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 > Bali Nine can thank the civil libertarians > Comments

Bali Nine can thank the civil libertarians : Comments

By James McConvill, published 7/9/2006

The civil libertarians have blood on their hands following the ordered execution of four more of the Bali Nine.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Golly gosh, I now understand. It is the 'civil libertarians' (sounds a bit like the 'international liberal conspiracy') that are responsible for the death sentences of the Bali nine because they opposed the Nauru solution. I don't think even Howard's trained apologists would try to make that one fly, although watch this space. It has echoes from another time but I just can't quite place it. Maybe the Inquisition...those dangerous human rights advocates must be burnt as their perfidy knows no bounds and they are disturbing the permanently credulous, and that is unAustralian!
Posted by Kraken, Thursday, 7 September 2006 5:06:57 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
This is unbelievably stupid logic. Firstly, the 'sine qua non' of the Supreme Court death sentences is the AFP dubbing in Australian citizens to Indonesian authorities knowing full well that the Indonesian judicial system is severely flawed and that execution was a likely consequence. The decision to grant asylum to Papuans WAS NOT a 'sine qua non'.

Secondly, we have no way of knowing whether the Supreme Court judges were influenced or indeed were even aware of the Papuan decision - and they almost certainly would have been unaware of the failure of the Migration Act amendment to pass the Australian Parliament. They were far more likely to have been influenced by the political need to be seen to be tough on drugs and to be seen as good Muslims by their peers by executing foreigner drug dealers.

Thirdly, is the author suggesting we refuse asylum to Papuans IN ORDER THAT or IN THE HOPE THAT Australian drug offenders are dealt with more leniently in Indonesia? What kind of administative law or public policy is that?

Did this guy resign from a Victorian law school or was he sacked?
Posted by rogindon, Thursday, 7 September 2006 5:10:00 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
Suggesting the Australian treatment of West Papuans determines how the appeals of convicted drug Peddlers will be treated is infantile in the extreme.

Ignoring that 2 of the drug Peddlers had already been sentenced to death before the West PApuans set sail is a significant ommission.

It ignores that, IMHO, all drug peddlers deserve the death penalty, regardless of where they happen to be caught.

The sooner the Indonesians terminate these scum, the better. Line them up with Amrosi and save assembling a firing squad more than once, they are all killers, either by bombs or the slow death through diminished cognitive ability.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 7 September 2006 5:18:57 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
So, it's the 'Civil Libertarians' who are at fault?

I would have thought you'd perhaps blame the Indonesians? I mean, they're the ones you accuse of having a warped judicial system that's swayed by political considerations about refugees.

Yes, I guess we should have thrown away all of our obligations under international law just in case the indonesian politicans put pressure on the courts to impose an unjust penalty.

Honestly, your argument holds about as much water as a thimble with a hole in it.

The values ordinary australians cherish are freedom, liberty and justice. None of these values are upheld by the 'common sense' approach of unjustly turning away genuine refugees, or supporting the death penalty.

And do you realise how ridiculous you are to suggest that people who believe the death penalty is wrong and genuine refugees should be accepted are "extremists in pushing human rights to a community that sensibly prefers the common good." The common good is human rights dummy!
Posted by giantdwart, Thursday, 7 September 2006 5:32:26 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
I have corresponded with Scott Rush's family since just before they lost their case against the Australian Federal Police in the Northern Territory court.
Brieftly, the history of the case is that Scott Rush was only 19 but had been using drugs for years . His parents learnt of his plans to go to Bali to traffick heroin. Alarmed and acting responbily (via my perceptors) they sought legal advice. That advice was that the solicitor would contact the AFP and ask them to stop Scott leaving to do his criminal acts. Lee and Christine Rush were told that the Police had been told and agreed to stop Scott.
That did not happen. Rather the AFP tipped off the Indonesian authorites and the rest is history.
The AFP would have been well aware of the penalties for heroin trafficking.
Posted by Kathryn Pollard, Thursday, 7 September 2006 6:24:45 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
In the last few weeks I've become aware through the media that there is this strange sect - the Civil Libertarians that are exerting a influence in all sorts of ways over Australian Society.

Gerald Henderson for example seems to think that they have infiltrated the Victorian Court of appeals. Gregory Rose in the Canberra Times if I read him right, has Civil Libertarian lawyers taking power from our democratically elected Government for their own foul purposes. Greg Sheridan would have the Civil Libertarian 'crowd' (just one step away from being a rabble) as being completely one-eyed about whichever person who's cause they have taken up and the Melbourne Civil Libertarians bathing 'in the adulation of their media clique'. Well I suppose we all know about people from Melbourne.

Now they are extending their influence overseas and are responsible for the death Sentences handed out in Indonesia. What next? Can we ordinary Australians expect to find ourselves being trailed at public events by members of the Sect seeking to infringe apon us? Or at our private addresses either. Heaven forbid.

Me thinks though in reality that the writers of the Right give the Civil Libertarians credit for far to much influence.
Posted by Amelia, Thursday, 7 September 2006 6:47:12 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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