Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Anti-Terror laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by dan, Dec 7, 2005.

  1. Yes

  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  3. Dunno

    0 vote(s)
  1. Are we still allowed to discuss this? 8-[ :LOL:

    The new Anti-Terror laws passed last night thanks to the tepid support of the labor party, much to the disgust of the Greens, Democrats and Law Council. The laws allow terror suspects to be detained without charge for up to 14 days and for controls on their movement and communication for up to 12 months. They also update sedition laws, give police tougher stop, search and seizure powers and allow greater use of security cameras.

    Even at the expense of their own liberty.

    The anti-terror laws did a good job after the london bombings? As far as I can tell, the police did nothing but shoot an innocent bloke dead with their new powers, after the bombings that they clueless about occured.

    Perhaps "the criminal law system, which waits until an offence has occurred and then deals with the consequences" is slowing being phased out in favour of guilty until proven innocent style law enforcement... let's hope they don't shoot you before you are proven innocent. :roll:

    Crystal ball: Riders on sportsbikes being pulled over in their driveways charged with 'riding with intent to speed'.

  2. :LOL:

    I definetly think they go too far, thankfully not as bad as the (i think) 28 days without charge they were pushing. It makes me feel sick to be honest, to think that if my neibour had some beef with me they could simply claim I was "suspicious" and I could be locked up for 14 days with no rights.
  3. The UK recently tried to up thier detention without trial limit to 90 days, with a provision to roll over without review.

    Thankfully that didn't get up, but these sorts of laws being the 'thin edge of the wedge' is a worrying concern.
  4. I didn't really care until I read that. But I always try to look on the bright side. Now I just need to find out where the DBA here lives then I free of him for 2 weeks! :D

    I don't think a lot's going to change with the new laws except that the first person who gets locked up for 2 weeks will be able to make a bit of cash selling his story.
  5. Does anyone know if the laws will expire at some point? Or are we all set to become a nice little dictatorship under howard?
  6. From memory it's review at 5 years, sunset after 10.
  7. Nope. The reporter who tries to tell it gets locked up too.
    Only if it's real sedition of course (but will we ever know?).
  8. Really??

    You sure about that?

    If so, I reckon theres a certain fluffy bunny around SA thats been acting very very suspicious lately...
  9. Well actually the SAS have tracked your IP and are on their way to pick you up now :p

    Seriously though, this is the thin end of the wedge. 'Terrorism' is a term I'm concerned about, its rather vague. Soon not voting Howard will be considered 'terrorism', there will be nobody game to step up and reverse the damage that Bush *cough* I mean Howard has done. Soon the Iraqis will need to come rescue us from Howard.... (rant hat off)
  10. When? when? I'll vote for that! (But we had better do it soon while there are still some Iraqi's left).
  11. the queue for tin-foil hats forms to the left (how appropriate) :p
  12. Howard may not be Bush, but he's very close to it... :p :p :p
  13. A Howard in the hand, is worth two to a Bush.
  14. Control orders:

    People who have neither been charged with nor found guilty of a criminal offence can be made the subject of control orders which can impose obligations, prohibtions and restrictions on them in relation to their movements and the people they may associate with. According to the Law Council of Australia:

    "Persons might be confined to their homes or to specified localities, manacled with a tracking device, restricted in their use of technology,
    prohibited from specified activities, photographed and fingerprinted,
    not allowed to leave Australia, required to report to specific
    persons, forbidden to associate or communicate with specified
    individuals, and required (with their consent) to participate in specified
    counselling or education."

    A control order can run for up to a year, and once it expires another one can be imposed.

    Preventative detention orders:

    People who have neither been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence may be imprisoned for up to 14 days, and except in limited circumstances may not contact another person. Only limited contact with a lawyer is permitted, and only then if the content and meaning of communication between them can be monitored by the Federal Police.

    The basis on which orders are made does not have to be disclosed, and there is no opportunity to challenge their application.

    So - a person who's not been charged with any offence has fewer rights than a person charged with a criminal offence.

    Are we all feeling relaxed and comfortable, then?
  15. yeah i could get into all the other stuff, like the new world order and what not, but its very 1984ish indeed.
  16. George Orwell originally intended to call that book 1948, since he theroised that that sort of state might well be in place by then. Needless to say it wasn't, so he changed it to 1984. And 1984 was ??? pretty much like 1948......
  17. Geeze we're on a fine line with this conversation now. All it takes is one person to get a bit hot under the collor and it could be potentiallt decribed as inciting violence. 7 years for all of us. :wink:

    Don't worry, it's not designed to impede our daily living. Simply to supress any potential critism of the current government and lock up people who might try to run against them in an election. It won't take away democracy. Afterall, in a true democracy, the people have to believe the government is always right. Otherwise, they'd be terrorists. :wink: :LOL:
  18. No, the book came out in 1948.

    Append that to the abandonment of industrial toxins in the 70's and CFC's in the 90's on the list of bullets we've dodged over the last 50 years...
  19. So do the new laws mean organising a "put Howard in a sack and beat him with a stick day" is now out of the question?
  20. Probably, but with a bit of luck we might just manage a "put Costello in a sack and beat him with a stick day"