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 > Protecting freedom of speech > Comments

Protecting freedom of speech : Comments

By Philip Ruddock, published 15/11/2005

Philip Ruddock argues Australians have nothing to fear from the new anti-terrorism legislation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
“Fear not children Big Brother is your friend” is typical of Phil's fiendishly avuncular style. However, I think, the people in AG’s and ASIO who provided the source material for his article/speech are actually talking sense.

I've equivocated over the anti-terrorism laws, particularly the sedition one, but the recent Sydney/Melbourne arrests and the French Muslim riots have swung me back in favour of the laws.

I recognise that it is the hope of many intellectuals that they might be considered important enough to draw the interest of state security (ASIO). Few of us get mixed up in bombmaking but many of us are rightly interested in opposing Howard's decision to go to war in Iraq.

However this anti-war feeling is so widespread that ASIO simply does not have the desire or the resources to round up anti-warriors. Similarly, I believe, ASIO or the police will not go to the expense of locking someone up for 14 days without charge or tagging them because of that person’s political activities. There are some serious would-be terrorists out there (perhaps under surveillance) who are on top of the list for accommodation.

That these proposed laws run the risk of alienating the Muslim community is common sense. That is where the main terrorist threat is coming from. As Irfan says in his OLO article yesterday it is the Muslim community who should take a look at themselves.

It is just unfortunate that some of us are fearful about these proposed laws – to be brought in precisely to counter the Muslim terrorist threat.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 1:38:28 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
Phil,
If you want to see free speach in action, please watch tonight's news 15.11.05. There is quite a lot of it around today, and the message is very clear, I suggest you heed the message.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 1:40:03 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
The greatest threat to 'freedom' of anything let alone speech is found in the events in Denmark not so much Australia.

1/ Cartoonists portray Mohamed in various roles.
2/ The Danish Muslim 'community' takes to the streets in protest + Ambassadors of Islamic nations demand apology

Why ?

Simple.. "Sharia law" under which is is a crime to 'insult or portray' mohamed.

Do we have inroads of Sharia law in Australia ?

YES...

WHERE ?

1/ Discrimination against non Muslim Australians (78% of the community in question) in Hume shire denying ham sandwiches to attendees of council events. (Sharia forbids eating 'Haram' food such as Pork)

2/ Changes to Laws concerning Stamp Duty (Victoria) to enable Muslims to obtain 'interest free' loans. (Sharia forbids interest.)

3/ Changes to 'burial laws' (Victoria) to allow 'Sharia' Burials of Muslims.

4/ Huge law suit /complaint against 2 Christian pastors for (it now appears) prophetically predicting the nature of a resurgent Islam in Australia. (Sharia forbids opposing Islam)

The freedom of speech we have in Australia, where cartoonists and comedians can sattirize and send up even the Pope without half a million catholics rampaging through the streets burning cars busses and old ladies is worth protecting.

Shonga..

thanx for your kind words in the other thread mate... I try :
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 4:54:16 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
Part 1

The Hon Mr Ruddock, and ladies and gentlemen of the OPO community. This is indeed a rare and welcomed pleasure to have the opportunity to voice my humble opinion in such exalted company. However I won't let that stand in my way of letting loose as the fourth rate citizen of this great nation of Australia that I've had the displeasure to become over the last forty years or so.

(Takes a deep breath - shakes a little in the knees - and in a big voice...)

What's all this rhetoric about freedom of speech, Ruddock?

Freedom of speech was silenced years ago, with no end of equal opportunity rubbish, vilification and hate speech laws, politico-correcto elitism, corporate newspeak and of course the great blocker of all free speech over the years, multiculturalism. Naturally, all of this was in our best interests and when that didn't work, it was "in the best interests of the child". Politicians are very keen to trot that one out when they've got no genuine platform upon which to stand.

So now you Mr Ruddock, dare to come on to this good site, frequented by good decent people, which permits them to express an OPINION with something, which isn't an OPINION at all, but is in fact a lecture.

If as you say, there's no need to fuss, because all you're doing is rewriting what already exists, then why bother rewriting it? What's the point? Obviously, if that were true, there isn't any point in doing it. And then you expect us to believe you. The sheer audacity is breathtaking.

Now the point here is that these new laws have much graver and more serious ramifications on individual liberties and freedoms of expression for everyone and you know darn well they do. So why are you telling us that they don't? Why don't you tell us the truth?

Continued...
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 6:08:28 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
Part 2

(takes another deep breath)

And how dare you deliver a lecture to the people of Australia telling us what you're doing, when it should of course be us telling you what you're doing. Australians don't like being lectured to by their servants. Such hubris will be awarded by the ceremonial giving of "the sack".

It would have been a far better thing for you to have presented a case for opinion and feedback, asking politely what we the people felt and wanted.

Mr Ruddock, your arrogance and that of your cronies in Canberra is wearing thin - and I'm genuinely one of those who does vote for your side - so please demonstrate some respect, stop lecturing us about what's good for us and start asking us what WE want.

And that's an opinion of mine.

You have a nice day Mr Ruddock and enjoy your Parliamentary Privilege and freedom of speech - a privilege we, your employers, don't necessarily share.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 6:09:39 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
Mr Ruddock states that these laws may be safely ignored by any person, that encourages lawful protest. However, the current IR legislation, renders unlawful many types of industrial action. Protest about which is unlawful per se.

Does this mean that our Constitutional right to freedom of speech can be constrained to the topics that the present Commonwealth Parliament deems lawful (cf Coleman v Power). Does this mean that, for instance, a union (or non-union) activist, that advocated publicly for employees' to strike, in a manner that was not a protected action, could be arrested and subjected to a secret trial under the terrorism legislation?

Would the outcome depend rather on whether the non-protected action would pose potential danger to individual Australian's, or would it be sufficient that it may have a deletorius effect upon 'essential' industries or trade (SEQEB/Patricks-MUA)? Could the Army be used to break up such a protest, and could a union (or similar body) be listed as a proscribed organisation? If so, wouldn't every person that was a member of that organisation face retrospective criminal liability because of their membership of the same (142.2 Anti Terror Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth))?

I am sorry Mr Ruddock, I see absolutely no cause to alter my stance regarding this appalling legislation.
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 7:07:09 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
Subsection 23CA(4) provides that the investigation period extends from the time of arrest for a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances. A maximum investigation period of four hours is prescribed for terrorism offences. For persons who are or who appear to be under 18, and Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders, the maximum investigation period is two hours.

Two hours? Four Hours? 94.6 hours? What?

Question: Why name Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders along with terrorists? If we are not listed as a terrorist group why name us at all?

This clearly suggests that these laws have a broader political intention.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 9:29:38 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
R I P democracy
Posted by aspro, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:27:03 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
Over the top Maximus.

I have no doubt that the proposed laws are an honest attempt to deal with the changed environment in which we live…and that Philip Ruddock is doing the right thing in expressing it in the media and in a forum such as this where it can be widely debated. I say, good on him. Many people think of Ruddock as a devious piece of work, but I reckon he is one of our very few really genuine take-him-at-face-value politicians.

If you hadn’t condemned Ruddock for every little thing and had stuck to the issue, then maybe you would have retained some shred of credibility.

Hey, but I sort of agree with you on one point; You say; “Freedom of speech was silenced years ago”.

I don’t think it ever really existed. Just like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, it is a crock of poo. Our freedom of speech has always been highly compromised, so I discovered a few years ago, when I suddenly could no longer express my views as a private citizen, on matters in any way associated with my profession. That imposition was unlawful, against my employer’s code of conduct, and ultimately overturned in a very expensive mediation session, brought about after four years of protest. But even after mediation, my freedom of speech is greatly reduced compared to what it is supposed to be in this democracy. When I was a nobody, I could express my views openly, but when I climbed the greasy pole, gaining experience and expertise along the way, I could no longer openly express myself, even though I was all the more qualified to do so. Sucks to the extreme when you can’t partake in an impartial manner in matters that you are passionately concerned about, unless you’re anonymous.

So let’s not live with the illusion that freedom of speech is alive and well. The new laws are just simply not going to further impinge on our already highly compromised freedom of speech.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:39:33 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
If indeed the government has nothing to hide,
why does it not allow the public to view the new laws
- or does anyone know of a site where the proposed new laws are published?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 November 2005 10:47:25 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
Dear David, as a Catholic, you make a good point re the pope, and as usual, you are a very difficult man to disagree with, please keep up the good work,Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 12:20:35 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
Yuyutsu,

here is the new Anti-terror Act (No2) 2005 (Cth)

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/03110504.pdf

Here is the advice provided by the faculty at UNSW to ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope;

http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/News_and_Events/Doc/Stanhope_advice_20051018.pdf

My quick analysis of these laws is;

a. they impose Retrospective Criminal Liability (s.142.2(2); cf Communist Party Case; cf Polyukhevic; cf ICCPR).

b. Judges will not be able to act as 'persona designata' (cf Grollo v Palmer), as the detention is punitive (cf Al-Khateb) being that it is to ensure the welfare of persons other than the detainee (cf Kruger) who may not have been found guilty of any crime (cf Fardon v A-G (Qld)).

Therefore as detention is punitive, it may only be imposed by the judiciary (Chu Kheng Lim), and any attempt to do so by a quasi-judicial, administrative tribunal will offend the separation of powers (particularly of judicial power; Boilermakers').

Thus, as any body which can be used to provide these detention orders must be a court, they cannot deny the accussed due process (Leeth v Cth; Plenty v Dillon; Coco v R).

c. Despite assurances through the media to the contrary, this act expressly excludes judicial review (ADJR).

I do not think there is much chance at all of these laws being deemed to be Constitutional.
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 2:11:45 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
David B

Heres one you left of your list:

A religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that recommends special treatment for suspects of Muslim, Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background...

Police are told: "In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

PC is sick, here is is aiding domestic violence... to stand up against such a foul practice by a minority would be racist... so much for PC idealism
Posted by meredith, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 5:03:24 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
Meredith... thanx moit :)

Philo mentioned that book, and I have read such things myself.. the problem is.. 'where do we stop' in exposing this pernicious influence growing like a cancer on our peace loving socieity ? The list would be endless.

The amazing thing to me is that while I seek always to put 'well documented and sourced' material....I'm accused by F.H. as
"Liar"
"Misrepresenter"

In the end, truth will be seen for what it is.

On Mr Ruddock, and 'free speech' he wrote me a letter telling me that its 'ok' for people to buy XXX rated Porn from ACT by mail order, even though every STATE has outlawed the sale of it.

Interestingly, they have not outlawed the 'possession' of it, so one is attracted to the conclusion that they are only interested in being 'seen' to do right while they actually do evil.

Also the conclusion that there may well be 'vested interest' in the porn industry by 'influential political figures' is difficult to escape.

As for these current laws, well, 'sneaky' is the name of the political game. The Democrats or Greens are just as sneaky as the rest, so it leaves 'Barnaby and FF' to keep those bastards honest :)

Though the recent arrests of suspected bombers does persuade me that the need for 'detention' without trial for a given period is real and justified. Can you imagine the outcome if:
- such people had 'other' stockpiles of more advanced chemical cocktails.
-Were granted bail on some technicality.
-Realized they have very limited time for their 'Jihad'.

cheeers all.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 5:44:13 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
Chances of me giveing Phil a big hug are zero chances of me ever voteing for him or his mob are less.
But I am like most Australians from the middle of the road and want more to silence idiots who threaten my fellow Australians than to wimper about freedoms.
The very same freedoms that are so often used against us so go for it Phil.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 7:09:24 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
"religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that recommends special treatment for suspects of Muslim, Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background..."

And how many times do you think police consult their blooyd handbooks? Puleeeze!
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 7:44:55 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
Rainer,

Ever since they can be sued for actions "unPC" people have been begrudgingly forced to curtail to it. There will be police obeying this to protect themselves, it is probably why it was written in the first place.

Maybe its time the PC addressed itself, and the damage it has done to society? I hope you and your nasty ideology are happy in the knowledge your not being racist
Posted by meredith, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 9:24:23 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
Dear Boazy

Religion of all shades, particularly the powerful Christian denominations, are also a form also of political correctness (PC).

As your post above indicates, representatives of moral PC (expressed through religion) seek to shut down the ACT's XXX porn industry.

I see it as the very expression of the ACT's opposition to PC that is has successfully fought to keep the industry open over the years. The same goes for the ACT permitting legal brothels.

Your political correctness would also seek to prevent "people ... buy[ing] XXX rated Porn from ACT by mail order'

You obviously agree with the political correctness of "every STATE" outlawing the "the sale of it".

You don't want the ACT to be different. If that is not political correctness what is?

You clearly want to outlaw "the 'possession' of it". Should thought police raids follow?

Is expressing a different position from the States an "evil".

Of course there are "'vested interest' in the porn industry". It’s a business. It is permitted by elected secular political figures and the ACT's secular legal system.

Boaz would you prefer a religious court or group of church Elders having a say in the matter…road to sharia?

P.S. Despite that mate. I'm glad you’re also coming around to supporting the proposed anti-terror laws. With your key endorsement I assume that many more in OLO will follow.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 10:44:41 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
I'm not going to pretend to everything about this situation but don't these terrorism laws mean that anyone could be locked up at any time without even a decent excuse? Without having to tell anyone, without getting a phone call?
As far as I'm aware that includes me, you, your children, your mama.
So that means, on an extreme level, that John Howard could "detain" anyone that doesn't vote for him, anyone that people listen to -environmental activists, musicians, influential sports people, writers, provided that they don't agree on everything he says.
Does that mean that union officials are at risk too?
And all they need is to suspect you, so you could really just make up some crap about your ex-girlfriend and how you saw her with some fertilizer in the shed and a muslim friend and KABLAMMO she will be out of your life for good, or at least for enough time to know not to mess with you. Yeah! Sounds pretty sweet!
Next time my MRS whinges about the price of Tampons as a luxury she better watch out!

Yeehaa! I love being an American, I mean an Australian, (same thing anyway.)
Posted by battler, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 12:52:03 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
"The sedition laws are designed to capture activity which goes beyond criticising, but encourages the use of force or violence or other unlawful means to achieve a particular outcome."

What about the use of 'lawful' means to achieve a particular outcome?
Excuse my naivety but if there is enough evidence against a certain group belief system that is potentially more destructive to a free democratic place like Australia than one or two explosive acts of violence would Phil apply the full force to ban or remove such group or is this new law reserved only for those who are accidentally caught in the act?
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 6:00:02 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
"The measures deal with those who seek to urge the naïve and impressionable to carry out violence against their fellow citizens."

So are we transferring some or all of the responsibility for these atrocious acts from the "naive and impressionable" "urgees" to these reprehensible "urgers"?
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 17 November 2005 8:57:45 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
The blood on the walls will still be that of people who have nothing to do with terror, execpt to be its victims.
Australians for the most part want protection from idiots and murderers more than shadow boxing lost freedoms.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 18 November 2005 5:17:39 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
Dear Plantagenet

"Special religious courts" are about as useful as tits on a bull mate when it comes to enforcing morality.

I would prefer that our laws reflected the content of our communal hearts, and I find it curious that States would ban the 'sale' of XXX porn for 'no reason' ? The existence of such a law suggests they government is saying "Its not welcome" so why not go the whole hog and make 'posssion' illegal also ? its rather pointless. People usually 'possess, because they buy'

That said, the 'demand' end is where the focus should also be, on us, on our mindset, on our values. I know from experience that when one lives in a community where such a thing would be abhorrent, disgusting, and degrading, it doesn't surface. Not only that, one's mind is not constantly thinking in that directiion either.

The other problem I have with this type of 'industry' is that it will never be 'static'. I.e. todays porn rush is tomorrows 'yeah yeah, same old same old' and then...'where' do we/they go for the next rush ? Obviously they have to 'push the boundaries'....right ?

So this leads to... bestiality, satanism, degrading filth such as defacating and urinating on each other, eating it and all manner of supposedly tittilating portrayals of human and human/animal behavior, not to mention of course, the increasing levels of child porn.

So, when a community reaches that level it is pretty much 'finished' morally. When it condones or does not actively condemn such things, it is so poverty stricken as to be almost unredeemable.

No society has ever survived its on decadence.

The remedy is simple.

National repentance and humble confession of our grievous sin to almighty God. Forgiveness through Christ and renewed minds, hearts and wills.

As I've often quoted from the Old Testament II Chronicles 7.14

<<if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.>
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 18 November 2005 6:36:46 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
I can't trust a politician who prefaces statements with "The fact of the matter is" as Phillip Ruddock did on ABC Radio when he was pursuing his vendetta against the Baktiari family.

Ruddock says that the laws are designed to control Muslims in Australia, yet at the same time the IR legislation is before parliament. The IR legislation seeks to control union activity with draconian fines for union officials participating in wage bargaining, employees can be fined for revealing the details of their AWA. All AWAs are held by the employer, not held centrally by the Fair Pay Commission or similar. It's not much of a stretch to see that union officials could be held under the sedition laws as could authors to this forum.

Where in the bible does it say that we have to accept unfair and unjust treatment? Or as my expensive church school education instilled in me - religion is a great method of controlling the population saying "life on earth may be hard but you will be rewarded in heaven/paradise"

If these laws are enacted then Australia will become a very dangerous place and we will all have to be aware, stand witness and always behave righteously because when this madness ends we will all be called to account here on earth
Posted by billie, Friday, 18 November 2005 8:05:58 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
Dear Boaz

I suspect that we will continue to fundamentally disagree on this issue, but I respect your sincerity.

You may have detected that, inter alia, I’m an unashamed heterosexual who likes to discuss sexual issues.

Many of the issues we are discussing are mentioned on the Eros Foundation website http://www.eros.org.au/slapolitics.php .

I see political correctness as bowing to the “communal values” of the dominant political grouping in a given area.

I do not share many of the communal values of the area of country Queensland that I live in. This area strongly supported (and relied on) Joh Bjelke Peterson. People here are of “good” Anglo-German stock. Many still revere (Sir) Joh’s memory and consider “the South” and even Brisbane, to be somewhere between Sodom and the old Kremlin. Down the road the Assembly of God, at Hattonvale, is so powerful it fills a cathedral sized “church” in what is still a county town. Barnaby Joyce, Hanson and FF are very popular. The liberals and mainstream Nationals are usually considered a bit leftie.

What the successful farmers and other pillars of the community believe is pretty much accepted. So given that backdrop I do not accept that I must adhere to the communities political values on many issues, but I have a right to live here.

Regarding the States banning XXX porn for 'no reason'. State laws and approaches to XXX are longer established and difficult politically to repeal while the ACT enjoyed a Commonwealth spoon-fed legal environment until 1988 http://www.parliament.curriculum.edu.au/act.php3. On self government the ACT received a relatively fresh start. The laws made recognised that XXX and brothels were the types of industry that a small Territory could have an economic jump over the States on. The States were/are, by comparison legally and politically conservative.

Enforcing a ban on possession is what Joh believed – this was part of his authoritarian style.

Its pretty hard to tackle the “demand end” when a supply will always exist. Check all mail with printed matter, both international and interstate? Filter international sites on the internet?
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:07:35 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
COMMENTS ON XXX FREEDOMS - PART 2

You would realize that most XXX material these days is available on the internet. This (non static) dynamic change, may be making our debate on this issue less relevant.

As a practicing heterosexual I am not “thick” enough to have to go out and buy XXX. I have a real woman and, in any case, plenty of clean XXX is available on the web.

You walk through a red light district in a big city. There will be much seen that is abhorrent, disgusting, and degrading, but that is human nature. The relative absence of such sights (as in Joh’s Queensland) hid a much more insidious system of hidden pornography and illegal brothels legitimised by payouts to police, pimps and, of course, politicians etc. Its better to have XXX (and brothels) out in the open so they can at least be regulated and not suppressed for profit.

You itemise the darkside of XXX (bestiality etc). All of these things are much more available on the internet. I’d agree with you (of course) that supplying and downloading child pornographic photos should (continue to) be cracked down on. But going beyond that requires a policing apparatus that impinges on freedoms.

The community has had access to XXX for the last 15 years or so. Its readily available on the internet and most available in the ACT, which by many measures is a safe and happy environment. Its up to people to choose to be “immoral” or “decadent”. They’ll find a way even in the best of all worlds.

All the best David. May we argue over the next sexual issue that OLO conjures up.

Regards

Peter
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:10:30 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
The freedom of speech is always protected, but many on the left draw a parallel of absolute Orwellian proportions.
Freedom of speech is the order if indeed the speech is relevant and disciplined, and not just a compilation of opposite’s as we experience now from the Pathological left and acquaintances.
It was never under threat with the new Laws, only those that inject venom in Universal righteousness and antitheist intent, Their Laws are to be feared and their intention, Vilification laws are a taste of their capability, along with the Orwellian Human rights. King Leftie Adorno certainly messed up some minds, followed closely by Chomsky. They are the pathological liars for a purpose and confusion is their intent.
The Laws in comparison to the Community threat are Spongy, Personally those on the left that made these Laws necessary be presented in a new form of Nuremberg trial type scenario, for we as a Nation would never be in this predicament if not for the traitorous behavior of our Enemies that enguaged in political and Academic Fraud. They draw the same Egocentric Motive as do the terrorists and Islam. Strange how Psychological traits draw the same parallels ! Not just a coincidence ether.
Posted by All-, Friday, 18 November 2005 6:37:03 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
We have been bombarded with advertisements about how great the IR legislation will be. However, the devil is in the detail, there are huge fines that can apply. Employees are locked into situations where they have little redress under the you beaut new law. In today's news there was a story about how the Court Government had an experiment with the you beaut IR legislation. Many workers were burnt by the experiment. Simarly, New Zealand has also had a bad experience with IR type legislation.

The point being, the new IR law is not friendly towards workers despite the assurances of the Coalition. In other words, you trust statements from the Coalition at your own peril.

It is a sad state of affairs when many people who in the past would have believed Coalition politicians, now are skeptical of whatever the Coalition might propose. The issue of Interest Rates at the last election being an example of how we were lied too. There was no mention of Anti Terrorist laws and IR did not feature as part of the platform of the Coalition at the last election. These laws have been introduced with much stealth and little decorum. It is pretty stupid to trust politicians who are very secretive about the laws they wish to introduce. We are obligated to the Chief Minister of the ACT in relation to the Anti Terrorist laws.
Posted by ant, Friday, 18 November 2005 10:03:06 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
Phillip

With your appauling track record of denying basic human rights that consequently saw you kicked out of Amnesty International your not one to be trusted with new anti-terrorism legislation that further denies basic civil liberties.

Boaz

Its sad that your preoccupied with XXX porn, but on that note:

Useing your rational oral sex, premarital sex, any and all sexual positions other than the missionary position, should be outlawed to save australia from becomeing a nation of sadanistic kangaroo f@#%ers, that deficate and urinate on one another, when yesterdays 'yeah yeah' gets boreing.
Posted by Tieran, Friday, 18 November 2005 11:39:49 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
Each time Mr. Howard has been elected he has promised to Govern on behalf of all Australians. What that seems to translate to after this election is he will govern for anybody involved in business interests. The rest of us are commodities that can be bought and sold through AWAs. That may be an explanation for the behaviour of the Coalition Government in relation to this promise; the alternative being that we have been lied to.
Parliament has been used in a most contemptible way by the Coalition ever since they have gained the balance of power, just a further indication that they cannot be trusted.

So when Mr. Ruddock says trust me; the best option is to have a good laugh at his joke.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 19 November 2005 6:57:20 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
PLANTA aka PETER... (and Teiran)

Speaking of EROS.. I had quite a lively email exchange with Robbie Swan on such issues.. I made a bit of a goat of myself actually, advising him that now that 'we' had control of the Senate 'we' will 'crush' the mail order trade :) dream on Boaz.... as I referred to the letter from our esteemed Mr Ruddock.. this is clearly not where the government wishes to be.

Teiran.. I don't know where you came up with all that 'missionary position' stuff.. I sure as heck don't find it in the Bible-I think you should read the Song of Solomon some time.

Without going further into the politics of it, (except to say that 'regulation' absolutely did 'not' deliver what it was touted to do...more illegal brothels.. under age hookers brought in from outside the country etc... sex slavery ) let me make the point that we should be emphasising 'love' and not 'lust'.. and I mean this as a community. I say 'we should' obviously from a specifically Christian perspective, and no amount of legal mumbo jumbo can ever institionalize 'love' as I understand it.

BUT... if we as a community and society frame values of human dignity and worth, mutual respect, caring, and not materialistic and enshrine as much as possible these values into our legal system, and specially education, then we are creating an environment where the right 'message' is being sent to the population.

My 'obsession' with xxx is in reality just tackling one symptom of a society alientated from God. Planta, I take all your points on board about the net etc, so I'm not responding with some 'master plan' to that as its logistically difficult.

Hence my previous conclusion...

I have no 'earthly utopia' to offer in the wider political sense, I can only assure the readers that there will be a personal utopia and joy in the Kingdom of God for those for whom Christ is King :)

"I came that they might have life, and have it in all abundance."Jhn10:10
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 19 November 2005 7:29:33 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
BD

Many thanks for your thoughtfull call today. I found it really comforting.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 19 November 2005 5:39:47 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
Boaz

No problems. I respect your outlook.

Peter
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 20 November 2005 2:40:35 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
Kay....you are most welcome :)

If we cannot spend a moment to encourage someone, then we don't have much eh :)

How nice it would be for an OLO 'grand eyeball' gathering one day .. woo.. we will need lots of 'mops' to wipe up all the blood from the fights :) nah.. not really.

Cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 21 November 2005 8:55:35 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
In a number of newspapers today there are articles about Amanda Vanstone indicating that security is virtually a nonsense. From today's The Age: "During a recent speech in Adelaide, Senator Vanstone said some aviation security measures were more about making people feel better than improving security."

Does that mean that all the Anti Terrorist legislation is nothing but hype.
Posted by ant, Monday, 21 November 2005 8:32:16 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
Even the conservative Autralian stated today: "In a wide-ranging speech to Adelaide Rotarians, Senator Vanstone dismissed many commonwealth security measures as essentially ineffective. "To be tactful about these things, a lot of what we do is to make people feel better as opposed to actually achieve an outcome," Senator Vanstone said.
Posted by ant, Monday, 21 November 2005 8:54:09 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
“Journalists, commentators, activists, artists, performers and all those who cherish our tradition of freedom of speech and support peaceful, lawful change have nothing to fear from the existing law, nor from this legislation.”

Surely, fears come from applying the law rather than legislating the causes.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 24 November 2005 12:44:08 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
David Boaz and I are agreed on some issues, and disagree on others, but as I see in this particular forum, he turns enemies into friends with his overriding love of humanity, and belief in God, which he and I agree on. I AM NOT A SUPPOTER OF xxx PORN, however I am also not a supporter of restrictive laws, and thus whilst I not condone XXX I support the freedom of people to have access to it, or most other interests in life. If you don't believe in God's law, David and I certainly are not able to force you to. I am a radical Christian, whilst David is more conservative, I don't always agree with David's opinion, but one thing noone can attack him on is his sincerety, and compassion. Some people on this site seem to believe that people of different faiths, circumstances and opinions cannot possibly be friendly to each other, David has proven this philosophy to be untrue. Christians tend to help others, and understand the point of view of others, even if they don't agree. I have never been so informed since I joined this forum, and read so many differing opinions, if anyone follows David Boaz from issue to issue, as I have, you may not agree with him all the time, but you have to have respect for the man that he is, you are a good man David Boaz.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 24 November 2005 11:06:01 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
Just another politician yelling into the void. l think most people understand that talk is cheap and when it comes to politicians talk is positively worthless. Their actions speak for themselves.

Thanks Pol. E. Tician for keeping yourself busy and earning your pay packet. Gotta be seen to be doing something. More words and wax seals for people to ignore. Long live civil disobedience. PC has taught people how to fly below the radar and keep their opinions to themselves... and deeply ingraining those opinions. Actually, thank god for the internet, where you can say whatever you want with fear of retribution from the contrl freaky thought police... as long as you use proxies, firewalls and various other means to cover your internet arse.

Cheers big ears.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 25 November 2005 3:25:56 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
By the way, you cant protect something that is already dead.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 25 November 2005 3:29:36 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
trade 215, How beautifully said, I agree wholeheartedly, and without firewalls and such to protect me, we lost free speech long, long ago.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 25 November 2005 11:17:41 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
Free speech? A free cheese in a mouse tap only.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 28 November 2005 11:06:32 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
I am wondering if we have or should have an expectation that our elected representatives are or should be expected to properly debate and consider new laws etc and if not properly enacted that there should be available remedies against such abuse of their responsibilities?
Posted by Pilgrimus, Monday, 5 December 2005 9:32:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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