The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Haneef: another blow for civil liberties? > Comments

Haneef: another blow for civil liberties? : Comments

By Ellen Goodman, published 31/8/2007

The Haneef case was an unscrupulous use of a matter involving a person’s personal liberty for propaganda purposes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Fundamentalism through centeralised power making is unfortunately a dangerous reproduction of political history being repeated.

As we experience one revolution it is time for another no matter how converative you are.

To pick up from Foxydude. A sure way to help resolve abuse is for two things to happen;

1. An Australian Bill of Rights NOW?

2. A bill of government that would restrict the making of a persons government to certain areas of leadership pro-action.

Under Howard we are experiencing a systmatic centralisation of Power and for a "liberal" he is worse than his opposite; the "thumb-nailed" classic socialist .

Australia is at a turning point and must consider its own civic national terms of identity. I agree that we ought to talk directly to Canberra concerning the known danger signals on the 'demise of centeralisation and the accumulation of power'.

Is this something to learn by living in Australian as part of our history for 2007 .

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 1 September 2007 1:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David asks why I said his post on another thread was unethical. (Why doesn’t he ask me on that thread?) Here goes:

1. He deliberately tried to distract attention away from child sexual abuse by the clergy.
2. He deliberately misrepresented the author by falsely claiming that she suggested child sexual abuse was just a ‘Church’ problem.
3. Without warrant, he accused the author of being deliberately and maliciously 'anti God'.
4. He falsely accused the author of not caring about the victims of child abuse.
5. He falsely accused the author of deliberately attacking the clergy so that some ideology (David mentioned Marxism) could be given an advantage.

Finally, I noted that David himself showed no concern for children who were sexually abused (whether by clergy or anyone else). Nor did he offer any insights as to why so many clergy sexually abused children, what that meant to the children and why the churches so often defended their employees instead of the children.

I expect no reply from David.

Now to his contribution to this thread.

I examined the material David linked us to. I saw and heard some apparent rantings by apparent extremists (my Arabic is non-existent and I don’t trust the translations). But I found no connection to the Haneef case.

I don’t accept that these rantings represent “…a theme coming from all quarters”. Most Muslims reject such twaddle.

I find David's claim that, “The biggest danger to our security is not any Islamic threat in itself, but a stupid and naive clinging to the outmoded idea of human rights in a time of actual war (i.e. now)” to be conceptually vacuous, self-contradictory and antithetical to democracy.

The allegation that the conduct of Greg Barns, Rob Starry and company at the committal hearing for the 13 Melbourne terrorism suspects, “is tantamount to treachery” is a claim without substance or merit. Indeed, the claim is extremist and authoritarian (if taken seriously).

To paraphrase a great American leader, people like David who are so willing to trade off democratic rights in the name of security don’t deserve either.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 1 September 2007 2:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bill of rights will remove more power from 'the people' than it will give.
Most of us view the Justice of this country with less than a complimentary eye. Giving it more power would be quite stupid.
The "children overboard" is still waved when the bleating hearts have nothing more substantial to wave. There WERE children in the water when one of the people smuggler's boats was mysteriously sinking.
The "Tampa" was hijacked by the "refugees" threatening to throw themselves[and the women and kids] overboard.
Come on you ideologically twisted lot, think up something NEW, the old ,old silliness is so damned tedious.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 1 September 2007 3:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Frank....well I do appreciate your passion here.. I know ur alive :)

On the Clergy thread, I didn't 'claim' Amanda was a Marxist, I raised it as a question. I then developed that idea a bit further.

On this one, you claim 'Most' Muslims reject the rants of wingding extremists, well.. I didn't see too many in the various audiences who looks unreceptive to those rants.. surely if you are honest, you must agree.
The only major difference is...'context'.. country.. those rants are indicative of how some Muslims in POWER will act.. Now..the one who said in ENGLISH 'We will Rule UK' etc.. should have been plain enough. You don't trust the translations of the others ? Well, I understand enough Arabic (because of it forming many Malay words) to agree with the translation. "Death to Israel" is easy. "maut"=death.

Don't you recall the Shiite Sheikh in Australia recently claiming ALL OF US support Hezbollah ? Is that not 'most' ?

You are right about the willingness to forgo civil liberties being a potential problem....its as much of a problem as having too many. Striking the balance is indeed an art.

How do you feel about the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Vic ?
That is FAR more pernicious than any others I know of.

Frank...if you have a chance to view "Obsession: the rise of Radical Islam" I recommend it. You could find most of it on youtube broken up into 1 of n mini video's.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 1 September 2007 5:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ellen Goodman's final paragraph very accurately describes the modus operandii of the Howard Government. This scare tactic becoming so brazen and overused that thankfully very many Australians are now far more cynical and questioning of their 'truth'.

It is refreshing, and it is democratic to do so. I remain mystified by those who automatically accept the Government spin on the basis of, 'if the Government says it, it must be right'.

Dr Haneef's case is a classic example of the abandonment of human rights, justice, and plain common decency under the guise of terrorism control.

I look to the Howard Regime and its unholy alliances to pinpoint the root cause of this era of mistrust, xenophobia, and paranoia.
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 2 September 2007 2:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sry, ginx, you're the root cause. you and every ozzie who lets parliament rule you by divine right. find out what democracy means, and stop using the word in reference to oz.
Posted by DEMOS, Sunday, 2 September 2007 8:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy