Another Day, Another Dollar....
Another day, another thousand lines by the media, another day of promises by the Government. Firstly, I apologise to all of my regular readers who come to my blog to hear me chatter away about my travels and usual, regular ramblings. After so many months of wanting to keep this blog non political, I have fallen foul and am now openly and willingly expressing my political views on this form. So, I promise you, once I run out of things to say, I will go back to talking about travel, photography, cute babies and cats.
Another comment from the public gallery....
"I am interested to hear the opinion of someone in the legal profession that the people who advocated that violence last Sunday were terrorists." Cass
Firstly, Cass, thanks for your comments, and your compliment about my blog.
I am not sure whether I would go as far as to say that those that participated or advocated the violence last Sunday were "terrorists" per se. I feel that the label of "terrorist" has formed a life of its own. So in my essay, I did fall short of saying that. But yes, I did say that if the Government took action under the new terrorist legislation, the activits (or idiots, however you may describe them) may have fallen foul of the sedition clauses within such legislation.
So what does this mean? Either it shows that:
1. there's more "terrorists" out there than we (and the Government) anticipated;
2. the Government were careless when drafting the provisions of this legislation, and made its application too wide; or
3. that their sedition laws are completely and utterly arbitrary and absurd.
The bottom line, Cass, is that the terrorism legislation was drafted in this way in order to satisy the voting public and give them some sort of sense of security against the unidentified "big bad evil" and I think has gone above and beyond what was necessary, so much so that those that behaved badly on the weekend may now be labelled "terrorists". The Federal Government wont take action in accordance with this new legislation because it wont be in the interests of the Goverment come election time. The Federal Government should have just left it up to the Crimes Act and other related legislation to prohibit ANY and ALL forms of violent behaviour or intent to harm another person BY ANY PERSON OR ANY RACE. Not create a law which it can pick and choose what it can and cant enforce depending on the current Government's policies.
We have now got a piece of legislation which I believe attempts to cosmetically address "terrorism" , but instead, actually oversteps the mark by infringing upon people's basic rights - when it suits the Government.
A number of legal commentators and legal organisations have come forth and opposed the new Anti-Terrorism bill on the basis that the sedition laws are too broad. The most outspoken of the groups has been the Law Council of Australia. I have added the link to a pdf, which outlines the problems that the Law Council of Australia as with respect to the new laws. You will see that it states that the sedition laws create problems for media, publishers and.... surprise, protesters!
www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shared/2418309974.pdf
Till next time,
K
Another comment from the public gallery....
"I am interested to hear the opinion of someone in the legal profession that the people who advocated that violence last Sunday were terrorists." Cass
Firstly, Cass, thanks for your comments, and your compliment about my blog.
I am not sure whether I would go as far as to say that those that participated or advocated the violence last Sunday were "terrorists" per se. I feel that the label of "terrorist" has formed a life of its own. So in my essay, I did fall short of saying that. But yes, I did say that if the Government took action under the new terrorist legislation, the activits (or idiots, however you may describe them) may have fallen foul of the sedition clauses within such legislation.
So what does this mean? Either it shows that:
1. there's more "terrorists" out there than we (and the Government) anticipated;
2. the Government were careless when drafting the provisions of this legislation, and made its application too wide; or
3. that their sedition laws are completely and utterly arbitrary and absurd.
The bottom line, Cass, is that the terrorism legislation was drafted in this way in order to satisy the voting public and give them some sort of sense of security against the unidentified "big bad evil" and I think has gone above and beyond what was necessary, so much so that those that behaved badly on the weekend may now be labelled "terrorists". The Federal Government wont take action in accordance with this new legislation because it wont be in the interests of the Goverment come election time. The Federal Government should have just left it up to the Crimes Act and other related legislation to prohibit ANY and ALL forms of violent behaviour or intent to harm another person BY ANY PERSON OR ANY RACE. Not create a law which it can pick and choose what it can and cant enforce depending on the current Government's policies.
We have now got a piece of legislation which I believe attempts to cosmetically address "terrorism" , but instead, actually oversteps the mark by infringing upon people's basic rights - when it suits the Government.
A number of legal commentators and legal organisations have come forth and opposed the new Anti-Terrorism bill on the basis that the sedition laws are too broad. The most outspoken of the groups has been the Law Council of Australia. I have added the link to a pdf, which outlines the problems that the Law Council of Australia as with respect to the new laws. You will see that it states that the sedition laws create problems for media, publishers and.... surprise, protesters!
www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shared/2418309974.pdf
Till next time,
K
posted by KateOnTheGo at
10:46 PM
3 Comments:
"Every terriorist, is a freedom fighter in his own mind!" (Ardie 1978)
Rob,
Ardie was a genius!
Kate,
From the pics I've seen in the papers, looks like a load of stupid, bored louts with nothing better to do.
The ones who wear the flag should be shot.
[With a pea shooter, of course]
"that their sedition laws are completely and utterly arbitrary and absurd."
Good on you Kate, too right! Although that seems a bit seditious in itself...seriously kidding!
Matthew
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home