33 thoughts on “Monday message board

  1. Meanwhile, the New South Wales Law Society says it has serious concerns about the shoot-to-kill provisions.
    Society president John McIntrye says an order could be obtained without a person having been reasonably suspected of committing a crime.
    “The police may knock on the door and they might leg it out the back door without even being told why the police are there, and under these provisions that can be called on to stop and if they don’t stop they can they can be shot,” he said.

    I may struggle to understand the law but it seems to me that the proposed Act says that the AFP may only act to possibly cause death or serious harm to a suspect if they believe reasonably (repeated again and again) that the person presents a considerable risk of danger to the life of others (including police) or of inflicting serious injury on others. AND that the police believe on reasonable grounds that if they don’t use force they will not be able to apprehend this individual. To take an extreme example (well why not the clamouring voices trot them out) if Zaqarwi is located in Sydney and when the police knock on the door and he legs it the Law Society would have the police do no more than chase him and tough luck if he can run faster than them.

    As for all the lawyers out there excited at the possibility of making a name for themselves by stopping the enactment of these laws to lock up the bad guys until the danger passes. The general population (sorry Mr, Mrs and Ms Moron) isn’t currently all that enamoured by the moral grandstanding and the use of technicalities in the law to get the bad guys off by lawyers and the courts. If they start to suspect that once again this is a game for the elite by lawyers and civil rights activists then the standing of the legal system could hit an all time low.

    And there is the persona designata for us all to deal with. Mr, Mrs and Ms Moron might think that if the law currently means that detention orders power fails in that authorising a judge to make a report which presented opinion and advice is incompatible with the concurrent holding of judicial office, then the law should be adjusted or the proposed Act should be amended so that the detention orders can be used. The message I am getting is ha ha we reckon we have found the means to stop you Howard, and stuff any thoughts that Mr Mrs and Ms Moron might have.
    But Ruddock says “(But) the point I’d make is that we are following what has in fact been established practice elsewhere in the Crimes Act dealing with other provisions (such as) issuing warrants.” If he is right what exactly is the game being played by the legal fraternity and the Premiers.

    And the Premier’s pious we never agreed to “shoot to kill� we can only hope that they are frantically looking at their own legislation to ensure that any necessary amendments will be made to their laws to ensure that they don’t leave their police up the creek by declaring that the current grounds for shooting an individual who is reasonably considered dangerous (well doing something to stop the baddy escaping, presumably running him down with a car would also be a no no as the act doesn’t refer to shooting) are non lawful.

    Where does the shoot to kill come from, the Act says “in the course of ….do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm unless etc.� it also says “must not…use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is necessary and reasonable.�

    Indeed perhaps some one could explain to me about Division A and detention how many will get locked up when the grounds for a detention order re a terrorist act and as I understand the Act, being a supplier or planner for the same, must be for one that is imminent or (in any event) expected some time in the next 14 days, or after act has occurred.

  2. Just a quick question – does anyone know where I can get a copy of the following paper – “No Time to Govern? The Impact of Multiple Directorships on Director and Corporate Performance” by Geoffrey Kiel; Gavin Nicholson and Kevin Hendry of the University of Queensland? I believe it is unpublished – a synopsis was included in the Economist of this week and I would be interested to see it.

  3. The shoot to kill provision is mostly a beat-up. The State Premiers grasped at it as an issue to cover their embarrassment at having been exposed as supine in their scrutiny of the draft Bill.

    There are far more important issues, such as the sedition law and secret detention orders, which are presently being discussed on other threads, but are not being discussed by State Premiers.

  4. For instance, Katz, as Terry Lane, pointed out….Under the proposed laws ,a husband would be under threat of 10 years jail for having told his wife that their son was in custody for 14 days, under the anti-terrorism laws.

    The N.S.W. Premier was quoted as thinking the penalty a bit stiff and that 5 years would be more appropriate. The devil is in the detail and such significant legislation should not be rammed through parliament.

  5. If you want to get an insight into the spirit of fascism, read Wiskemann and then Jack London’s “The Iron Heel”. The latter is on the internet somewhere, and it may be taken as primary evidence of the sort of paranoid conspiracy theory that was floating around among international socialists a century ago and which Mussolini would have had at the back of his mind. There’s similar stuff about what lefties contemplated getting from strike action in “News from Nowhere” that had obviously been taken on board by the British government by the time of the General Strike of 1926.

  6. Apology to Terry Lane and A.B.C.,we got his comments wrong. Worse………..

    Under the proposed Anti-terrorism law, police may hold a child under the age of 16, for up to two weeks, with a visit from one parent. If the parent tells the other parent where ,’Wayne’ ,is, the parent can be jailed for up to 6 years. When the NSW Premier was asked about the law, he said he thought it a bit hard and that 2 years would be enough.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s1488545.htm

  7. I am assuming that the document Stanhope posted is as he received it. If so Katz’s comment
    “The State Premiers grasped at it as an issue to cover their embarrassment at having been exposed as supine in their scrutiny of the draft Bill.�
    is right on the ball.

    Eg Iemma, the draft Act says, that if a disclosure is made the penalty is 5 years.
    Terry Lane might like to check his facts as well. That is, 105.5 (1) “A preventative detention order cannot be applied for, or made in relation to a person who is under 16 years of age.”
    And if they have been incarcerated and this is recognised the AFP is required to release them as soon as they can.�
    If the detainee is under 18 the taking of identification material must be done in the presence of a parent guardian or if the detainee doesn’t want them an appropriate person.
    The Act also says that the detainee may contact, family/person they live with/employer/employees/business partners by telephone fax or email. It may be that it is an offence to disclose but by this stage it is hard to imagine who of the detainees acquaintance wouldn’t know. They can also contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman and a lawyer. Further they can have 2 hours contact every day with a family member or their representative. They may not be questioned while under the detention order, for that to occur they must be released from the detention order and arrested under the Crimes Act.

    Whether one agrees with the Act or not, the Premiers abysmal ignorance of what they have agreed to is concerning.

  8. Kado’s to our friends down under for OUTSTANDING performance in the face of terrorism!

    You may need something like this:

    Australia Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

    Application for Duel Citizenship

    Name: ________________________________

    Age: ________________

    Current Country/Citizenship/Residency: ___________________________

    Reason for request:

    _____ * Desire to promote an Islamic State within your country. (Please see note below for next step)

    _____ I’m Proud as hell of Australian’s for telling the whining Islamo’s if they don’t like it there to get the hell out and would gladly stand right next to them in a field of battle against these fanatical lunatics any day!

    * If you have checked this box, please accept our appreciation for your honesty, now go to hell.

Comments are closed.