Because I urge people to act within constitutional provisions and other legal provisions does not mean that I somehow condone the use of violence. It is because I deplore the use of violence, I urge people not to respond in kind with violence.

Because I seek to contain the spread of violence, I urge people not to take the law into their own hands.
Because I seek to contain violence, I seek government not to abuse and misuse powers to unconstitutionally apply legislation that does more harm then good.

Legislation rammed through the parliament for political reasons never can be deemed to be for the sake of the security of the nation!

Anti-Terrorist legislation that are unconstitutional are no laws at all, they are ULTRA VIRES, and provide absolutely no protection, other then to be abused by law enforcement agencies and perhaps justify their actions, if they killed an innocent person.
What is the difference for the Brazilian man being killed by 7 bullets from the police versus being killed by a terrorist?
He is still death, but he was killed by the very people who were to provide the security!

Since 1982, I have been dealing with people contemplating suicide/murder and know to well that each and everyone had their justification, so they viewed, to do what they contemplated, yet time and again, I persuaded them to look at the situation in a different light.

It is often that the abuse and misuse of powers by a government authority is what causes further problems.
This is why we must seek to combat terrorism by pursuing that government authorities at all levels act within constitutional and other legal provisions, so they do not give any incitement to revenge actions.

In 1992, there was this man who announced wanting to take over Australia, hang all lawyers/judges, etc. Now, he talks about how to change it all by seeking to become a member of parliament as to change the legislation causing so much unjust to so many.
He is prove it can be done by peaceful lawful ways.

Hamlet,
The problem in the minds of terrorists is democracy. I have written letters of protest to the Indenesian Embassy on treatment my friends were receiving at the hand of their military in West Papua. The fact is the Indonesian Government does not seriously attempt to outlaw Muslim terrorists because they pander to the Muslim population to stay in power. Islam in Indonesia overides the equality of justice for all citizens.

You say, "Democracy can work in Islamic counties, Indonesia and Iran are examples. Unfortunately, Iran's form of democracy doesn't suit the USA." Does Iran have a secular political Party or only various Islamic Parties?

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Why are both political Parties agreeing on the legislation being put at the moment? Police each day are risking their lives with gun toting criminals. I suggest you begin to take some interest in the rights of the Police to have protection from criminals, rather than bleet about one possible wrong identity being shot in London. Do you know how many police have been shot in the last 12 months in their line of duty. I imagine that does not interest you, you have more sympathies for criminals

Mr. Schorel-Hlavka,

Let me tell you what is wrong with your thinking. You in your mind build a little word and fill it with something called “people.” You make up “rules” and you apply them to “people.” In your world all “people” play by the same “rules.” In the real world, some “people” don’t follow “rules.” You “urge” this and “urge” that, which is about as much good as farting in the wind. You are very willing to give some people – criminals - the benefit of the doubt. You see evil as justified by (fill in the blanks) and as being nothing but “revenge actions.” Terrorists and criminals love people like you!

To you, the most important thing about this is not justice or even the safety of the people. It is that it makes you feel good about yourself. You are the great defender of downtrodden-down, oppressed humanity that suffers under intolerable laws. Pat yourself on the back again, or better, pin a metal to your chest.

I have seen your kind so many times before. People who yell “human rights” from the top of a pile of bloody, innocent human bodies, always ready to defend the criminal and forget the victim.

The difference between Jean Menezes (o brasileiro morto em Londres) and people killed by terrorists is so simple that it is unimaginable that anybody should ask such a stupid question. The first was a mistake and the British apologized, as compared to deliberate murder.... Duhhhhhhh The fact that you should even right such an absurd statements shows that you are morally bankrupt.

You ignored my statement. Do you think that the vile murderers of the three girls beheaded in Indonesia were really “otherwise perfect citizens”. Do you think we should “listen to them"? What manner of man are you, anyway?

Kactuz

OO hamlet, you are such a little Chomsky you –you! Your, camouflage is loosing it’s effect as you so righteously put in your second last post ay, the real Hamlet’s View of the world not the Touchy feely Humane rights view as you so espouse before and after.

Kactuz

Despite 96 of my family members having been executed during WWII by the Germans, I decided in 1967 to go and find out why Germans did what they did during the war.
My family were generally full of hatred towards them, I learned that to try to understand why it was done was far better. Nothing could bring back to life those murdered, but by trying to understand why was it being done, perhaps in future I might be able to avoid others to do likewise.

Seeking revenge is not what is going to resolve anything. We have the Courts to deal with matters in an appropriate manner.
The STAR CHAMBERS COURT system was outlawed precisely as to avoid people to be convicted without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

To deal with criminals in a proper manner we must have legislators who are willing to allow a proper debates about what legislation they propose and to ensure that the legislation will have the proper effect.
I for one cannot see how legislation that will basically be a licence to SHOOT TO KILL can make it safer for the general community!

If there is a real situation of some so called “terrorist” I rather would just use the term “criminal” having a bomb and is about to detonate this, then more likely a policy of SHOOT TO KILL may spur the person to detonate the bomb, whereas if a negotiator was enlisted more likely there is a possibility to avoid any killing.
After all, a SHOOT TO KILL strategy could be an on the spot killing and so a bombing where the bomber is in the midst of numerous other people, while a policy to negotiate would enable the are to be cleared of innocent bystanders.
This is just one of numerous examples that we must act appropriate, if anything to try to minimize the death of innocent bystanders.
Detaining people who may have done no more put happening to be on their way to work for 2 weeks or more in secrecy is not going to make us any safer!

Gerit - your posts are always erudite, however, I believe your wise words are lost on the likes of Kactuz, but don't let the inhumanists deter you. I read all of your posts but I don't even bother with any posts that incite hatred (when I see certain monikers I just don't bother). Fact is posting racist/bigoted or derisory posts are a waste of their authors' time as any discerning person will simply skim over their rants.

Peace