New Terror laws Because Terrorists something soemthing

Terror laws Terror!

George “Bigot” Brandis has busted out the whole “calm your goddamn minority farm” when it comes to the proposed terror laws and denies it will target Islamic preachers.

He plans to accelerate anti-terrorist legislation, surveillance powers and anyone who travels overseas to conflict zones but “it’s not directed at any section of the community”, okay? Stop being so paranoid, it really harshes ASIO’s buzz when they listen in on your phonecalls and take your computers and passport. C’mon, don’t make this weird.

George “Bigot” Brandis was super clear on this point, just to show he’s not targeting the Muslim community in any way: “there’s all the difference in the world between expressing opinions and inciting violence”.

Senator Lambie, always willing to lend a hand when it comes to parsing law into phrases so simple even she can understand them, had this to say: "jail for hate preachers". BOOM! Drop that mic and go repost another right-wing UK political group’s factually incorrect and offensively appropriated image on your Facey, girl. You earned it.

Let’s just add all this up because it’s a fascinating equation.

It’s okay to have the World Congress of Families and even throw a few pollies in to talk at the event because it’s FREE SPEECH (which is not in the constitution). It’s totes cool for hate preachers to sermonise against the evils of abortion and then compel their congregation to march to the nearest clinic where they try to block people from entering through physically threatening and verbal intimidation which is so bad abortion clinics now hire security staff to escort patients inside but that’s not “inciting violence”. It’s even okay for Victorian MPs like Geoff Shaw to go on study trips to find out how US religious extremist hate groups and the politicians they fund try to wind back abortion rights and access.

Also, if you’re a non-Muslim guy with explosives - not a terrorist. If you’re a white guy who enters an abortion clinic and kills a security guard while planning to kill more - you’re mentally ill and a crusader or protester, not a terrorist.

Not white, not a Christian and have views contrary to the majority of sensible Australians? Jesus-is-the-only-deity-we-recognise, this is awkward but... look, you’re a terrorist. Please give us your phones, computers, passport and look this way into the TV camera we brought along with us.

"But it's not directed at any section of the community."

Didge wrote:Yes left wing babble

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes left wing babble

Not where I come from, pard

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes left wing babble

Not where I come from, pard

From my book it is Ben.. ::D::

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

From my book it is Ben.. ::D::

What, because Blair was in office when Bush declare the War on a Political Tactic? There's a larger discussion to be had here, but that's like saying "Obama's from Kenya" is part and parcel of the conservative perspective, you know

Didge wrote:I do blame Blair, mainly because he was a idiot and all agree he is an idiot.
Religious extremism is growing, and why is it dangerous,simple look at the growing problems arising from Nigeria, to Libya, to Syria, Iraq etc.

Right am off to work.

Didge wrote:I do blame Blair, mainly because he was a idiot and all agree he is an idiot.
Religious extremism is growing, and why is it dangerous,simple look at the growing problems arising from Nigeria, to Libya, to Syria, Iraq etc.

Right am off to work.

Didge wrote:I do blame Blair, mainly because he was a idiot and all agree he is an idiot.
Religious extremism is growing, and why is it dangerous,simple look at the growing problems arising from Nigeria, to Libya, to Syria, Iraq etc.

Right am off to work.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I do blame Blair, mainly because he was a idiot and all agree he is an idiot.
Religious extremism is growing, and why is it dangerous,simple look at the growing problems arising from Nigeria, to Libya, to Syria, Iraq etc.

Right am off to work.

If you have two right-wingers who come up with a policy that they persuade a left-winger to go along with, that doesn't make the policy suddenly left-wing

Didge wrote:Blair caused it by knowing the truth so he was not persuaded by anything other than his own views, he basically lied to a nation and fooled many within Parliament, so your ramblings as per usual make o utter sense.

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I do blame Blair, mainly because he was a idiot and all agree he is an idiot.
Religious extremism is growing, and why is it dangerous,simple look at the growing problems arising from Nigeria, to Libya, to Syria, Iraq etc.

Right am off to work.

If you have two right-wingers who come up with a policy that they persuade a left-winger to go along with, that doesn't make the policy suddenly left-wing

But Ben you're forgetting
EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF AN ENGLISHMAN
IT has nothing to do with Bush Howard Cheney or Rumsfeld it is all Because of BLAIR.

BLAIR CAUSED IT BY BEING 'persuaded' by people that weren't British But NOTHING WOULD have happened if a BRITISH MAN didn't give his approval...  EVERYTHING IS STILL DETERMINED BY BRITAIN AND ITS VAST EMPIRE...  THERE IS NO REAL HISTORY OR EVEN MODERN POLITICS OF POWER THAT IS NOT 100% related to Britain and British Interests....

Isn't that Right Didge                

I'm means it's not like Britain is Subservient to the USA now and may have to do what the USA says if it wants good terms of trade.... that WILL never be the case... right didge  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Blair caused it by knowing the truth so he was not persuaded by anything other than his own views, he basically lied to a nation and fooled many within Parliament, so your ramblings as per usual make o utter sense.

I always got the distinct impression that Blair was intimidated rather than convinced. Maybe that's just me, but I know that if I wasn't part of the American war machine, I'd probably do whatever it took to stay on the good side of the American war machine ...

Didge wrote:It was defeated by the fact many Labour MP's supported it, all of which you ignore Irn, again basing your delusions ignoring this factor.
Where did I say I agreed with the right voting here?
I never did and it was a left wing government that directed us to vote to go to war, all of which you ignore, based on lies, which Labour withheld from the people, all of which you ignore.
As usual your defense of the left is embarressing

Two examples of incredibly dense driftwood are the Dense Derp Duo (or Triple DUH), senators Cory Bernardi and Jacqui Lambie.

Bernardi went onto Sky News’ (the ‘Stuff Old White Guys Like’ channel) to announce he wrote a proper letter with looped handwriting and everything to Madam Speaker Bronwyn Bishop saying that the burqa should be banned from Parliament House because terrorism.

Bishop may well be excited by this as she dislikes the hijab but everyone is more excited that Bernardi is communicating with actual words instead of his usual method of smearing feces on Abbott's office wall.

Not to be outdone, Lambie decided to freestyle on the Senate mic while declaring her support for coalition's massively expansionist anti-terror legislation. Lambie demanded people who support sharia law should "get out of Australia" because the "official deal for living in Australia is that you have undivided loyalties".

Then her mobile phone rang. In Parliament. As she was talking.

Meanwhile as Lambie and Bernardi wail on Islam, far far away in the Vatican, Cardinal George Pell sits his office enjoying his promotion after overseeing decades of church sanctioned criminal neglect, sex-offending priests and a cadre of nuns in full habit who don't have to worry about racial vilification based on their headwear.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:It was defeated by the fact many Labour MP's supported it, all of which you ignore Irn, again basing your delusions ignoring this factor.
Where did I say I agreed with the right voting here?
I never did and it was a left wing government that directed us to vote to go to war, all of which you ignore, based on lies, which Labour withheld from the people, all of which you ignore.
As usual your defense of the left is embarressing

No Didge. It was defeated because almost every Tory to a man voted it down. Tony Blair didn't have a majority within his own party  to defeat those who said there was insufficient evidence to support going to war so the Tories who backed him carried the day.

You stick with me on this and I'll keep you right on the way the Tory Hawks behaved in the way they backed Blair to the hilt. lol

In the 4 years I’ve been assembling words into somewhat acceptable sequences, I’ve struggled to call myself a writer, and I’ve struggled to call myself a journalist. That’s hardly surprising—considering that I fell into this.

Every Friday, TheVine affords me a position of privilege—I’m allowed to tell you about things in the world that I think deserve your attention (public interest), 10 points of news that I am free to layer with opinion. And even though investing myself in mean-spirited policy, tragic, inhumane events and cat videos on a weekly basis is psychologically and emotionally taxing, I persist because rationality, fact, common sense, community, love and hate are so easily lost in other transcriptions.

I write knowing that I can, without fear of being persecuted. That is how journalism works in Australia, or at least that is how it worked here until last night when the Abbott Government’s National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 passed the scrutiny of the Senate. Next week, it’ll go through the House of Representatives, probably with little resistance, and become law.

In essence, this bill prevents “any person,” including journalists, from disclosing information on “special intelligence operations.” An offence will land you in jail for 5-years. So, if you are wrongly arrested, treated poorly as a result of false intelligence during an anti-terror operation, you cannot tell anyone about it. You cannot complain. A journalist, let’s say, who witnessed it cannot report on it. And you can make that 10-years if your disclosure “endanger[s] the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.” (The bill does other alarming things, which you can read about http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/tony-abbott-trade-freedom-securityand http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/terror-laws-clear-senate-enabling-entire-australian-web-to-be-monitored-and-whistleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140926-10m8ih.html.)

According to Attorney-General George Brandis, “[The provisions in the bill] have nothing to do with the press.” It’s just an oversight then that “any person” still encompasses the press. As such, journalists should not feel free to act in the public interest.

Hiding behind the endangerment of operatives is convenient in that it effectively allows ASIO to operate under a cloak of silence, completely unaccountable and, with free reign to collect our data, to remove any semblance of privacy we have. Even ASIO’s watchdog, the IGIS, isn’t allowed to report on ASIO’s performance because it risks exposing ASIO’s capability (of being permitted to monitor everything).

The bill’s proponents will point to Edward Snowden and Chelsea née Bradley Manning as key reasons these controls need to be put in place, but they are products of the US Government’s own policies of absolute secrecy and rampant data collection. Giving a handful of humans access to that much information will always produce Snowdens and Mannings.

1 Thing

I’m writing just ‘1 Thing’ this week in protest. I haven’t cleared this with TheVine’s editors—maybe they won’t pay me for it, a risk I’m happy to take. My hope is that you think about this: our government has changed the game, changed the tone and changed the stakes. Worst of all, our government is eroding our freedom under the guise of protecting it.


Thank you for reading,

Chuck Kolyvas

Journalist

Murdoch University professor of international relations and security studies Samuel Makinda said enhanced security should not come at the expense of our civil liberties.

“What I see is we have a group of politicians who are willing to legislate away the rights of Australians … When I look at this, I feel we have been let down by our politicians,” Prof Makinda told news.com.au.

“We need security, but that security is embedded in the democratic values of society and our human rights. If we compromise on those, then we are actually undermining our own security.

“(Terrorist group) IS hate the way we live and politicians are whittling away those rights that make people jealous of us.

Ian Duncan Smith wrote:Saddam must be ousted now.
SADDAM HUSSEIN should be toppled in Iraq before he can finish developing missiles and nuclear weapons capable of threatening European cities, Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative Party leader, says today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Simon Henderson wrote:Simon Henderson, a leading Middle East analyst and biographer of Saddam Hussein, believes Mr Blair will be able to produce enough new evidence to convince sceptics.
He also claims the reason Mr Duncan Smith has been so vocal in his calls for the evidence to be published is that he has been given a sneak preview of its contents by contacts in the Bush administration.
Mr Henderson told BBC News Online: "Iain Duncan Smith is George Bush's secret weapon in Great Britain.
"They (the Bush administration) tell him what is going on because they see he is politically correct."

George Osborne wrote: I very much enjoyed the speech I just heard, not least because the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) put an excellent neo-Conservative case for the action that was taken in Iraq. Sadly, he has been a lone voice in much of the debate, certainly in terms of Back-Bench contributions, because we have largely heard from people who opposed the war and voted against it, whose opinions are well known and who have expressed those opinions again today.
It is worth reminding the House that on 18 March the House voted by a huge majority to go to war. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I do not believe that the result of that vote would have been substantially different if we had known then what we know now. It is also worth stating in the House that the decision taken that day was right, and that those who supported it should not be defensive about the way they voted.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031022/debtext/31022-29.htm

David Cameron wrote:Don’t be fooled. Dave is no Dove
Take Iraq. Despite whispers that he had doubts about the 2003 invasion, Cameron, at least in public, still stands by his decision to vote for it. In a recent interview, he declared, in effect, that like Tony Blair he would have gone to war without evidence of WMDs. "I look back over what I said to my constituents and the argument about weapons of mass destruction was just one of the points that I put," he said. "I think the fact that Saddam Hussein was in breach of so many UN resolutions, and was such a menace to the region, were also relevant points."

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/01/mehdi-hasan-cameron-tory-foreign

Michael Gove wrote: “I can’t fight my feelings any more: I love Tony ”. “You could call it the Elizabeth Bennett moment. It’s what Isolde felt when she fell into Tristan’s arms. It’s the point you reach when you give up fighting your feelings, abandon the antipathy bred into your bones, and admit that you were wrong about the man. By God, it’s still hard to write this, but I’m afraid I’ve got to be honest. Tony Blair is proving an outstanding Prime Minister at the moment”.
“It is over Iraq that he is in the greatest difficulty politically. All because, as a Labour Prime Minister, he’s behaving like a true Thatcherite. Indeed, he’s braver in some respects than Maggie was. The Falklands war took courage. But Thatcher had most of the country, and her party, behind her. In dealing with the Iraq crisis, Mr Blair has neither…Mr Blair’s policy…has the merit of genuine moral force….My admiration for the Prime Minister’s bravery in making the case is, I have to add, only increased when I listen to the sneering condescension with which broadcasters treat Government policy on Iraq…It may seem a trifle rich of me, as someone who’s enjoyed giving Mr Blair a good kicking, to object when the boot is being driven home on another foot. But there’s a difference between taking on a leader with a 93 per cent approval rating when he’s steering to the sound of applause, and piling in against a Prime Minister who’s grown into a conviction politician, risking public approval, party support and a cosy relationship with Europe in order to confront tyranny.”