Straya!

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

Poor shark was probably trying to tell her that there was someone stuck down a mine shaft.

It happens a lot in Australia.

[Brian Peacock]

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.

He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.

Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.

Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.

“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”

And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.

“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.

“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard

Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.

[JimC]

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.

He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.

Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.

Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.

“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”

And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.

“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.

“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard

Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.

Not necessarily. He said he would give them what is necessary, not anything they want. So, if politicians are careful and measured in their thinking about that, they will give law enforcement agencies what they need, no more and no less. And if there is clear intelligence about jihadists plotting murder, then acting on that, with detention up to 14 days, seems very reasonable to me.

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps, but as we've seen over here "We're going to give the police and security services the powers they say they need" is a oft-trotted out excuse for degrading basic human rights of everyone. I say 'everyone' here because although we like to think that such things are only ever going to apply to others we are all subject to the same laws.

In the UK we see that expressed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 by which suspected terrorists can be detained for a pre-charge period of up to 28, a period that can be extended by two further 28 day periods more upon application to the Home Secretary. People can be detained under this regime on suspicion and without evidence. People detained under such measures are represented in extension applications by a barrister from a drawn-up list of government-nominated, security--cleared lawyers who have access to evidences but are not allowed access to those under detention. Those in detention may engage their own legal representative but they have no access to the evidence and the government has no obligation to inform them anything about the grounds on which they are detained. Legal Aid is not available to those detained under or prosecuted under terror legislation.

Where criminal proceedings are undertaken people are charged with offences but may not be told the full nature or extent of those charges; they are tried in closed courts without knowledge of what evidence is being brought against them, and again represented in court from an approved list of barristers nominated by ministers. These court-bound defence representatives do have access to prosecution evidences but are limited in what they can communicate to the defendant via their personal lawyer. Any communication between the court-bound representative and lawyers engaged by the defendant is subject to government oversight and scrutiny.

Now, the argument is that these powers and measure, as broad and severe as they are, are only applied in a very small number of cases involving incredibly serious but (thankfully) rare crimes, therefore the trade-off is that a degradation of the human rights of a few is necessary to enhance the security of the many, and that this is a price worth paying. However, there is no public interest consideration built into the measures - if the minister, typically the Home Secretary, believes that such measures should be invoked then there exists no means to review or challenge that decision. In effect, the government can detained, charge, prosecute in camera, subject individuals to house arrest (by means of a 'prevention order'), or deport anyone it chooses on 'security grounds' under the provisions of the law.

This might be fine if and when we can be assured that the government are honest agents invoking and applying laws with only a dispassionate interest in justice and security, Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights disagrees in some important aspects, not necessarily with with the principles or intent of the legislation, but with the inherent flaws in the framing of the statutes which allow people to be detained without trial or charge, and where that is carried out on suspicion alone, and where closed criminal proceedings can be authorised on the say-so of an here-today-gone-tomorrow politician in such a manner that a defendant is significantly impaired in their ability to defend themselves.

Australia beware. Learn from our mistakes.

[JimC]

Those measures seem to go a lot further than what is proposed here, and in fact what is reasonable.

[Brian Peacock]

It started with pre-charge detention being extended from 24 to 72 hours, then it became 7 days, then 14 days. All carried out by secondary powers. Only when the Home Secretary of the day set the pre-charge detention period at 90 days did MPs get agitated - that's when the law was ammended to the 3x28 days period. And all was justified in giving the police and security service the powers they said they needed.

[Hermit]

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.

He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.

Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.

Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.

“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”

And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.

“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.

“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard

Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.

It's not so much the last sentence as Daniel Andrews's opinion that the cornerstone of peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms - habeas corpus - is a luxury. Yes, in theory this is only supposed to apply to people who are suspected of terrorism. In practice such powers have always been abused. Every . Fucking . Time . What Andrews is advocating, if implemented, will throw the gates wide open for democratic governments to gradually morph into dictatorships.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. As I mentioned in my whitterings above, while people are encouraged to think that the degradation of human rights only applies to bad people the law applies to everyone, good and bad alike. And, as I also mentioned, in the UK this means that the state only has to suspect that you might be a bad person to legally degrade your human rights.

[pErvinalia]

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.

He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.

Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.

Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.

“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”

And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.

“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.

“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard

Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.

Yeah, this was a real surprise, given he's by far the most progressive Premier, in the most progressive state, in Australia.

[JimC]

It was not his proposal, it is a Federal initiative applying Australia wide, which he, for a variety of political reasons, has to cop it sweet...

[pErvinalia]

No, not buying that. He's never had a problem before speaking out against federal policy, and neither have most of the Labor Premiers. I was shocked to hear that from him.

[pErvinalia]

Just a bit more on the social consequences of favouring one sex over the other... That's an indication of a problem with a particular society. The answer to that is for government to address the reasons why that society finds males more valuable than females, not force women to give birth to a child that they may not want.

[JimC]

Just a bit more on the social consequences of favouring one sex over the other... That's an indication of a problem with a particular society. The answer to that is for government to address the reasons why that society finds males more valuable than females, not force women to give birth to a child that they may not want.

Wrong thread?

[pErvinalia]

Maybe... maybe not...