

Because we are infidels.

Yes, when time is not a luxury one can afford.

A reasonable minimum wage is necessary. I don't believe in Jobs for the
lowest bidder.

I don't believe for a second that most employees have *any* bargaining
power compared to an employer.

I don't believe the unfair dismissal laws should be scrapped. I'll
accept the case for businesses employing up to 20 people. Not 100.

I believe in trade unions and am a proud member of one.

 

JL wrote:

Last election we got to vote.....a choice between wee squeak and Mark
Latham.

Is that supposed to be democratic?

regards,
CrazyCam