The Brisbane Times, as a journal of record, is quite good at reporting the events of the day, such as the Government of the day choosing to act on advice that their proposed course of action was unconstitutional. As I said it would be shown to be.

Never mind old chap, I'm sure you're awfully good at conveyancing and serving notices to quit and that sort of thing.

My impression is that the point made earlier that the changes to the law are primarily dealing with the enemy someone may be fighting with not being a recognised state is correct - is there serious rebuttal of that point which I've missed?

The other broader part of this debate seems to resolve around the use of Australian courts to determine the guilt or otherwise of those suspected of fighting with an enemy group.

My broad position is that rules of evidence and due process should always apply and I have grave reservations when governments have the ability to circumvent those processes. Having said that I also have grave reservations about the practicality of proving to appropriate domestic standards events which occurred in a foreign war zone, where many of the witnesses will be dead and where the combatants appear to be fond of wearing face coverings. Where does that lead, aquittal through lack of evidence or lowering the burden of proof with a possible flow on to the burden of proof required in other situations?

I don't think that there is a credible case for believing that trial by jury on Australian soil to prove involvement in fighting with groups such as ISIS in the middle east is a practical way of dealing with this situation.

The simple solution for those who don't want to get caught in this is to stay out of relevant war zones unless they are there in a recognised capacity.

I do think the government should put in place some form of independent review process for decisions made on this issue to reduce the risks of partisan decisions being made regardless of what powers ministers have held in the past.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,
As I understand the amendment being proposed by the Government, the purpose is to make some proscribed organisations equivalent to a foreign state for the purposes of determining the status of individuals who choose to act on behalf of those organisations. I don't see a lot wrong with that, since there are already well tested processes in place, with my only quibble that there must be properly available evidence that can be examined independently to prove that such actions have taken place and that the accused individual intended to do so, or was recklessly imprudent in knowledge of the consequences.

I think there needs to be some serious consideration given to the definition of what constitutes a relevant war zone as well and whether the individual is acting in a way that threatens national security, rather than simply exercising his conscience in supporting a cause that he feels is just in a way that does not abrogate his allegiance to Australia. It seems to me that there is some danger in our nation showing too much willingness to loosen our own allegiance to our citizens, since it may well lead some to feel their own allegiance to the nation can be loosened.

It doesn't do anyone much good to rescind the citizenship of people who commit terrorist acts after the event, so the main purpose of any government actions should be to reduce the chance of people being radicalised. Zaky Mallah made the point, which I've made previously, that the young men who are most likely to become radicalised may well be inflamed by this. If so, it's a very counter-productive course of action.

There was actually a couple of clauses in the Magna Carta to do with Usury (Interest) that were removed by private banks.

I'm not well informed on the facts, but I heard that the clause prevented Jewish money lenders from charging more than 6% interest, and that the penalty for doing so was that the lender was fined 2 or 3 times the excess interest he (or she) unlawfully charged.

I think it would be great if a law were passed that no loans could ever be charged at more than 5 percent interest.

The biggest problem in the world today (above our so-called democratic politicians that allowed it to happen) is private central banks issuing the public currency at a loan with interest... that compounds year upon year..

Interest bearing currency.

Don't people realise that under this system we are all enslaved?

New money is only ever created as a loan (against a bond)
The bond may be repaid but this lowers the amount of money in circulation, but the interest continues to accumulate.

I'm no economist or money manager, but does this not mean that the debt WILL ALWAYS be greater than the amount of money in circulation and that eventually the size of the debt will become greater than the entire economy itself?

And that all this money that we pay interest on, the majority of which was never even printed, -is just numbers on a screen.

"that the young men who are most likely to become radicalised may well be inflamed by this. If so, it's a very counter-productive course of action."

That seems to often be the case with government intervention. They often aggravate situations rather than reducing the risk.

As is often the case though there does not seem to be neat answers to this. It becomes a lesser of evils.

Anybody willing to support ISIS, actively fighting or not has in my view crossed a line that makes them a serious risk to others. ISIS itself publishes enough of it's evils online that there is no risk of their character being misrepresented enough to make a difference. I'd rather tolerate the risk that we may not have accurately determined the danger an ISIS supporter poses than place others at risk.

The bigger issue in my view is accountability for those making the decisions so that the power is not allowed to be abused behind a screen of secrecy.

R0bert

Never mind old chap, your opinion that the Brisbane Times is the highest constitutional authority is not just wrong but very stupid, and you're contradicting your own theory that rights are whatever the government says they are, but I'm sure you're awfully good at playing in the sandpit of your kindergarten, throwing temper tantrums and that sort of thing.