Australia starts to grow a set, every western country should man up as well

[mon]

I rescind my posts, having suddenly grown a pair.

Touche. Nice touch with the humour

 

[mon]

Didn't know that. It's a shame.

Yeah I agree, it's a damn shame. When it's a truly horrific crime and there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt a bullet should be the answer. Ask for volunteers and you wouldn't even need to pay an 80k salary for the shooters.

Inmates in Australia cost $292 per day per inmate according to sbs, thought It would be higher but I'm on the phone so can't dig any deeper. Still $3000 approx every 10 days for a complete pos to continue to live when they chose to forfeit the right.... It's a damn shame alright.

 

[mon]

Yes, I think the majority of the '96 legislation was knee-jerk nonsense. Especially the restriction on pump-action shotguns, while continuing to allow pump-action rifles and lever action shotguns without restriction.
Ignorant and ineffective nonsense.

The ASIO legislation was also a knee-jerk attack on civil rights. Unfortunately without a legislative or constitutional bill of rights, our civil rights are extremely vulnerable. The state legislation attacking civil rights through controls orders as "bikie laws" in imitation of our "anti-terrorism" laws are a prime example. While we imitated the UK with their control orders, we haven't imitated their reevaluation of the laws effectiveness (they repealed them as overreaching in regards to their bill of rights).

The sheer number of anti-terror laws introduced (one every couple of months since 9/11) is a pants pissing, over reaction to the actual threat we've faced. We need effective legislation, not political theater catering to the loud bleating of ignorant sheep (in MP offices or otherwise).
The exact opposite of "growing a pair".

Not a bad response, disagree about the bikie laws and anti terror though as its better to be early than late and as a gun owner your response wasn't that unexpected.

The outlaw motorcycle gangs are the major distribution networks of almost all our illegal drugs and firearms. Do we need to see more flareup where gang members start more brawls and shootings? We've been lucky so far in that there has been very little collateral damage, I'd rather the government allowed to encroach a little on my civil liberties than one day some kid killed by a stray shot. For me an ounce of prevention is worth a pond of cure and it's too late after the fact.

At least the bikies understand Australian values and individually generally aren't bad blokes. The people leaving Australia to potentially kill our soldiers, woman and children or innocents for the reasons they do aren't Australian and shouldn't be in this country. If/when we have the next attack I'm sure you'll have no problems telling the victims and their families that our anti terrorism laws are draconian and encroach on your civil liberties. If I lost a daughter and some said that to my face I'd lose it, would you?

 

[Ruprecht]

Not a bad response, disagree about the bikie laws and anti terror though as its better to be early than late and as a gun owner your response wasn't that unexpected.

The outlaw motorcycle gangs are the major distribution networks of almost all our illegal drugs and firearms. Do we need to see more flareup where gang members start more brawls and shootings? We've been lucky so far in that there has been very little collateral damage, I'd rather the government allowed to encroach a little on my civil liberties than one day some kid killed by a stray shot. For me an once of prevention is worth a pond of cure and it's too late after the fact.

At least the bikies understand Australian values individually generally aren't bad blokes. The people leaving Australia to potentially kill our soldiers, woman and children or innocents for the reasons they do aren't Australian and shouldn't be in this country. If/when we have the next attack I'm sure you'll have no problems telling the victims and their families that our anti terrorism laws are draconian and encroach on your civil liberties. If I lost a daughter and some said that to my face I'd lose it, would you?

Yes, same as I'd say it to anyone that wanted to ban motorcycles or institute draconian drug laws as a "life saving" preventative measure.
That's the exact opposite of "growing a set" as far as I'm concerned.
If you want a hyper-regulated, authoritarian nanny state, move to Singapore.

Anyone that has even basic firearm knowledge can tell you how pointless it is to severely restrict pump action shotguns, but not rifles or lever/bolt action shotguns. Even purely from a "movie aesthetics" point of view on gun control.

Plenty of bikies are simply criminal scum. Especially the "nike bikies". That doesn't mean I'll accept laws which allow mandatory detention and remove freedom of association with that as justification.

 

[MilesAbove]

Just another fantastic example of a zealous gun advocate incapable of hiding the fact he processes guns as genitals. Well done, OP.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Your ancestors were thieves.

Lol... yours were perfect?

You go to far with this troll.

 

[mon]

Yes, same as I'd say it to anyone that wanted to ban motorcycles or institute draconian drug laws as a "life saving" preventative measure.
That's the exact opposite of "growing a set" as far as I'm concerned.
If you want a hyper-legislative, authoritarian nanny state, move to Singapore.

Thought you'd say that, next time we have a murderous terrorist attack you and I should meet than we'll go directly to the families and we'll see. I'll pay the airfares, accommodation and will sign a guarantee that your identity will remain absolutely anonymous. I ask that we video it but you can edit your face and voice out but I can use it in any manner I like that cannot ever identify you.

Deal?

 

[mon]

Just another fantastic example of a zealous gun advocate incapable of hiding the fact he processes guns as genitals. Well done, OP.

? I don't own a gun. I recommend grade 3 English comprehension

 

[mon]

Lol... yours were perfect?

You go to far with this troll.

Asked him 2-3 times where he was from, nothing. He pissed of quicker than a miser on his shout.

 

[MilesAbove]

? I don't own a gun. I recommend grade 3 English comprehension

lol, i posted in the wrong thread. egg firmly planted on my face... but worth the lulz of my confusion.

 

[mon]

lol, i posted in the wrong thread. egg firmly planted on my face... but worth the lulz of my confusion.

Lol fair enough, worse things happen in bed. Take it easy.

 

[Ruprecht]

Thought you'd say that, next time we have a murderous terrorist attack you and I should meet than we'll go directly to the families and we'll see. I'll pay the airfares, accommodation and will sign a guarantee that your identity will remain absolutely anonymous. I ask that we video it but you can edit your face and voice out but I can use it in any manner I like that cannot ever identify you.

Deal?

Sure, but only if the family is publicly advocating more knee-jerk anti-terror legisalation and agrees before hand. I'm not the sort of snivelling lowlife scum bag that would harass a bereaved family to score a point on the internet...



(A 20 minute video, but it touches on all the issues of Australia's approach to anti-Terror legislation. Although it still doesn't go into detail on the "Sunset clauses" and reviews that happened without effect, or the explicitly known cases of "legislate first, fix the legislation later".)

 

[mon]

Sure, but only if the family agrees before hand. I'm not the sort of snivelling lowlife scum bag that would harass a bereaved family to score a point on the internet...

I agree 100% and once it's explained I doubt very much they'll say no as it will help ensure it doesn't happen again. Either way if they don't I'll pay accommodation, flights food, we can video the message you can edit anything that may distinguish you. My identity remains anonymous as yours.

As for the implication, I couldn't give 2 shits about sherdog, you, my pride or the internet. I care for Australia and the direction it's taking.

 

[mon]

Sure, but only if the family is publicly advocating more knee-jerk anti-terror legisalation and agrees before hand. I'm not the sort of snivelling lowlife scum bag that would harass a bereaved family to score a point on the internet...



(A 20 minute video, but it touches on all the issues of Australia's approach to anti-Terror legislation. Although it still doesn't go into detail on the "Sunset clauses" and reviews that happened without effect, or the explicitly known cases of "legislate first, fix the legislation later".)

Been too busy to watch until now, he waffles on without saying much at all. At around 4 mins he states that these short term measure are still in place (yet temporary would be a far better description as they are in place to ensure it doesn't happen again). He also plainly states he's not saying we don't need the anti terror laws, to me he's highlighting caution is needed.

He gives no links to any of his sources stating that some laws internationally have proven to ineffective, there is no mention what the laws are or if they are even remotely similar let alone the countries circumstances.

At 7.15 he states the information the government is giving out isn't perfect, that's life and in a perfect world this wouldn't be necessary in any why. Broad encompassing information is be very definition unspecific and it is ridiculous to ask otherwise unless you are know the future. He finishes by stating that "no doubt, very clearly there is still a threat"

7.20 Australias response to September 11 was to make up time in an extraordinary way. Well just as well our government did as from that time to now we have had seven of the 8 terrorist attacks/attempts over the timeframe I highlighted further in this post.

He than states that we have passed more anti terror laws than any comparable country(this does not mean any country just what he deems to be comparable.

Perhaps if all the other countries had also enacted 66 new laws since than sep 11 some of the reading on this link wouldn't be so grim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks . I have noted that Australia isn't mentioned very often which should be quite odd as we live in close proximity to a lot of the Asian hot beds. It makes for some sad and sorry reading but I guess to some people its just a statistic.

830 I can't believe you posted this and expected to be taken seriously. Hes implying that when there is a terror attack anywhere in the world that our immediate response to ensure it doesn't happen here as well is over board. Doing so is the very definition of learning from other peoples mistakes and this bloke is a joke. Lets put it this way, you're a politician and there is a terror attack at an airport and a flaw was found to be the cause you wouldn't try and fix it asap?

912 That not one of these 66 measures was apposed by the opposition indicates to me that they are needed. He gives the only instance ever that I have heard of where both parties agree 100%. Instead of thinking that you're smarter than everyone else and its either dumb sheep or a conspiracy maybe they have access to more information or are better informed.

I have wasted this life watching this shit, next time at least put some effort in and timestamp the relevant parts you believe are worth noting or that highlights or proves your point. I have politicians to see and things to do without wasting my time on someone that just talks but says nothing, its almost like he's too scared to put his name to something specific or be willing to take responsibility for what he says.




Between 1972 and and July 2001 we had 8 terrorist attacks over the 29 years. From the next terrorist attack in 2009 we have had 8 attacks or planned attacks in 8 years. This increase indicates that the continued ramping up of the anti terror measures since 2001 are justifiable, ratified(to me) and needed. In fact we have direct evidence to show this in the Holsworthy attempt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot
We all failed Kai(Nick) Hao as one of the men acquitted in 2009 went on to kill a Nick and shoot three police officers in the Brighton siege and if the measure I'm suggesting was implemented at the time this pos would never have been allowed back into Australia.

In April 2009, he travelled back to Somalia, where he is alleged to have undertaken military training with the militant Islamist group Al-Shabaab, with a view to participating in Somali insurgency against that country's government.[12][13] Whilst in Somalia, he successfully sought from a sheikh a fatwa, a religious order, that police alleged was to authorise a terrorist attack in Australia.[13] After he returned to Australia in July 2009, he was charged, along with others, with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack on the Holsworthy Army Barracks. At his trial, his lawyer argued that the fatwa was to do with fraud and obtaining money to support Al-Shabaab in Somalia.[14] He was acquitted in December 2010 having spent 16 months in prison on remand.[14][11]

He continued committed criminal offences and in 2011 returned to prison including for possession of a firearm.[11] In 2012, he committed a home invasion for which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and was released on parole in December 2016 (he set two fires whilst in prison).[11][1][4][15]


This is why I have a hard time respecting anyone that has the gall to state what you did. You have no problems basically telling a victim of this POS their deceased loved one is acceptable losses your your political views. If Yacqub Khayre(29) had been refused re-entry into Australia Nick would be alive, no question about it. That he had lived in Australia since he was 3 is irrelevant and obviously he was able to feed himself as he learnt his trade overseas so there is no bleeding heart "how will he live" better that he die elsewhere in almost any manner other than in the manner he did. I would have no problems what so ever agreeing that this Australian citizen wasn't Australian and is never to be allowed back into the country.

You'll notice I'm using Nicks name, he was a person not an acceptable statistic in your crusade. Show a little respect, I don't need to know him to feel his families pain. I envy people like what you appear to be as little touches you.

Next time you want to educate me please use some effort, this is twice I've wasted time refuting some crap and it pisses me off that I just wasted my life watching as much as I did to hear nothing. Reminds me of your moderate Islamic poster child the Victorian Islamic society and the bullshit they were pulling demanding more money and refusing to take part of any de radicalisation initiative of the government. If you want to me to take you seriously put some bloody effort in at least.

 

[Ruprecht]

Been too busy to watch until now, he waffles on without saying much at all. At around 4 mins he states that these short term measure are still in place (yet temporary would be a far better description as they are in place to ensure it doesn't happen again). He also plainly states he's not saying we don't need the anti terror laws, to me he's highlighting caution is needed.

Few people are saying we don't need any anti-terror laws. The point is that we've enacted a ridiculous number, without regard for civil liberties, relying on the judgement of the security forces and politicians as to where and how they will be used.
In each case they've been pushed through extremely quickly, with little political or legal review, and the subsequent reviews (where mandated by sunset clauses etc) largely haven't been acted on.

He gives no links to any of his sources stating that some laws internationally have proven to ineffective, there is no mention what the laws are or if they are even remotely similar let alone the countries circumstances.

It's a lot of material (this review is older but thoroughly sourced), but you should look at the UK (whose control order regime we imitated) and their reform and repeal of the earlier anti-terror laws they instituted (again, which we've imitated but haven't repealed or reformed).

At 7.15 he states the information the government is giving out isn't perfect, that's life and in a perfect world this wouldn't be necessary in any why. Broad encompassing information is be very definition unspecific and it is ridiculous to ask otherwise unless you are know the future. He finishes by stating that "no doubt, very clearly there is still a threat"

He's making a point about how the general public is clamouring for politicians to do something, the forefront of the political response is making new laws, but the public are essentially uninformed about the threat or the law (which he follows up with the survey of how many Australians mistakenly believe we have a bill of rights, around 61%, and the number he encountered who seem to believe the American 5th amendment applies to Australia).

7.20 Australias response to September 11 was to make up time in an extraordinary way. Well just as well our government did as from that time to now we have had seven o the terrorist attacks/attempts over the timeframe I highlighted further in the thread.

There's clearly a threat, however the pressure for a political response comes as a response to global media coverage rather than the actual level of threat we face or it's significance as a public safety issue (even by the government's remarkably uninformative "medium" threat level indication).

He than states that we have passed more anti terror laws than any comparable country(this does not mean any country just what he deems to be comparable.

He means western democracies. America, Canada, The UK, France, Germany... oh and Israel.
Not just more laws, but much broader legal power.

Perhaps if all the other countries had also enacted 66 new laws since than sep 11 some of the reading on this link wouldn't be so grim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks . I have noted that Australia isn't mentioned very often which should be quite odd as we live in close proximity to a lot of the Asian hot beds. It makes for some sad and sorry reading but I guess to some people its just a statistic.

Maybe the actual content of those laws and it's effectiveness should be looked at, rather than just pissing your pants and saying "more laws!", "more authoritarianism!".

830 I can't believe you posted this and expected to be taken seriously. Hes implying that when there is a terror attack anywhere in the world that our immediate response to ensure it doesn't happen here as well is over board. Doing so is the very definition of learning from other peoples mistakes and this bloke is a joke. Lets put it this way, you're a politician and there is a terror attack at an airport and a flaw was found to be the cause you wouldn't try and fix it asap?

I can't believe you'd have the vaguest clue about the laws we've actually enacted, the reviews of those laws, and the conditions under which they were passed and think that it was worthwhile and effective.
Oh wait, you don't seem to have the vaguest clue about any of that...

912 That not one of these 66 measures was apposed by the opposition indicates to me that they are needed. He gives the only instance ever that I have heard of where both parties agree 100%. Instead of thinking that you're smarter than everyone else and its either dumb sheep or a conspiracy maybe they have access to more information or are better informed.

They agreed before reading it. Yes, that's clearly a sure sign of proper analysis.

I have wasted this life watching this shit, next time at least put some effort in and timestamp the relevant parts you believe are worth noting or that highlights or prove your point. I have politicians to see and things to do without wasting my time on someone that just talks but says nothing, its almost like he's too scared to put his name to something specific or be willing to take responsibility for what he says.

Uhuh. You seem to have missed everything he pointed out about the ridiculousness of the laws we've gotten.
Control orders.
Laws against a "thing" (undefined) related to terrorism.
Laws which technically criminalise the ANU for giving Nelson Mandela an honorary degree.
Laws which criminalise going to certain areas or countries, regardless of reason.
Laws allowing for the mandatory detention of people not even suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Laws coercing response to security agency questioning (sorry, no "pleading the 5th" in Australia).
Laws exempting the security agencies from following the law, and allowing journalists to be imprisoned for reporting on any such actions.
Preventative detention orders
Sedition laws.
Laws mandating the collection and recording of metadata.
Laws making material illegal "because it might influence a mentally ill person to perform a terrorist act". Specifically... they can censor material because of the effect it might have on the mentally ill.

Between 1972 and and July 2001 we had 8 terrorist attacks over the 29 years. From the next terrorist attack in 2009 we have had 8 attacks or planned attacks in 8 years. This increase indicates that the continued ramping up of the anti terror measures since 2001 are justifiable, ratified(to me) and needed. In fact we have direct evidence to show this in the Holsworthy attempt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot
We all failed Kai(Nick) Hao as one of the men acquitted in 2009 went on to kill a Nick and shoot three police officers in the Brighton siege and if the measure I'm suggesting was implemented at the time this pos would never have been allowed back into Australia.

In April 2009, he travelled back to Somalia, where he is alleged to have undertaken military training with the militant Islamist group Al-Shabaab, with a view to participating in Somali insurgency against that country's government.[12][13] Whilst in Somalia, he successfully sought from a sheikh a fatwa, a religious order, that police alleged was to authorise a terrorist attack in Australia.[13] After he returned to Australia in July 2009, he was charged, along with others, with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack on the Holsworthy Army Barracks. At his trial, his lawyer argued that the fatwa was to do with fraud and obtaining money to support Al-Shabaab in Somalia.[14] He was acquitted in December 2010 having spent 16 months in prison on remand.[14][11]

He continued committed criminal offences and in 2011 returned to prison including for possession of a firearm.[11] In 2012, he committed a home invasion for which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and was released on parole in December 2016 (he set two fires whilst in prison).[11][1][4][15]


This is why I have a hard time respecting anyone that has the gall to state what you did. You have no problems basically telling a victim of this POS their deceased loved one is acceptable losses your your political views. If Yacqub Khayre(29) had been refused re-entry into Australia Nick would be alive, no question about it. That he had lived in Australia since he was 3 is irrelevant and obviously he was able to feed himself as he learnt his trade overseas so there is no bleeding heart "how will he live" better that he die elsewhere in almost any manner other than in the manner he did. I would have no problems what so ever agreeing that this Australian citizen wasn't Australian and is never to be allowed back into the country.

You'll notice I'm using Nicks name, he was a person not an acceptable statistic in your crusade. Show a little respect, I don't need to know him to feel his families pain. I even people like what you appear to be as little touches you.

Next time you want to educate me please use some effort, this is twice I've wasted time refuting some crap and it pisses me off that I just wasted my life watching as much as I did to hear nothing. Reminds me of your moderate Islamic poster child the Victorian Islamic society and the bullshit they were pulling demanding more money and refusing to take part of any de radicalisation initiative of the government. If you want to me to take you seriously put some bloody effort in at least.

Yes. You're trying to make an emotional argument without actually looking at the laws. It says it all.
Try reading the COAG and INSLM reports (there's 6 now, although I've only read the first 3), and then realise that despite those reviews being mandated, the critiques and changes they detail weren't acted on.

 

[mon]

Few people are saying we don't need any anti-terror laws. The point is that we've enacted a ridiculous number, without regard for civil liberties, relying on the judgement of the security forces and politicians as to where and how they will be used.
In each case they've been pushed through extremely quickly, with little political or legal review, and the subsequent reviews (where mandated by sunset clauses etc) largely haven't been acted on.

Out of curiosity who exactly are the people who's judgement we are supposed to be relying on. Blokes like this that say nothing but implications that feed the irrational fears of ct people such as yourself until they're pissing themselves in fear(your words after all)
I have nothing to hide and I don't feel any of these laws are to out of hand that I will be fighting against them.

It's a lot of material (this review is older but thoroughly sourced), but you should look at the UK (whose control order regime we imitated) and their reform and repeal of the earlier anti-terror laws they instituted (again, which we've imitated but haven't repealed or reformed).

Out of curiosity do you realise that the UK has been the victim of some horrific terror attacks and it sould be argued that they obviously shouldn't have repealed any of the reforms. Personally I believe your argument makes my point for me.

He's making a point about how the general public is clamouring for politicians to do something, the forefront of the political response is making new laws, but the public are essentially uninformed about the threat or the law (which he follows up with the survey of how many Australians mistakenly believe we have a bill of rights, around 61%, and the number he encountered who seem to believe the American 5th amendment applies to Australia).

This is why we have elected officials in a democracy. It is our elected officials how job as to make decisions on our behalf and the public clamouring for our representatives to do their jobs is both normal and a healthy sign of democracy. That people aren't up in arms and making waves is a good indication that they like me support the introduced measures.

So you're saying that people assume things or have opinions of subjects they aren't qualified to have opinions on? Seems a bit arrogant perspective to me. Until I see how this was put to the people I'll have no opinion on it as its easy to lead people with miss presented information and questions.
I could definitely say the same about you, later you are assuming that decisions and thinking is done without emotion, this is categorically false and any one in advertising or psychology can tell you that every single decision we make is prompted by emotion.

There's clearly a threat, however the pressure for a political response comes as a response to global media coverage rather than the actual level of threat we face or it's significance as a public safety issue (even by the government's remarkably uninformative "medium" threat level indication).

They are elected officials not communist state leaders. There position is to represent their electorate and to act on our behalf, why we are clamouring for fast, decisive action and they give it to us I feel they are doing there job. Actual level of threat is a combination of potential vs likelihood just like any workplace take 5, the scale is different but the principle remains the same. Neither one of us has any of the ASIO security information our elected officials have and we shouldn't either as it would render it worthless. We elect these people to make decisions with information we can't have, no good I trust you to do this but we didn't mean that. Its not perfect but a damn sight better than communism.

My point is you are talking shit. You and I have absolutely no idea what threats, potential red flags Asio has on file or the likelihood of it happening. The difference between us is until shown they don't deserve my faith I trust they will do the best they can in the best interests of our country, you on the other hand are pissing your pants like you're worried they'll get what's on your hard drive. I don't like losing any civil liberties and when the first gun laws came in after Port Author I was adamantly against them, I am willing to relinquish some of them to ensure our children are a bit safer. When it becomes otherwise I will be hitting the footpaths and kicking up a storm as I am on this.

He means western democracies. America, Canada, The UK, France, Germany... oh and Israel.
Not just more laws, but much broader legal power.

Are you assuming again? As I said if you want to continue conversing with me I'd appreciate a little effort with links as all I saw until I turned it off in disgust was waffle, conjecture and implied fears. Remember you're dealing with average people with average attention spans. Please supply times within the video that supports what you're saying.

Maybe the actual content of those laws and it's effectiveness should be looked at, rather than just pissing your pants and saying "more laws!", "more authoritarianism!".

I'm hardly pissing my pants, between the two of us you seem to be the one wetting themselves. I have nothing to hide from the Australian government, I'm hardly an angel and there's not much I haven't tried drug wise. I don't lie to myself though and if I'm caught I take it on the chin as I know when I'm breaking an agreement I have with society.


The rest I'll reply to another time as I had a glitch and lost the rest of what I wrote and time is precious and I'm not writing it all again now.

 

[Ruprecht]

Out of curiosity who exactly are the people who's judgement we are supposed to be relying on. Blokes like this that say nothing but implications that feed the irrational fears of ct people such as yourself until they're pissing themselves in fear(your words after all)
I have nothing to hide and I don't feel any of these laws are to out of hand that I will be fighting against them.

For a start, the Australian Law Reform Commission. The qualified individuals whose job it is.
That's how checks and balances are supposed to work . It's bad enough that we have so few of them, let alone when those that exist are ignored.

Out of curiosity do you realise that the UK has been the victim of some horrific terror attacks and it sould be argued that they obviously shouldn't have repealed any of the reforms. Personally I believe your argument makes my point for me.

That's because you didn't actually follow the link, look at the problems faced, the review and the repeal. As typical of your approach to information.

This is why we have elected officials in a democracy. It is our elected officials how job as to make decisions on our behalf and the public clamouring for our representatives to do their jobs is both normal and a healthy sign of democracy. That people aren't up in arms and making waves is a good indication that they like me support the introduced measures.

Actually it just means that you aren't paying attention. As usual apparently. There was plenty of outcry about the laws. That's why they tried to fob it off with sunset clauses and promised reviews. Except the reviews happened and were barely heeded at all.

So you're saying that people assume things or have opinions of subjects they aren't qualified to have opinions on? Seems a bit arrogant perspective to me. Until I see how this was put to the people I'll have no opinion on it as its easy to lead people with miss presented information and questions.
I could definitely say the same about you, later you are assuming that decisions and thinking is done without emotion, this is categorically false and any one in advertising or psychology can tell you that every single decision we make is prompted by emotion.

Well it's pretty obvious that you formed an opinion without reading any of the legislation or the reviews or seeking to inform yourself about them, so yes I see a lot of emotion and very little pragmatism in approaching effectiveness. Culminating in legislators promising to pass bills they haven't read. Typical of this sort of legislation.
I'm saying people have the expected emotional response to upsetting events and media coverage and essentially cave in to terrorism.

They are elected officials not communist state leaders. There position is to represent their electorate and to act on our behalf, why we are clamouring for fast, decisive action and they give it to us I feel they are doing there job. Actual level of threat is a combination of potential vs likelihood just like any workplace take 5, the scale is different but the principle remains the same. Neither one of us has any of the ASIO security information our elected officials have and we shouldn't either as it would render it worthless. We elect these people to make decisions with information we can't have, no good I trust you to do this but we didn't mean that. Its not perfect but a damn sight better than communism.

What's communism got to do with it? Totalitarianism? The fact that you're perfectly happy relinquishing legal protection to authority because you're scared and emotional?

My point is you are talking shit. You and I have absolutely no idea what threats, potential red flags Asio has on file or the likelihood of it happening. The difference between us is until shown they don't deserve my faith I trust they will do the best they can in the best interests of our country, you on the other hand are pissing your pants like you're worried they'll get what's on your hard drive. I don't like losing any civil liberties and when the first gun laws came in after Port Author I was adamantly against them, I am willing to relinquish some of them to ensure our children are a bit safer. When it becomes otherwise I will be hitting the footpaths and kicking up a storm as I am on this.

I haven't made any claim to have inside knowledge of the threat of terrorism. The fact that Australia faces a lower level of threat compared to other Western Counterparts is the information from the Government and security agencies, which is borne out by the history of attacks.
Pissing my pants? No, I don't like losing the privacy and legal protections we enjoyed prior to the existence of the anti-terror legislation, much as I don't appreciate losing the choice of firearms ownership to ineffective laws pushed through by ignorant, emotional masses who aren't effected.
...and apparently your concern for civil liberties doesn't even extend to actually reading the legislation you want passed or the reviews that take place after it was passed. As long as it's only the Muslims and Bikies and sports shooters right? Who cares?

Are you assuming again? As I said if you want to continue conversing with me I'd appreciate a little effort with links as all I saw until I turned it off in disgust was waffle, conjecture and implied fears. Remember you're dealing with average people with average attention spans. Please supply times within the video that supports what you're saying.

I provided the links to his report. You clearly didn't even bother to read it. You've provided nothing but your emotional comments.

I'm hardly pissing my pants, between the two of us you seem to be the one wetting themselves. I have nothing to hide from the Australian government, I'm hardly an angel and there's not much I haven't tried drug wise. I don't lie to myself though and if I'm caught I take it on the chin as I know when I'm breaking an agreement I have with society.

You clearly are pissing your pants. You're the one ready to give up civil liberties based on nothing but the media coverage of terrorism. Your use of drugs is hardly surprising.

The rest I'll reply to another time as I had a glitch and lost the rest of what I wrote and time is precious and I'm not writing it all again now.

Sure...

 

[fartJokes]

Let them return. Then round them up, convict, and execute them for war crimes, just like Nazis.

 

[mon]

Few people are saying we don't need any anti-terror laws. The point is that we've enacted a ridiculous number, without regard for civil liberties, relying on the judgement of the security forces and politicians as to where and how they will be used.
In each case they've been pushed through extremely quickly, with little political or legal review, and the subsequent reviews (where mandated by sunset clauses etc) largely haven't been acted on.



It's a lot of material (this review is older but thoroughly sourced), but you should look at the UK (whose control order regime we imitated) and their reform and repeal of the earlier anti-terror laws they instituted (again, which we've imitated but haven't repealed or reformed).



He's making a point about how the general public is clamouring for politicians to do something, the forefront of the political response is making new laws, but the public are essentially uninformed about the threat or the law (which he follows up with the survey of how many Australians mistakenly believe we have a bill of rights, around 61%, and the number he encountered who seem to believe the American 5th amendment applies to Australia).



There's clearly a threat, however the pressure for a political response comes as a response to global media coverage rather than the actual level of threat we face or it's significance as a public safety issue (even by the government's remarkably uninformative "medium" threat level indication).



He means western democracies. America, Canada, The UK, France, Germany... oh and Israel.
Not just more laws, but much broader legal power.



Maybe the actual content of those laws and it's effectiveness should be looked at, rather than just pissing your pants and saying "more laws!", "more authoritarianism!".



I can't believe you'd have the vaguest clue about the laws we've actually enacted, the reviews of those laws, and the conditions under which they were passed and think that it was worthwhile and effective.
Oh wait, you don't seem to have the vaguest clue about any of that...



They agreed before reading it. Yes, that's clearly a sure sign of proper analysis.



Uhuh. You seem to have missed everything he pointed out about the ridiculousness of the laws we've gotten.
Control orders.
Laws against a "thing" (undefined) related to terrorism.
Laws which technically criminalise the ANU for giving Nelson Mandela an honorary degree.
Laws which criminalise going to certain areas or countries, regardless of reason.
Laws allowing for the mandatory detention of people not even suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Laws coercing response to security agency questioning (sorry, no "pleading the 5th" in Australia).
Laws exempting the security agencies from following the law, and allowing journalists to be imprisoned for reporting on any such actions.
Preventative detention orders
Sedition laws.
Laws mandating the collection and recording of metadata.
Laws making material illegal "because it might influence a mentally ill person to perform a terrorist act". Specifically... they can censor material because of the effect it might have on the mentally ill.




Yes. You're trying to make an emotional argument without actually looking at the laws. It says it all.
Try reading the COAG and INSLM reports (there's 6 now, although I've only read the first 3), and then realise that despite those reviews being mandated, the critiques and changes they detail weren't acted on.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...antiterror-laws/2005/11/05/1130823437794.html

You're not serious are you? thousands that's a joke isn't it. These estimates are always a lot higher than irl but lets say that there was 5000 not the "estimated" 2000. Isn't that 0.05 of a percent % of Sydneys population and you're saying that crap.




So let me get this straight a temporarily enacted law/s were introduced to a new threat and the threat has increased, become permanent and you have a problem with a strengthening of the effectiveness of the laws as the original laws weren't flexible or effective enough to deal with the changing threat potential?

Australia’s anti-terror laws were enacted as a response to September 11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. As such, the laws were often cast as a temporary, emergency reaction to these attacks and the possibility that such indiscriminate violence might be repeated at home. However, it is now clear that Australia’s anti-terror laws can no longer be cast as a transient, short-term legal response. This reflects the assessment of the Australian government and its agencies that terrorism remains a persistent threat to the community.


Neither should they as the risk has increased


In 2010, the Australian government reiterated that ‘[t]he threat of terrorism to Australia is real and enduring. It has become a persistent and permanent feature of Australia’s security environment.’3

With the information our government has the threat has been deemed to be continuing and as such I can see no reason for the laws to be repealed. If the risk is the same or worse the laws need to be kept, as they are added layers of protection.



In fact, before September 11, only the Northern Territory had such a law,(from 1974)
That's a hell of a long term precedence and perhaps if these laws were introduced earlier we wouldn't need the depth and number that we have now.




Could go on forever and we will obviously never agree and I don't think you get it, I support almost every law within it.
http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2015/06/why-australia-obsessed-anti-terror-laws

This week the government sought additional power – the right to revoke citizenship – apparently to tackle the very same problem.

I agree 100%, goodbye and tell your story walking.

Bipartisanship

The division of Australian politics into two main blocs prevents adequate scrutiny of anti-terror laws.

Neither side of politics wants to be accused of going soft on terror. As a result a policy of bipartisanship has emerged – but that shuts down legitimate debate.

To avoid being accused of rolling out the red carpet for terrorists opposition parties can quibble with the detail of legislation but ultimately are compelled to back the proposals.

I disagree with this assessment, labour and liberal are two cats in a sack. they will disagree on everything. That they agree indicates that the majority of both parties electorate wholeheartedly support this.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/new-anti-terrorism-laws-explained/5761516

Stage 1: The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
The first bill was introduced to parliament in July. The new laws passed parliament on September 25, 2014, and will:

• allow one warrant to cover a whole computer network, allowing ASIO officers to disrupt the operation of targeted computers and use third party computers to access targeted computers

Have no problem with this

• give ASIO officers criminal and civil immunity from prosecution under a newly defined covert "special intelligence operation" - but the Attorney-General says this will not permit torture

Disagree with the criminal but have no problems with the civil. Afterall except for high risk work non of us can be sued due to our fuck ups at work

• enable Australia's overseas spy agency ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service) to spy on Australians overseas and to cooperate with ASIO with less executive oversight

100% agree with this makes sense to have our intelligence agencies sharing information

• increase the penalty for disclosing information about a special intelligence operation to a maximum of five years imprisonment, and 10 years imprisonment if it can be proven the person intended to endanger someone or was "reckless" about whether disclosing the information would endanger someone (this provision has the potential to impact journalists)

Agree with this. I have no problems with Julian Assange's work but by the same token he shouldn't be expecting to be able to enter the US as he has broken their laws.

• open up ASIO tasks and powers to contractors and public servants seconded from other agencies and make it easier for ASIO employees to work in other parts of the public service

No problems if they have been vetted properly



Stage 2: Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill
The second stage of the Government's plan passed parliament on October 29, 2014.It had been briefly reviewed by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security – its 37 recommendations were all adopted by the Government.

Another bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment bill was also introduced to give ASIS the explicit power to share information with the Defence Force about terror suspects.

Bloody great, hopefully they're shot before they can hurt one of our soldiers

The new laws will:

• allow for a person's passport to be suspended for 14 days

Nothing unreasonable about that at all

• make it an offence to travel to or remain in a "declared area" designated as being of "terrorist activity" without a valid reason (for example humanitarian or family purposes) - but the Attorney-General says this will not reverse the onus of proof

Nothing unreasonable about this either, perfectly reasonable, sensible and just

• broaden the application of law from a "terrorism activity" to "terrorism"

Can't see a problem

• make it an offence to "advocate terrorism", including on social media, carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment

Excellent this may have ramifications for your moderate Victorian Islamic society but maybe if they actually gave a shit about limiting terrorism from within their organisation/religion they'd have nothing to worry about

• lower the threshold for authorities to be granted control orders and preventative detention orders

No problems with this without more information I couldn't give a 100% but with oversights good for them

• allow welfare payments to be cut off for people assessed as a serious threat whose passports have been cancelled

Holy shit you think 99.9999999% of the Australian population would have a problem with cutting the dole for people that are assess to be a serious risk and have had their passports cancelled. Good fuck them they can fuck off to the paradise they want to turn Australia into. Bye, on your bike and git.

• ensure a review of the Bill and related legislation is conducted by September 2017

Even giving a definite time frame this time, surely you have to be happy with this




Stage 3: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014

 

[Ruprecht]

• lower the threshold for authorities to be granted control orders and preventative detention orders

No problems with this without more information I couldn't give a 100% but with oversights good for them

Yes, you don't even know what a preventative detention order is, do you? I suppose you don't even realise that they've been roundly condemned by all the reports. Yet still they exist.

RECOMMENDATION 39: Criminal Code – Preventative Detention The Committee recommends, by majority, that the Commonwealth, State and Territory ‘preventative detention’ legislation be repealed. If any form of preventive detention were to be retained, it would require a complete restructuring of the legislation at Commonwealth and State/Territory level, a process which, in the view of the majority of the Committee, may further reduce its operational effectiveness.

https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/COAGCTReview/Final Report.PDF

Chapter III concludes the preventative detention orders are not effective, not appropriate and not necessary. They should simply be abolished.

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/INSLM_Annual_Report_20121220.pdf

So the "checks and balances" we have condemned them and reccomended they be repealed, and what did they do leglislatively? They expanded them.
...and of course you're fine with that.