WayneMorse
Banned
This is so depressing but I can't see any possible situation where Abbott and the Liberals lose the next election. Apathy will soften the Labor vote and Shorten is a slightly less hopeless Ed Miliband.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
And the first bunch of anti terrorism laws pass the Senate.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...stleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140926-10m8ih.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-go-to-jail-under-new-national-security-laws
Sad day for the nation. Admittedly there are many of those, and many to come.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/senate-passes-security-laws-fears-press-freedom
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...stleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140926-10m8ih.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-go-to-jail-under-new-national-security-laws
Sad day for the nation. Admittedly there are many of those, and many to come.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/senate-passes-security-laws-fears-press-freedom
That's what (well one of many things) pisses me off. No time given for public debate.
Public debate will be outlawed next
Cross posting from the thread in OT, but can this be the next AusPoliGAF topic:
Budget? What budget?
Budget? What budget?
Going to be interesting to see if this even gets a mention tonight or tomorrow in the TV media.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
I can't wait til November for the Victorian state election.
One less Liberal.
One less Liberal.
I don't think it would've made any difference tbh
Probably not. But that's besides the point I feel. Such drastic laws as these need to be discussed, not rushed through.
Next level incompetence or next level scum...you decide:
The Australian publishes a report at 4:12pm TODAY talking about an alleged attack AFTER news of the withdrawal of the complaint has broken and the chief of the ADF has apologised for the falsification.
The Australian publishes a report at 4:12pm TODAY talking about an alleged attack AFTER news of the withdrawal of the complaint has broken and the chief of the ADF has apologised for the falsification.
ADF personnel are still being advised to be careful while wearing their uniforms in public. Because you can never be too terrified of pretend terrorists.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/our-free-press-is-under-siege/story-fni0fha6-1227072053944
Honest question for those more educated than me. When does this start becoming actual fascism?
Honest question for those more educated than me. When does this start becoming actual fascism?
I'd argue the framework for it already exists. To channel arksy, the only thing missing is intent.
What a shining beacon of maturity and integrity.
How old are you? 12?
But free speech!So Arksy I guess you'll voting for the Greens next election, given that they're the only ones that give a fuck about civil liberties
The Australian is the newspaper that gave Janet Albrechtsen a voice. If anyone remembers her editorial pieces, she was the person who intentionally misquoted academic papers and made up citations. When Howard was still around, most of her editorials are about how horrible Islam is and how we have to be careful around them Muslim men. Its good to see that The Australian has not changed one bit.
The Australian doesn't really care if they're wrong and look stupid. Their audience obviously doesn't care since the content mostly fits with what they probably want to hear. This is exactly how they acted the last time we wanted to bomb brown people in the Middle East.
This has to be one of the most laughably stunning displays of hypocrisy I've seen in this thread. Engaging in false dichotomies (If it's not intentional, it's accidental), spreading misinformation and inaccuracies (about the law) even after you've been called out on it...and somehow insist on making the stupid and incorrect argument that I'm somehow hiding behind the law.
If you bothered to read up on the case (as Fredescu did), and actually put your straw men aside for a moment, you'd realise that the point of my argument was that the argument over whether a genocide occurred was a legal one, but because no court will ever hear it..it's academic. You're free to disagree (As Dead Man and others did). I put my argument forward and when I was called out for parts of my argument being wrong (like for example the case being specifically about the ten point plan), I amended my position.
Either way, the argument was resolved one way or another and everyone moved on. For some unknown reason you decided to childishly sling your ad hominems, logical fallacies and absurd remarks for the next two pages. If you wanted to continue the argument, I would have been more than willing to humour you, however I'm not particularly interested in talking to someone who can't conduct themselves like an adult.
Feel free to keep slinging shit, but I'm just going to ignore you from now on.
So Arksy I guess you'll voting for the Greens next election, given that they're the only ones that give a fuck about civil liberties
Credit where credit is due, Parliament should have to approve military action (only place in the Western World where it doesn't have to, well the US gets around it on some weird technicality that I'm not sure about). The Greens are trying their best to raise all sorts of hell but they're not doing a very good job. I don't really trust them because of the kind of crap they pulled while they're in office.
For some reason I'm not as angry as I should be at these new laws, some of it might have to with cognitive bias, some of it with the fact that I know there are safeguards they can't legislate away and some of it with just plain old giving up.
Elaugaufein
Member
Did I wonder into an alternate reality where the Greens have been in office at some point?
As far as I can tell the Labor/Greens alliance is a product of LNP advertising except maybe in Tasmania prior to the last election. Apart from that the relationship between Labor and the Greens is never anything like as close as the Nationals and Liberals and in some cases Labor displays more hostility to the Greens than they do the Coalition (its not unheard of for Labor to channel preferences to the Coalition before the Greens in seats that are left leaning). I can think of few cases where its even particularly debatable the Greens have had a similar degree of influence to what the Nationals wield in LNP policy on pretty much all matters that they have interest in (food exports, foreign investment, rural and regional services).
Yeah yeah, they weren't technically in office...and there is a fair bit of animosity between the two parties, but when I say that I mean in a constructive manner, their behaviour when they held a degree of public influence. They weren't office bearers but they helped draft numerous pieces of legislation, tabled numerous amendments that got through and helped set the legislative agenda. The LNP is a formal coalition, but Labor couldn't get their policy through without support from the Greens, which meant they wielded tremendous legislative power.
http://theconversation.com/dirty-ai...than-listen-to-morwell-fire-death-stats-31782
Ideology winning over truth is really starting to bother me.
Ideology winning over truth is really starting to bother me.
I do always wonder what would have happened had Turnbull prevailed and the ETS got through.
Hell no. They should suffer.
Shouldn't the primary function of corrections facilities be rehabilitation?
At the expense of our tax dollars, no way, let them take the option if made available.
Not for murdererers.
You take a life, you should be essentially a slave imo. I dont really care what happens to you. And not the 'oh I saw him raping my wife' sort of murder, I mean the terrible premeditated stuff.
Taking a life is the ultimate crime, I dont want them rehabilitated if they knew what they were doing.
Thieves should lose a hand too I guess.
2+2=5
Apparently markot is here to answer any questions you may have
The right to life is paramount. To take it is the paramount crime.
To take it with premeditation and what nots.
You have taken all freedoms from a person, including the freedom to live. Not to mention the ripple of effects caused by the death of the person, on their family, friends... etc....
You chose to do that, the consequences should be that all your freedoms are forefeit. Why should we rehabilitate them. We cant bring the person back to life, we cant restore their freedoms. Why should they get a time out for 25 years then back on the streets?
No, it doesnt mean I want arms cut off people. I am completely for rehabilitation and non custodial sentences for non violent criminals... etc... But in a liberal society, the choice to take a life has to have repurcussions equal to the severity of the crime.
I am against the death penalty because governments make mistakes, and I dont want the government to have that sort of power. But take a life? And you should never be free to re enter society. I dont care how much time has passed, or how much you have changed. In a free country, killing someone is the ultimate crime, against freedom itself. You lose your freedoms if you decide to take that step. Permanently.
Nothing can make up for the murder of someone.
Society is about freedom to the degree that is possible when people together. You give up certain freedoms, social contract... blah blah. Murder, the ultimate cessation of the freedom to life, and all that go along with it, means you put yourself outside of society, and society should place you outside of it permanently. All your freedoms, freedoms that are granted by that society, should be lost to you, till you die.
Im all for rehabilitated people who commit most crimes. But take that Brevik nut, as an extreme example. Why is he even allowed to communicate with the outside world? Why is he even allowed human contact? Why does he have any but the most basic human rights? If it were up to me, he would be a slave essentially. He would have no personal freedom at all. He would simply live to complete tasks beneficial to society, and have as few freedoms of possible, until he dies. No books. No outside contact. No family visits. No internet. A slave in every sense of the word, little more then an automaton. Physical and mentally. Is it because I desire revenge? I dont think so. I just think the ultimate crime deserves a damn harsh punishment.
Society exists to protect us from each other in an extreme state of nature. All civilisations have had laws against murder, as it is the corner stone of people being able to live together.
My main argument against the death penalty is that mistakes can happen, and that I dont want a government to have that sort of power. But another part of me thinks that it is too easy on those that commit the worst of crimes. There is no hell, no eternal justice, no divine retribution. I want to see some people suffer for causing such immense suffering.
To take it with premeditation and what nots.
You have taken all freedoms from a person, including the freedom to live. Not to mention the ripple of effects caused by the death of the person, on their family, friends... etc....
You chose to do that, the consequences should be that all your freedoms are forefeit. Why should we rehabilitate them. We cant bring the person back to life, we cant restore their freedoms. Why should they get a time out for 25 years then back on the streets?
No, it doesnt mean I want arms cut off people. I am completely for rehabilitation and non custodial sentences for non violent criminals... etc... But in a liberal society, the choice to take a life has to have repurcussions equal to the severity of the crime.
I am against the death penalty because governments make mistakes, and I dont want the government to have that sort of power. But take a life? And you should never be free to re enter society. I dont care how much time has passed, or how much you have changed. In a free country, killing someone is the ultimate crime, against freedom itself. You lose your freedoms if you decide to take that step. Permanently.
Nothing can make up for the murder of someone.
Society is about freedom to the degree that is possible when people together. You give up certain freedoms, social contract... blah blah. Murder, the ultimate cessation of the freedom to life, and all that go along with it, means you put yourself outside of society, and society should place you outside of it permanently. All your freedoms, freedoms that are granted by that society, should be lost to you, till you die.
Im all for rehabilitated people who commit most crimes. But take that Brevik nut, as an extreme example. Why is he even allowed to communicate with the outside world? Why is he even allowed human contact? Why does he have any but the most basic human rights? If it were up to me, he would be a slave essentially. He would have no personal freedom at all. He would simply live to complete tasks beneficial to society, and have as few freedoms of possible, until he dies. No books. No outside contact. No family visits. No internet. A slave in every sense of the word, little more then an automaton. Physical and mentally. Is it because I desire revenge? I dont think so. I just think the ultimate crime deserves a damn harsh punishment.
Society exists to protect us from each other in an extreme state of nature. All civilisations have had laws against murder, as it is the corner stone of people being able to live together.
My main argument against the death penalty is that mistakes can happen, and that I dont want a government to have that sort of power. But another part of me thinks that it is too easy on those that commit the worst of crimes. There is no hell, no eternal justice, no divine retribution. I want to see some people suffer for causing such immense suffering.
Where do you draw the line Markot? You're obviously ok with us going around the world bombing ISIS and inadvertently killing civilians but not ok with assisted suicide for people which are a drain on the system. I think there should be the death penalty for people like repeat paedophiles etc, I would rather them dead than them costing us huge amounts of money locked up in prison indefinitely.
Civilians die in war. More will die if we do nothing. There is a difference between killing on purpose and killing accidently. Its a pretty simple view, what's worse, inaction or action? Inaction will be far worse then action on Isis and co.
I don't care about monetary costs. That's not an issue that matters to me. Economics are not the fundamental core of life. We didn't kill the high priests so would could simply replace them with reserve bankers and economists. I don't care about the economics of prisons, that shouldn't sway you one way or the other. Some things are about more then money. We should never kill someone cause its cost efficient.
roosters93
Member
I'm having a hard time reconciling this pro-war, harsh justice side of markot with the sardonic side I'm more familiar with.
It's funny how people can view the same event so differently. You are critical of how the Greens were at the peak of their influence whereas I think that the 2010-13 was pretty darn productive in number of bills passed considering the minority government status and whatnot, so if I were to judge how the Greens wielded their "tremendous legislative power" I'd think they were relatively sparse in their wielding. You say they tabled many amendments etc, I am unaware of any significant negative effects produced, perhaps you could correct me.
It's funny how people can view the same event so differently. You are critical of how the Greens were at the peak of their influence whereas I think that the 2010-13 was pretty darn productive in number of bills passed considering the minority government status and whatnot, so if I were to judge how the Greens wielded their "tremendous legislative power" I'd think they were relatively sparse in their wielding. You say they tabled many amendments etc, I am unaware of any significant negative effects produced, perhaps you could correct me.
With the amount of civilian deaths caused by America up until this point I wonder if that's really true.
That is a huge presumption Markot. Considering ISIS is made up of largely ex Iraqie military, the current consensus is the Northern Iraq/Syria situation is driven by the West's meddling from the last Iraq war. There is the question of power and it's distribution in the region that needs to be answered before or even if we intervene. I take it you're ok fighting with Assad and the ridiculously labelled moderate extremists ie al quaeda?
The geopolitics of the region are immensely complex and difficult to gather information on. The theory 'bomb them for they are bad' is simplistic and in the long run far more likely to make things worse.
As for the economics of the situation, you know the US has spent something in the range of 2 trillion dollars on these middle Eastern wars since 2003? Is the situation better or worse? Arguable either way, but inarguably not even close to 2 trillion better.
No its not. And its not largely ex iraqi army.
I do think that the current campaign is rather half hearted. Its based on 'bomb and hope the other people on the ground get it together in time'. There should be troops on the ground. A large force that can defeat Isis and the like, and be scary enough that Assad goes for peace with the Free Syria types.
And no, there 'concensus' that the whole thing can be pinpointed to the US invasion is wrong. Its a factor, but it completely ignores all the other factors at play. I know the west is bad and all, but history exists before we enter the scene at any spot.
I do think that the current campaign is rather half hearted. Its based on 'bomb and hope the other people on the ground get it together in time'. There should be troops on the ground. A large force that can defeat Isis and the like, and be scary enough that Assad goes for peace with the Free Syria types.
And no, there 'concensus' that the whole thing can be pinpointed to the US invasion is wrong. Its a factor, but it completely ignores all the other factors at play. I know the west is bad and all, but history exists before we enter the scene at any spot.
Just last night? These days, The Smiths' entire back catalog is more uplifting than Media Watch.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked