Australian Terrorism LAWS OUTED
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
« Thread Started on Today at 7:09pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prime Minister has described the ACT Chief Minister's decision to
place the draft anti-terrorism laws on the Internet as irresponsible.
Jon Stanhope is refusing a Federal Government request to remove the
confidential draft of the bill from his website.
The bill is expected to go before Parliament in a fortnight.
John Howard says governments should be able to deal with issues in
confidence, no matter what their political stance.
He says Mr Stanhope's action is disappointing.
"That legislation was given in confidence," he said.
"Let me say in relation to this issue that I can assure the people of
Australia that the legislation finally presented to the Parliament will
reflect the agreement that was reached by me with all the state
premiers and chief ministers, no more, no less."
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the posting of the draft
by is offensive to other state and territory leaders.
"The premiers and the other chief minister did not deserve, in my view,
to be hijacked in relation to their ability to participate in
consultation by one chief minister, for whatever reason he saw fit
deciding to post it," he said.
Mr Howard has dismissed concerns from the Opposition and minor parties
that a Senate inquiry will not be given enough time to consider the new
laws.
He says the bill will be scrutinised in Parliament and will reflect an
agreement he has made with state and territory leaders.
"It's important for the security of Australia, it was unanimously
agreed to by me with the eight Labor premiers and chief ministers, and
we can't have any undue delay that the legislation will be exposed for
public scrutiny and it will reflect that agreement," he said.
Civil liberties
Meanwhile, a civil libertarian says the Federal Government's draft
anti-terrorism laws are more draconian than he previously thought.
The Australian Council for Civil Liberties president, Terry O'Gorman,
says he supports the decision by Mr Stanhope to post the draft on his
website.
Mr O'Gorman says he is particularly worried judges who are not ordinary
members of a court will be able to issue control orders and
preventative detention orders, making it difficult for lawyers to
challenge the orders.
"A judge will be acting in his personal capacity and not as a member of
a court and that's an extraordinarily novel provision," he said.
"But it also prevents a lawyer who's acting for a person who's been the
subject of a control order or a preventative detention order from
getting his hands on the evidence that was used to make the order."
Mr O'Gorman also says under the proposed laws a person would commit an
offence if they brought the sovereign into hatred or contempt.
He says even though there is a defence if it is done in good faith, the
laws would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"The royal family in the view of many are a severely dysfunctional
unit. Under this provision, if you rubbish the royal family you can be
charged with sedition because you've brought them into contempt," he
said.
----------------------------------------------------------
The confidential details of the Federal Government's proposed
anti-terrorism laws have been made public - ACT Chief Minister Jon
Stanhope posted them on the Internet yesterday.
The Chief Minister's move has angered the Federal Government,
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock ordering the "work-in progress"
legislation be removed, and has further strained the relationship
between the ACT and Federal governments.
But Mr Stanhope has defied the order, and left the 107-page document on
his web site.
The draft-in-confidence legislation reveals the detail of the
Government's proposed new anti-terror regime.
It shows the Federal Government plans to give courts the power to put
tracking devices on terror suspects, stop them going to work or from
using the Internet or telephones, or put them under house arrest for up
to a year, all without charge.
As well, the laws allow for suspects to be held in secret preventive
detention, where they can phone family and their employer to say they
are safe, but cannot tell them they are being detained by police.
The people being detained will be able to contact the Commonwealth
Ombudsman and a lawyer. But they could be banned from contacting a
particular lawyer if they are subject to a prohibited contact order.
Any contact between a person and a lawyer would be subject to
monitoring by the federal police.
Prime Minister John Howard had planned to keep the details of the
legislation secret until it came before Federal Parliament on October
31, but Mr Stanhope deliberately circumvented his plan, posting it on
his web site yesterday afternoon. By early last night his actions had
attracted national attention.
Mr Stanhope's actions follow a swingeing attack on the anti-terror laws
by ACT Chief Justice Terence Higgins, who in a public address asked
whether Australia could still be considered a democratic state with the
laws in place.
Mr Stanhope's publication of the proposed legislation also comes as the
Howard Government came under fire for allowing only a week for a Senate
inquiry into the news laws.
Mr Stanhope argued that the public and the Parliament needed longer to
consider the proposed new laws than was being allowed by the
Government, especially given their severity and their impact on civil
liberties.
"I believe all Australians should have the opportunity to see, think
about and have input into this legislation.
"These laws are of such significance that every individual and every
organisation has the right to have a proper look at the drafts before
they are codified into law," he said.
In a speech at Canberra's mosque yesterday, Mr Stanhope urged the
Muslim community especially, whom he said he feared could be singled
out by the new laws, to examine in detail the proposed legislation.
"I invite their thoughts and suggestions on how these drafts will
affect ... Muslims, in particular, the extent to which they believe
these laws may lead to racial profiling."
A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock said last night the
publication of the legislation was "disappointing", and that the
document had been provided to state and territory leaders in good faith
so that they could offer their opinion.
"The legislation is a work-in-progress and the document released by the
Chief Minister is a work-in-progress.
"It was given to the Chief Minister as a draft-in-confidence document,
and it is disappointing he has chosen to release it."
Logged
Mark
Guest
Re: Australian TERRORISM LAWS
« Reply #1 on Today at 7:19pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today at 7:09pm, Mark wrote:The Prime Minister has described the ACT
Chief Minister's decision to place the draft anti-terrorism laws on the
Internet as irresponsible.
Jon Stanhope is refusing a Federal Government request to remove the
confidential draft of the bill from his website.
The bill is expected to go before Parliament in a fortnight.
John Howard says governments should be able to deal with issues in
confidence, no matter what their political stance.
He says Mr Stanhope's action is disappointing.
"That legislation was given in confidence," he said.
"Let me say in relation to this issue that I can assure the people of
Australia that the legislation finally presented to the Parliament will
reflect the agreement that was reached by me with all the state
premiers and chief ministers, no more, no less."
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the posting of the draft
by is offensive to other state and territory leaders.
"The premiers and the other chief minister did not deserve, in my view,
to be hijacked in relation to their ability to participate in
consultation by one chief minister, for whatever reason he saw fit
deciding to post it," he said.
Mr Howard has dismissed concerns from the Opposition and minor parties
that a Senate inquiry will not be given enough time to consider the new
laws.
He says the bill will be scrutinised in Parliament and will reflect an
agreement he has made with state and territory leaders.
"It's important for the security of Australia, it was unanimously
agreed to by me with the eight Labor premiers and chief ministers, and
we can't have any undue delay that the legislation will be exposed for
public scrutiny and it will reflect that agreement," he said.
Civil liberties
Meanwhile, a civil libertarian says the Federal Government's draft
anti-terrorism laws are more draconian than he previously thought.
The Australian Council for Civil Liberties president, Terry O'Gorman,
says he supports the decision by Mr Stanhope to post the draft on his
website.
Mr O'Gorman says he is particularly worried judges who are not ordinary
members of a court will be able to issue control orders and
preventative detention orders, making it difficult for lawyers to
challenge the orders.
"A judge will be acting in his personal capacity and not as a member of
a court and that's an extraordinarily novel provision," he said.
"But it also prevents a lawyer who's acting for a person who's been the
subject of a control order or a preventative detention order from
getting his hands on the evidence that was used to make the order."
Mr O'Gorman also says under the proposed laws a person would commit an
offence if they brought the sovereign into hatred or contempt.
He says even though there is a defence if it is done in good faith, the
laws would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"The royal family in the view of many are a severely dysfunctional
unit. Under this provision, if you rubbish the royal family you can be
charged with sedition because you've brought them into contempt," he
said.
----------------------------------------------------------
The confidential details of the Federal Government's proposed
anti-terrorism laws have been made public - ACT Chief Minister Jon
Stanhope posted them on the Internet yesterday.
The Chief Minister's move has angered the Federal Government,
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock ordering the "work-in progress"
legislation be removed, and has further strained the relationship
between the ACT and Federal governments.
But Mr Stanhope has defied the order, and left the 107-page document on
his web site.
The draft-in-confidence legislation reveals the detail of the
Government's proposed new anti-terror regime.
It shows the Federal Government plans to give courts the power to put
tracking devices on terror suspects, stop them going to work or from
using the Internet or telephones, or put them under house arrest for up
to a year, all without charge.
As well, the laws allow for suspects to be held in secret preventive
detention, where they can phone family and their employer to say they
are safe, but cannot tell them they are being detained by police.
The people being detained will be able to contact the Commonwealth
Ombudsman and a lawyer. But they could be banned from contacting a
particular lawyer if they are subject to a prohibited contact order.
Any contact between a person and a lawyer would be subject to
monitoring by the federal police.
Prime Minister John Howard had planned to keep the details of the
legislation secret until it came before Federal Parliament on October
31, but Mr Stanhope deliberately circumvented his plan, posting it on
his web site yesterday afternoon. By early last night his actions had
attracted national attention.
Mr Stanhope's actions follow a swingeing attack on the anti-terror laws
by ACT Chief Justice Terence Higgins, who in a public address asked
whether Australia could still be considered a democratic state with the
laws in place.
Mr Stanhope's publication of the proposed legislation also comes as the
Howard Government came under fire for allowing only a week for a Senate
inquiry into the news laws.
Mr Stanhope argued that the public and the Parliament needed longer to
consider the proposed new laws than was being allowed by the
Government, especially given their severity and their impact on civil
liberties.
"I believe all Australians should have the opportunity to see, think
about and have input into this legislation.
"These laws are of such significance that every individual and every
organisation has the right to have a proper look at the drafts before
they are codified into law," he said.
In a speech at Canberra's mosque yesterday, Mr Stanhope urged the
Muslim community especially, whom he said he feared could be singled
out by the new laws, to examine in detail the proposed legislation.
"I invite their thoughts and suggestions on how these drafts will
affect ... Muslims, in particular, the extent to which they believe
these laws may lead to racial profiling."
A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock said last night the
publication of the legislation was "disappointing", and that the
document had been provided to state and territory leaders in good faith
so that they could offer their opinion.
"The legislation is a work-in-progress and the document released by the
Chief Minister is a work-in-progress.
"It was given to the Chief Minister as a draft-in-confidence document,
and it is disappointing he has chosen to release it."
The Link is Below
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/whats_new.asp?title=What's%20New
Stan Pierce
"Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS" <nsw...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1129418908.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Australian TERRORISM LAWS (snipped)
When the States Premiers were briefed by the Federal Police on the security
risks and then promptly agreed to the draft legislation, that told me more than
any newspaper reporter could.
I think the police know something really serious is going on and we had better
prepare for it.
The Premiers have kept their mouths shut because of the realities we face, and
they don't want to be on record for having rubbished 'draconian' legislation and
then find it was all too horribly true when the balloons go up.
We are in for a long ugly war with Islam and had better face it. What I think
should be done also is name the officials and academics who brought Muslims into
the country as migrants in the first place. All this money and law changing is
the result of this policy and it is proving a disaster. The culprits should
pay with at least being named and not being in tenured positions at public
expense. That's the very minimum they deserve.
inter_ton
"Stan Pierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8Ag4f.18850$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The dope who runs the ACT Labor government covered himself with glory by
publishing the proposed federal anti terror legislation on the ACT govt web
site.
The other state leaders showed that they recognised the seriousness of the
issue.
Stan Pierce
"inter_ton" <tw...@ogxpress.com> wrote in message
news:43519875$0$10998$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
(snipped)
> The dope who runs the ACT Labor government covered himself with glory by
> publishing the proposed federal anti terror legislation on the ACT govt web
> site.
>
> The other state leaders showed that they recognised the seriousness of the
> issue.
Yes. But it's mind-glazing. Have you tied to read it?
« Orwellian Liberals »
|
| message news:1129418908.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >Australian TERRORISM LAWS (snipped)
|
| When the States Premiers were briefed by the Federal Police on the security
| risks and then promptly agreed to the draft legislation, that told me more than
| any newspaper reporter could.
That they are morally corrupt & sold us all out for money & extra powers...
| I think the police know something really serious is going on and we had better
| prepare for it.
That's what they'd like you to think... SUCKER.
| The Premiers have kept their mouths shut because of the realities we face, and
Because of the cash they get from the deal to sell us all out.
| they don't want to be on record for having rubbished 'draconian' legislation and
| then find it was all too horribly true when the balloons go up.
Guess which Intelliegence Agency will be behing the 'attack'...
| We are in for a long ugly war with Islam and had better face it. What I think
| should be done also is name the officials and academics who brought Muslims into
| the country as migrants in the first place. All this money and law changing is
| the result of this policy and it is proving a disaster. The culprits should
| pay with at least being named and not being in tenured positions at public
| expense. That's the very minimum they deserve.
Paranoid dribble.
Stan Pierce
"« Orwellian Liberals »" <Orwe...@lying.liberals.org.au> wrote in message
news:4351...@news.comindico.com.au...
Young knowledgeable teenager no doubt.
TheMan
"Stan Pierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8Ag4f.18850$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> message news:1129418908.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Australian TERRORISM LAWS (snipped)
>
> When the States Premiers were briefed by the Federal Police on the
security
> risks and then promptly agreed to the draft legislation, that told me
more than
> any newspaper reporter could.
>
> I think the police know something really serious is going on and we had
better
> prepare for it.
>
> The Premiers have kept their mouths shut because of the realities we face,
and
> they don't want to be on record for having rubbished 'draconian'
legislation and
> then find it was all too horribly true when the balloons go up.
> We are in for a long ugly war with Islam and had better face it.
Bull-fucking-shit.
We are in the middle of a Islam Vs Zionazi war and you lot had better face
up to it. Thats the problem with you lot, you are too fucking thick to
listen to anything but the neo-con propaganda.
I mean... what was that reason we invaded Iraq again? You lot were
bullshitted and whats worse is you are so fucking stupid you don't realise
it.
-TheMan-
TheMan
"inter_ton" <tw...@ogxpress.com> wrote in message
news:43519875$0$10998$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
If he's doing such a bad job, why do people keep voting their government
back in with landslides?
-TheMan-
TheMan
Thankfully you are here to tell us the realities of the world like WMD's in
Iraq hey Stan? Fucking idiot... wake up to reality moron.
-TheMan-
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
YOU and others should be very careful about what you say in future on
this board as you are breaking our future laws with your past post.
In simple terms this new law will put you in Jail for 7 years for
SEDITION for promoting feelings of "Ill-Will" or hostility between
different groups that would threaten peace.
In my view your last post did that
Say as a journalist you write about a Federal police officer taking a
DRUG Bribe and to get you out of the way you are held for 14 Days and
your mother speaks out..
She can be picked up to
And anyone else who asks will dissapear to
Say an iman who hates America is imported to spruik by a mosque that
collects tithes
Them the whole congregation can be sent to a New Concentration Camp on
Christmas Island
This is worse that the Argentinians dropping people into the Sea from
Helicopters or Killing 30,000 because it is enshrined in LAW
Who is going to do the "re educatuion of prisoners" mentioned in the
ACT ?
Will the Government let out a contract to the US Company running their
IRAQ Prisons?
SPEAK OUT !!!!!!!!! How can an Attorney General who is a LAWYER
inflict this?
http://www.g503.com/images/jeepdraw/FrankRonJon.jpg
So HOWARD takes away our WORKERS RIGHTS and our CIVIL RIGHTS
« Orwellian Liberals »
Wrong, as usual....
John
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
at
Phil seeks your opinions here and there
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RSL motto - The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance
- is well proven here.
It would seem but for John making the Legislation public, Australians
would have been caught napping while all the sacrifices of our Diggers
were washed down the lavatory structure of this illegal legislation.
The Legislation is illegal if it isn't given full Parliamentary Debate
to define the ' intention ' of Parliament.
If this draconian blank cheque is to be given currency the ' Party '
tabling the Act must prove it's intention of content. If this is not
done, then appellant judges cannot refer to the ' intent of Parliament
'.
It is little understood, that the intent of Parliament is found by
study of the debate 'over' the written Legislation, so defining the
intent of the Parliament.
To Table Legislation cunningly at the eleventh hour to stifle debate,
only ruins the legal structure of an Act.
To do so with Legislation that takes from all Australians the very
civil rights fought for in two World Wars, is a most vile betrayal of
the Australian People.
Hitler obtained his totalitarian State through Legislation of
extraordinary similarity to the proposed Terrorism Act.
Hitler also curtailed worker's rights at the same time as his Security
Legislation.
The result was a Nation in which you had to join the Nazi Party or be
in it's good books to prosper.
If our Federal Police utilise the provisions of this Act, they will
create more terrorists than they uncover. People never forget the
experience of Police State Injustice; and this Legislation is without a
doubt, the establishment of an Australian Police State.
May I also remind the readers of this Board that Australia is not at
War. Australia is not at War with Iraq or Afghanistan.
One of the great cultural shadows in this country is the Police State
type operations of the Authorities during the Great Depression, when 1
in 4 Australian families lost a breadwinner. The billy-club and worse,
including downright murder, was a general experience of the newly
unemployed.
Oh yes we've known a Police State before.
This proposed legislation is totally unnecessary, as a measure to
protect the Australian People from 'terrorism'. The Federal Police and
ASIO already have quite enough powers to be effective. What seems to be
missing, is a will to be effective, and the strength to be independent
of 'the present political priority'. No amount of Legislation can alter
that
Pete Coulson
to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such nonsense.
Moreover, the parallels between Nazism and the Current Federal
Government are absurd!
Hitler lived in a time of peace and willfully abused power for his own
gain. What gain do you honestly think Mr Howard is seeking? The
self-content of slipping a final blow into a dying trade union
movement? Wake up to yourself.
"...we've known a police state before" - Aussieseek dot com, you reveal
only your true ignorance of what a police state is truly like. Talk to
someone who has experienced a situation why freedom of speech really is
a distant dream, before you declare you ignorance and narrow-mindedness
to the rest of us.
"This proposed legislation is totally unnecessary"
Really? Hold onto a copy of these words mate and, God forbid, the day
comes when a massive terrorist attack occurs in Australia, lets see you
proclaim publicly that you stand by your belief that in extraordinary
times, our protectors should not have extraordinary powers.
Civility - rest in peace.
Pete
« Orwellian Liberals »
| Why is it bad if the papers got leaked?
It's GOOD that they were leaked, by one (1) of the many.
It's BAD that most of them wanted to keep us all in the dark
about these foul secret-police-state Orwellian powers which
are deliberately vague enough that thay can easily be abused,
which I am sure was no accident...
"A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to terrorist acts, and for other purposes"
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf (339,136 bytes)
... "and for other purposes"...
ewen_ch...@yahoo.com.au
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
Not good
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
What with 400.000 Kiwis in Australia also losing Civil and Workplace
Liberties ?
It seems to have hit a raw nerve with the rabid
Sue Bilstein,Redbaiter and Sidproquo !!!!
Google Aussieseek and Yahoo are run out of OZ so YOU in NZ will
certainly
not be free to use usenet tp express alternate views dummies
Pete Coulson
Did you read the document placed into the public domain, as you
provided to us?
It does not remove:
1. Fair Trial
2. Assumption of innocence; or,
3. Freedom of Information.
I genuinely think that your concerns are not valid and suggest that you
soberly consider your position.
Cheers
Pete
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
John Howard lied over the GST.
John Howard lied regarding the children overboard.
John Howard lied regarding the Weapons of mass Destruction.
So why would any sane person trust John Howard in regards to this
terrorist legislation?
When the Port Arthur Massacre started to unravel, with too many
inconsistencies, John Howard put a 30 yr limit on official info. It got
the gun laws through though.
So is that the angle? Lose our civil rights now, or we'll get an
incident, to prove how necessary they were?
It gets pretty dirty up there in sheep country!
Whoa Pam!
Check out www.ckln.fm/~asad.ismi/argentina.html
Cry for Argentina.........
" What was the objective behind the torture and the disappearances?
Where did the perpetrators of torture and genocide come from?
It came from the world's so-called leader in democracy, the United
States. The United States trained more than 80,000 personnel in the
school of the Americas and other military academies.
..........Adolf Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace prize Winner who was
imprisoned and tortured for 14 months in Argentina.
Also:
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
Check out www.ckln.fm/~asad.ismi/argentina.html
Cry for Argentina.........
" What was the objective behind the torture and the disappearances?
Where did the perpetrators of torture and genocide come from?
It came from the world's so-called leader in democracy, the United
States. The United States trained more than 80,000 personnel in the
school of the Americas and other military academies.
..........Adolf Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace prize Winner who was
imprisoned and tortured for 14 months in Argentina.
Also:
www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/02/opinion/edpfaff.php
FROM PEREZ
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
Losing all your rights of legal appeal in one Law is bad, bad, bad.
Since when were cops in Australia able to be given any amount of power,
and not take advantage of it?
The new Terrorism Act means that you can be taken from your home, and
dumped from an SAS helicopter and no-one is legally able to ask any
questions. In fact if your mother contacts the local paper over your
disappearance, she faces 5 years gaol!
Will political dissidents be flown out of the country and dumped in a
third world country?
Under the new Terroism Act you wont even be able to ask where a person
went!
Don't cry for me Argentina! I'm living in Australia.
Hilton Bombing anyone?
That little gig was perpetrated by so-called intelligence personnel,
and Tim Anderson had to fight like a tiger to get out of the frame.
Seen Roni Levi on Bondi beach lately?
He was slaughtered by cops who were high on cocaine, and shot in the
balls for good measure. Both the shooters were intimately involved in
drug dealing.
Trust the cops with your freedom? You must be mad.
The shooters of Roni Levi went to a Kings Cross strip club the night of
the shooting. They found it exciting sexually, and one of them remarked
to his associates that it was the best sex he'd ever had - the day of
the shooting.
No way!
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
How about the Federal police doing their job for a change!
What were ASIO doing before the last Bali Bombing ?
Having a sleep?
We have already been failed by ASIO and the Federal Police.
Now we are expected to further empower the incompetent!
John Howard is a gormless little fool.
As another poster referred to Hitler, so shall I.
Both John Howard and Adolf Hitler sought power through control at any
cost.
Unfortunately John Howard is the fool Prime Minister who wishes to make
slaves of us all.
What's next, women's rights?
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
Guest
Re: Australian TERRORISM LAWS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday at 8:22pm, Mark wrote:> The Premiers have kept their mouths
shut because of the realities we face,
> and they don't want to be on record for having rubbished 'draconian'
> legislation and then find it was all too horribly true when the balloons
> go up.
> We are in for a long ugly war with Islam and had better face it. What I
> think should be done also is name the officials and academics who brought
> Muslims into the country as migrants in the first place. All this money
> and law changing is the result of this policy and it is proving a
> disaster. The culprits should pay with at least being named and not
> being in tenured positions at public expense. That's the very minimum
> they deserve.
The dope who runs the ACT Labor government covered himself with glory
by
publishing the proposed federal anti terror legislation on the ACT govt
web
site.
The other state leaders showed that they recognised the seriousness of
the
issue.
How you define Fascism is simple:
A political ideology which denies people their ordinary human rights,
by whipping 'legislation' through Parliament in a day without giving
the elected members of the people the time to study that legislation,
or the opportunity to debate the issue.
A political ideology which gives all the political power to the one man
on top; like Der Fuhrer in Germany of 1932.
A political ideology which gives police chiefs the power to imprison
anybody on a whim, without redress or examination in law.
A political ideology which defines dissent as terrorism or aiding a
terrorist organisation.
A political ideology which politisizes the police and intelligence
apparatus of the State.
A political ideology which punishes with imprisonment or smear(putting
you on a terrorist list of persons of interest) anyone critical of the
Leader or his policy.
A political ideology which denies you the core value of common law -
quiet enjoyment of your home - by taking you for questioning and
imprisoning you for 5 years if you tell anyone that you were taken and
questioned.
If the new terrorist laws are enacted, Australia will become a Fascist
Nation overnight, ie, a Totalitarian State.
Please remember, the standard of living of Nazi Sympathisers and
citizens in Germany rose during the 1930s as the war industries
employed more people and the autobahns were being built. Many people
had never had it so good. They soon felt quite differently by 1943/44!
The master-race had been unmasked as the heartless mass-killers of Der
Furher's totalitarian imaginings. What he did to the German People was
far worse than what he did to the Jews, in my opinion.
Do the people of Australia wish to lose their humanity and freedom? If
you go along with the new terrorist laws you will, eventually.
« Orwellian Liberals »
|I never knew these laws were gay.
Are you any relation to Mosley?
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
It is typical of many in control to "test the waters" by
"unintentionally" [they say anyway] letting stuff out and gauge the
public
reaction as well as that of an opposition. They then tone down one or
two
things to suggest they have "listened to the concerns" and force a
draconian change on us.
Banks do this with interest rates/fees etc. Insurance companies do it
with
premiums. Governments do it with legislation.
They train us to become accepting of the 'inevitable' need to 'do
something'.
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
I can't help but feel that this was staged.
The contents are alarmimg and seem TOO draconian, if you know what I
mean.
The public are concerned by THIS bill.
What concerns me is that if this isn't the finished bill what will the
new bill entail.
Are we being lulled into some sense of security by believeing that the
NEW bill will be better? Less intusive?
What will we miss in the "new" wording?
NO DIANA
Aussieseek dot com POLITICAL MESSAGEBOARDS
AND COMPLAUIN
YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pete Coulson
operates in the fashion that you people are wailing about?
This is scandalous, you have no proof, no evidence or reasonable cause
to be suspicious, yet you belly-ache as though storm-troopers are at
your doors now!
Provide evidence please, not emotional nonsense.
Pete
Keith
Prime Minister John Howard says he is not being forced to water down
the Federal Government's counter-terrorism measures.
A Coalition backbench committee is examining the legislation and has
already negotiated some changes.
Mr Howard says that is part of the normal process but the substance of
the measures already announced will remain.
"What is going to be in that legislation is what I announced and what
the states agreed to - no more, no less," Mr Howard told Channel Nine.
"I announced that we were going to have preventive detention. I
announced that we were going have control orders. I announced that we
would be expanding the sedition offence to include incitement of
violent behaviour against the community. All of those things have been
out in the public domain.
"Now obviously people are entitled to have a look at the final form of
the legislation, and they will, but this idea that we have snuck in a
whole lot of attacks on civil liberties beyond what I announced is
completely wrong."
Mr Howard has also downplayed fears that the offence of sedition which
is contained in the new laws will infringe on freedom of expression.
"There's no way that any of these provisions are going to stop people
attacking the Government's policy on Iraq," Mr Howard said.
"But what it will stop is people encouraging people overseas to attack
our soldiers in Iraq for example."
Senate inquiry
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is stepping up pressure on the
Government to give the Senate more time to consider the new laws.
The Government's bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament at the
end of the month.
A Senate committee has been given just one day to conduct an inquiry
into the measures.
Mr Beazley says the Senate can be an effective tool for ensuring the
laws are fair and balanced.
"John Howard ought to be consultative enough, humble enough to put
these new bills of his either into the hands of the joint committee on
intelligence - on which he's got a majority - or into the hands of a
Senate select committee," Mr Beazley told Southern Cross radio.
"Have it properly studied, discussed properly with the Australian
people and then put through."
Draft published
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has published on his website the
initial draft of the new legislation that was issued to state and
territory leaders.
Mr Howard has criticised the decision, saying Mr Stanhope is only
trying to further his political career.
Mr Stanhope says he is keen to receive an updated draft that reflects
the changes negotiated by the Coalition committee.
He says it is lucky he has yet to sign off on the laws in light of the
changes.
"I would have agreed to a bill that he now tells me isn't really the
bill," he said.
"If the Prime Minister wishes to provide me with a later draft, I'll of
course put that later draft on my web page."
Mr Stanhope says he may refuse to sign off on the legislation because
it is being rushed through Federal Parliament.
He says he will write to other state and territory leaders to share his
concerns.
Robust discussion
ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries says the new laws are the subject of
robust discussion behind closed doors.
Senator Humphries is part of the backbench committee which is advising
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock on the laws.
Senator Humphries says the new laws will need to strike a careful
balance between security and the freedoms that Australians currently
enjoy.
"What the outcome of that will be depends very much on the course of
those negotiations but it's too early to say at this stage how that
will pan out," Senator Humphries said.
"But I'm convinced that we will give this legislation a very thorough
working over inside the internal processes of the Government and I
think we'll get better legislation as a result."
Senator Humphries will not say which areas of the laws are the main
sticking points.
"I think to do so would be to do what I've already accused Jon Stanhope
of doing and that is putting in the public arena what is at the moment
a private discussion about the terms of the legislation," he said.
"I'll leave those discussions to take place but they are occurring and
they will be robust."
In other developments:
The Australia Federation of Islamic Councils says it has been shocked
by some of the measures in a draft of the Federal Government's proposed
anti-terrorism laws
ABC
Keith
Keith
« Reply #24 on Today at 7:53am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps anyone out there would like to depend for their freedom on the
honesty of John Winston Howard; I wouldn't.
Maybe something you said, something you thought, someone you spoke to..
These may be the last free thoughts of the victims of this atrocious
'terrorism legislation'.
Would you trust the bloke who did a public dump on Schapelle Corby?
His name is Mick Keelty, head of the federal police and he did comment
with prejudice on the defence case of Schapelle Corby, a young woman
who has lost her freedom because the Federal Police weren't doing their
job at Sydney Airport, and Cannabis destined for Sydney from Brisbane
was left in Miss Corby's boogie bag, by smugglers undetected by the
federal police.
Now, Mick Keelty will be given the power to intrude into anyone's life,
destroy that life without a legal challenge, put the person out of
work, destroy their marriage, ruin their parenthood, and brand the
person a terrorist without that person committing an offence.
The same Mick Keelty, who may well regret his faux pas regarding Miss
Corby, is now/soon to be in the unenviable position of defining IN HIS
OWN MIND the demarcation between the personal political interests of
Ministers in Government and the security and safety of Australians et
al. An unenviable position which will become further exacerbated by a
Government which has been embarrassed by blunder after blunder, and the
dissent of people who remind little Johnny that there were no weapons
of mass destruction, and that DIMIA has deported Australians against
their will from their own country.
Let's all pray for Mick..
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------
Seems Australia is about to join the likes of Burma as a pariah State.
The proposed anti-terror laws are alleged to allow up to 12 months home
detention without charge for terrorism suspects.
Terrorism suspects include those with links to an organisation that
supports terrorism, not just people suspected of committing terrorist
acts, or members of groups who do. Support for terrorism includes
verbal
support.
Basically it allows the government to lock anyone up for a year without
charge.
Barnaby Joyce would; be a good contender, given his perchant for
rocking the boat.
The leader of the opposition is on the record as saying he wants to
ring
down the government and take over. Beazo would be a good contender too,
just like the opposition leader in Burma.
How would *you* like 12 months home detention with no phone and no
Internet?
It would be the end of any job or business you might have had.
It would be the end of any romantic, personal or political
relationships
you might have. There is no way your friends, associates, customers and
business associates could avoid finding out so it would basically
destroy your entire life.
All at the stroke of a pen, no charge, no trial, no testing of evidence
in court.
All it takes is that the government puts an organisation you are
associated with on a blacklist and you are fair game.
--
DM
personal opinion only
Gary Woodman
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> comes when a massive terrorist attack occurs in Australia, lets see you
> proclaim publicly that you stand by your belief that in extraordinary
> times, our protectors should not have extraordinary powers.
Do you really think that extraordinary powers to monster Australians will
prevent massive terrorist attacks? Can you give us an example of a country
where extraordinary powers have led to, and sustained, an extraordinary
peace? I mean recently, not, say, Stalin's USSR. Maybe Saddam's Iraq? No
terrorism there (before the last invasion).
Gary
--
"I'm an accountant."
Senator Barnaby Joyce
Pete Coulson
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: Gary Woodman <u...@your.nose> - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Oct 2005 19:09:12 +1000
Local: Tues, Oct 18 2005 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: Australian Terrorism LAWS OUTED
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Pete Coulson" <Pete.Coul...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129443169.594754.18540
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Gary "
Gary, tell me one thing in the bill that "monster's" Australians.
Please, I'd love to see it.
Aussieeek dot com MESSAGEBOARDS
More harm than good may flow from updated anti-terror laws
Ben Saul
October 20, 2005
UNLESS there are significant changes, journalists could become one of
the first groups in society to feel the brunt of the Government's
planned terror laws.
Changes to the law of sedition mean the threat of seven years in jail
may be used to force journalists to think twice before reporting the
most contentious issue of our times: the world view of terrorists.
The draft bill leaked last week by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope
takes the same restrictive approach to free speech as the British
terrorism bill.
It provides no automatic immunity for journalists who simply report the
views expressed by others, compounding existing restrictions on the
reporting of ASIO interrogations.
This is contrary to the 1995 Johannesburg Principles on National
Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, which argue:
"Expression may not be prevented or punished merely because it
transmits information issued by or about an organisation that a
government has declared threatens national security."
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has claimed that the changes are aimed
at criminalising indirect incitement of terrorism.
Examples may include distasteful or reckless comments such as "Osama is
a great man" "9/11 was a hoax" or "America had it coming". It may also
include genuine beliefs such as "We must resist the occupiers" or
Cherie Blair's view that some Palestinians believed their only way out
of a hopeless existence lay in blowing themselves up.
Criminalising indirect or vague expressions of support or sympathy for
terrorism, which do not encourage a particular crime, unjustifiably
interferes with legitimate free speech, including attempts to
understand the causes of terrorism.
Although the right of free speech is not absolute and may be limited to
prevent serious social harms, it should not be restricted merely on
account of speculation that it leads to terrorism.
Only incitements that have a direct and close connection to the
commission of a specific crime could justifiably be restricted.
Unlike in Britain, Europe, the US and Canada, in the absence of a human
rights act Australian constitutional law protects political expression
but not other speech (though religious speech may enjoy special
protection). This means our courts are less able to challenge sedition
laws for excessively restricting free expression. There is also no
sunset clause attached to the sedition offences, so we are stuck with
them indefinitely.
The Australian approach seems closely related to that in Britain.
After the July 7 London bombings, Britain proposed to deport foreigners
who encouraged, justified or glorified terrorism; to close mosques that
encouraged extremism; and to make condoning or glorifying terrorism a
crime.
The British anti-terror bill makes it a crime to publish a statement
when a person believes that members of the public are likely to
understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement to commit terrorist
acts. This expressly covers every statement that glorifies or
implicitly glorifies terrorism, or even its preparation.
It would also be a crime in Britain to disseminate terrorist
publications. A defence would be available only if a person showed they
had not examined the publication, did not suspect it was a terrorist
publication and did not endorse its contents.
This would criminalise any newspaper, radio or television journalist
who reported the opinions of terrorists or anyone who sympathised with
their cause.
Statements that could invite prosecution include the "barbaric ideas"
identified by the British Prime Minister, such as calling for
Westerners to leave Muslim countries, the elimination of Israel or
establishing Islamic law.
Australia's draft bill is heading in the same direction. Although the
proposed laws narrow the existing but discredited definition of
sedition, the new clauses are more likely to be invoked precisely
because they have been modernised. The bill repeals existing sedition
laws and replaces them with five new offences.
The first two involve a person encouraging another to violently
overthrow the Constitution or any Australian government, or to
violently interfere with federal elections. Neither offence is
necessary because the existing law against incitement to crime in
combination with those dealing with electoral offences and treachery
already cover precisely such conduct.
The third new offence is for a person to urge a racial, religious,
national or political group to use violence against another group, when
such violence poses a threat to peace, order and good government. This
is welcome because it would criminalise, for the first time in federal
law, incitement to violence against racial, religious, national or
political groups, as required by Australia's human rights treaty
obligations.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has long argued that
incitement to religious hatred should be made unlawful, particularly
since prejudice against Muslim Australians increased after the
September 11, 2001, terror attack.
The final two offences involve urging a person to assist those fighting
militarily against Australia, even if Australia has invaded another
country unlawfully. If opposing Australian aggression constitutes tacit
support for its enemies, Australians may be prosecuted for condemning
illegal violence by their government or seeking to uphold the UN
Charter.
A related provision in the bill allows the attorney-general to ban
organisations that advocate or praise terrorism. This applies even if
the group in question has no other involvement in terrorism, the praise
does not result in a terrorist act and the person praising terrorism
did not intend to cause terrorism. People can then be prosecuted for
being members or associates of an organisation banned merely because
someone in it praised terrorism.
There is a danger that criminalising the expression of support for
terrorism will drive such beliefs underground. Rather than exposing
them to public debate, which allows erroneous or misconceived ideas to
be corrected and ventilates their poison, criminalisation risks
aggravating the grievances underlying terrorism.
Although some extreme speech may never be rationally countered by other
speech, the cut and thrust of public debate remains the best option for
combating odious or ignorant ideas. The criminal law is ill-suited to
reforming expressions of poor judgment or bad taste.
Every society has the highest public interest in protecting itself and
its institutions from violence, but no society should criminalise
speech that it finds distasteful when such speech is remote from the
practice of terrorist violence by others.
A robust and mature democracy should be expected to absorb unpalatable
ideas without prosecuting them.
Speech is the foundation of all human communities and without it,
politics becomes impossible. Unless we are able to hear and understand
the views of our political adversaries, we cannot hope to turn their
minds and convince them that they are wrong or even to change our own
behaviour to accommodate opposing views that turn out to be right.
The danger of criminalising political opponents is reduced by the
bill's five good-faith defences. These protect speech that points out
the mistakes of political leaders; errors or defects in governments,
laws or courts; or issues causing hostility between groups. The
defences also protect statements encouraging others to lawfully attempt
to change the law and those connected with industrial matters.
However, although these defences seem wide, in fact they largely
protect only political expression at the expense of other types of
democratic speech. In contrast, wider defences in anti-vilification law
protect statements made in good faith for an academic, artistic,
scientific, religious, journalistic or other public-interest purpose.
Such statements may not aim to criticise the mistakes of political
leaders, the errors of governments or laws, matters causing hostility
between groups or industrial issues. The range of expression worthy of
legal protection is much wider than these narrow exceptions.
The defences are also anachronistic, since they are based on the
defences to English sedition crimes found in a famous English criminal
law textbook of 1887. They are defences for a different era: less
rights-conscious and eager to protect the reputation of Queen Victoria.
Such narrow defences have no place in a self-respecting modern
democracy such as Australia.
Ben Saul is director of the bill of rights project at the University of
NSW's Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law.
Stan Pierce
"Aussieeek dot com MESSAGEBOARDS" <nsw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129752318....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> More harm than good may flow from updated anti-terror laws
> Ben Saul
Yes, of course he is right. He is describing an Australia as it use to be
before Muslims were brought into the country. We never had to consider
censorship and free speech with British descendents except during the war. For
some reason the situation has changed. What do you think the reason for that
is.
Gary Woodman
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Gary, tell me one thing in the bill that "monster's" Australians.
Start here:
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf
Read down.
> Please, I'd love to see it.
I didn't expect an answer to "Can you give us an example", let alone "Do you
really think", and you haven't disappointed me. You were the one who
mentioned "extraordinary powers", now you've cut and run, trying to change
the subject to my turn of phrase. I presume you will post that you didn't see
the word "monster" in the draft, so it's all tickety boo. I wish someone had
extraordinary powers to nobble obfuscatory Liberal robot trolls like you, but
of course, it's only *dis*agreement that's being criminalised.
Pete Coulson
My opinion:
Personal freedoms are important, the continuation of life is even more
so. As long as the correct checks and balances exist, that cannot be
exploited by a "determined defendant" then I support the Anti-Terrorism
Bill.
Despite the changes required in the current bill, is anyone
diagrammatically opposed to what it represents?
Cheers
Pete
d-m...@adfa.edu.au
Pete Coulson wrote:
[cut]
> My opinion:
>
> Personal freedoms are important, the continuation of life is even more
> so. As long as the correct checks and balances exist, that cannot be
> exploited by a "determined defendant" then I support the Anti-Terrorism
> Bill.
>
> Despite the changes required in the current bill, is anyone
> diagrammatically opposed to what it represents?
Yes.
Locking up someone who has done nothing illegal is plain wrong.
Once you start doing that no-one is safe.
In fact its the kind of thing Howard claims we invaded Iraq to stop.
DM
GD
news:1130501336.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Locking up someone who has done nothing illegal is plain wrong.
Also, locking people up because they told someone that somebody (who
had done nothing illegal) was locked up.