Terrorist citizens.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2015 08:56 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 08:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The news today is claiming that the legislation as written not only strips citizenship from accused terrorists without trial but includes anyone who damages government property. Spray painting a fence would technically be grounds to strip someone of their citizenship.

The legislation is not framed to be an anti terrorism measure. It is framed to be a political document containing clauses so outrageous and unconstitutional that members of the opposition will be forced to argue against them. At this time the government will turn around and claim the opposition is soft on terrorism. This is literally the government's written strategy as leaked to the media.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/pol...hx6gm.html

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-new...h-property

Not that it counts for anything, but I've figured Abbott 'n Co would be doing something along this line eventually ever since the moment they started pushing the 'Terror Scare' button.
Creating, or over-blowing, an enemy is a good way to obfuscate your own doings; makes for a good shield to hide behind too, a better one still if you can manage to get your political opposition on the other side.

Say what you will about Abbott and his goons, but they know what they are doing.


I am however, surprised at their attempted scope... We don't have a Vote of No Confidence, do we?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2015 09:09 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(24-06-2015 08:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hmm... Courts are hardly non-partisan either. Having lived under one dictator and with plenty of African dictator wannabes waiting in the wings, I tend to be *very* leery of laws where people award themselves new powers which can be used to quash dissent.

I'm not sure that those conditions obtain here in America. Of course the application of any law is imperfect, but given that you'd have separate branches of government addressing the issue, the idea of a dictatorial hammer knocking down any citizen based on whim doesn't seem terribly likely. Put another way, people are occasionally convicted wrongly of a crime. Is that any reason to halt all prosecutions? No. It is a good reason to put an appeals process in place.

Mind you, I'm not plumping for this particular bill, as written; I'm speaking along the lines of general principles. Given what is written above about this bill, your opposition is certainly justified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 08:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The news today is claiming that the legislation as written not only strips citizenship from accused terrorists without trial but includes anyone who damages government property. Spray painting a fence would technically be grounds to strip someone of their citizenship.

Such an extreme step, taken without a trial, and for something so trivial as vandalism is definitely misguided.

(25-06-2015 08:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The legislation is not framed to be an anti terrorism measure. It is framed to be a political document containing clauses so outrageous and unconstitutional that members of the opposition will be forced to argue against them. At this time the government will turn around and claim the opposition is soft on terrorism. This is literally the government's written strategy as leaked to the media.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/pol...hx6gm.html

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-new...h-property

It's a shitty government indeed that would put partisan concerns above the national interest. I say that as a long-suffering American. I hope you have some Opposition with the spine to speak out anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 08:51 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Creating, or over-blowing, an enemy is a good way to obfuscate your own doings; makes for a good shield to hide behind too, a better one still if you can manage to get your political opposition on the other side.

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
25-06-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 09:08 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(25-06-2015 08:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The news today is claiming that the legislation as written not only strips citizenship from accused terrorists without trial but includes anyone who damages government property. Spray painting a fence would technically be grounds to strip someone of their citizenship.

Such an extreme step, taken without a trial, and for something so trivial as vandalism is definitely misguided.

(25-06-2015 08:33 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The legislation is not framed to be an anti terrorism measure. It is framed to be a political document containing clauses so outrageous and unconstitutional that members of the opposition will be forced to argue against them. At this time the government will turn around and claim the opposition is soft on terrorism. This is literally the government's written strategy as leaked to the media.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/pol...hx6gm.html

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-new...h-property

It's a shitty government indeed that would put partisan concerns above the national interest. I say that as a long-suffering American. I hope you have some Opposition with the spine to speak out anyway.

I wouldn't say our Opposition have spines...

It's more like a keen awareness of the political necessity to show up the Libs at every opportunity. A consequence of the effectively two-party system.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
25-06-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 09:25 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I wouldn't say our Opposition have spines...

It's more like a keen awareness of the political necessity to show up the Libs at every opportunity. A consequence of the effectively two-party system.

I hear you, we have a similar phenomenon happening here -- if the one party argued that the Sun rises in the East, a majority of the other would say that it rises in the West, and ten or twelve of them would co-sponsor a bill designating the West as America's official morning view.

So much facepalm ... so little time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 09:23 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(25-06-2015 08:51 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Creating, or over-blowing, an enemy is a good way to obfuscate your own doings; makes for a good shield to hide behind too, a better one still if you can manage to get your political opposition on the other side.

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Not necessarily my go-to example, not that I have one that it is, but it's apt.

Truth be told, were I in Abbott's position, I'd be doing much the same thing. I dare-say anybody who knows the game would, in fact.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 09:25 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(25-06-2015 09:08 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Such an extreme step, taken without a trial, and for something so trivial as vandalism is definitely misguided.


It's a shitty government indeed that would put partisan concerns above the national interest. I say that as a long-suffering American. I hope you have some Opposition with the spine to speak out anyway.

I wouldn't say our Opposition have spines...

It's more like a keen awareness of the political necessity to show up the Libs at every opportunity. A consequence of the effectively two-party system.

The ISIS scenario world wide appears quite extreme and dangerous.
Yes, other world governments will surely capitalize on this.
While extreme legislation may be dishonest the terrorist problem cannot be ignored.
Even corrupt government is arguably preferable to a rabid theocracy.
Our opposition party these days in almost a replica of the incumbent.
The Greens along with the ABC seem intent on polarizing the argument with little effort directed towards a more substantial analysis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(23-06-2015 07:20 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It's a pointless measure in my opinion. Losing a citizenship is not a big concern to a person who decided to expatriate herself in a country at war to fight on a side or another. It would simply create a cast of stateless persons should they be arrested at some point. It doesn't help fight ISIS and it doesn't help fight the radicalisation of a marginalised youth. It seems to be a bad idea.

I don't personally have any objection with them losing citizenship, but I'm inclined to agree that it's a pointless gesture that probably has more to do with avoiding responsibility than with actually solving anything. Resources would be better allocated elsewhere. Ammunition and high explosives, for example.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Terrorist citizens.
(25-06-2015 07:48 PM)yakherder Wrote:  I don't personally have any objection with them losing citizenship, but I'm inclined to agree that it's a pointless gesture that probably has more to do with avoiding responsibility than with actually solving anything. Resources would be better allocated elsewhere. Ammunition and high explosives, for example.

It's a legal gesture relieving the government of defending a douchebag simply because he's a citizen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: