Crackdown on freedoms? Australian Senate passes draconian anti-terror laws

[Tshering22]

Even the opposition went with him to pass this bill in a rare act of solidarity on terror related matters.

Liberals have this sympathy for terrorism. Look how vehemently they support ISIS.

 

[Kevrai]

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au



For people who can read plain English, it is there.

Previously, police could only shoot suspects as a last resort.
Now, they can shoot the suspect even if they don't resist arrest.

I expect ASIO would act professionally, but I am still concerned about the loopholes opened up.

New anti-terror laws will gag hate preachers and give ASIO agents licence to kill in self defence

So police can kill in self defence under new legislation. Well i don't see a problem with that. Police have have a right to defend themselves against muslim terrorists. I don't know why you see that as a problem

 

[Maravan]

Its funny. Why we are crying out here? Oz people, opposition party accepted the law, they dont have a problem with such law.

 

[Jaanbaz]

In other words, it's open season to shoot and kill anyone who looks Middle Eastern.

So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet? On the other hand ISIS hunts down anyone suspected of being Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi. Australia will do what's right to protect itself from freelance terrorists.

 

[invinciblesgunner]

So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet? On the other hand ISIS hunts down anyone suspected of being Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi. Australia will do what's right to protect itself from freelance terrorists.

Why are you comparing it with ISIS? They are on a different page. Anyway it seems like the terrorists have achieved their first goal, to spread terror. This is not the solution to stop terrorism, this will create more hate, it won't work

 

[Jaanbaz]

Why are you comparing it with ISIS? They are on a different page. Anyway it seems like the terrorists have achieved their first goal, to spread terror. This is not the solution to stop terrorism, this will create more hate, it won't work

So what is the solution? What problems do Muslim face in Australia? Is Australia persecuting and killing Muslims that some idiots need to plan to kill Australian citizens and Policemen?

 

[Developereo]

New anti-terror laws will gag hate preachers and give ASIO agents licence to kill in self defence

So police can kill in self defence under new legislation. Well i don't see a problem with that. Police have have a right to defend themselves against muslim terrorists. I don't know why you see that as a problem

Just typing stuff in bold won't hide your ignorance of English.

Get yourself an English dictionary and learn to read before posting again.

The agents can kill if they believe a suspect intends to harm others -- not right now, not immediately -- simply harm. The new laws removes the provisions which restrict the use of force to extreme cases.

So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet? On the other hand ISIS hunts down anyone suspected of being Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi. Australia will do what's right to protect itself from freelance terrorists.

The change of laws just happened this week.

No one has a problem with killing terrorists, but the law removes restrictions on the use of force and allows them to be abused by rogue police.

 

[anonymus]

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au



For people who can read plain English, it is there.

Previously, police could only shoot suspects as a last resort.
Now, they can shoot the suspect even if they don't resist arrest.

I expect ASIO would act professionally, but I am still concerned about the loopholes opened up.

Enough of your lies.

Your post completely disproves your argument.

Under new laws, Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves.

This very first line proves that immunity applies only if terrorist/suspect is shot/harmed in self defence or in order to protect innocent bystander , not a right to hunt muslims indiscriminately on street.

If a agent kill a suspect, he has to prove probable cause like presence of a weapon or explosive to gain immunity from lawsuits. This is SoP all around the world, and it is strange that it was not already followed bu Australian police.It is standard practice of US police to gun down any armed person who does not surrender when called upon to do so.

Existing laws contain provisions for the use of force in extreme circumstances, only permissible when the officer has reasonable grounds to conclude it “is necessary to protect life or prevent serious injuries’’.
.

This part is self explanatory. Note Keywords : Extreme circumstances; Self defence; and protecting innocent civilians.



You are simply making excuse for your Bruthas who would not be able to carry on holy Jihad due to this legislation.

 

[Developereo]

Enough of your lies.

Your post completely disproves your argument.



This very first line proves that immunity applies only if terrorist/suspect is shot/harmed in self defence or in order to protect innocent bystander , not a right to hunt muslims indiscriminately on street.

If a agent kill a suspect, he has to prove probable cause like presence of a weapon or explosive to gain immunity from lawsuits. This is SoP all around the world, and it is standard practice of US police to gun down any armed person who does not surrender when called upon to do so.



This part is self explanatory. Note Keywords : Extreme circumstances; Self defence; and protecting innocent civilians.

Yet another Indian who can't read English.

The restriction of "extreme circumstances" and "no other option" is removed under the new laws, relaxing the use of lethal force.

Nothing in the wording talks about immediate self-defence. It only talks about preventing harm to others. A terrorism suspect, by definition, is suspected of planning harm to others. The law gives authorities the right to kill someone who is suspected of planning harm to others.

Once again, I suggest you read what is actually written.

 

[Green Arrow]

Australia is usually very peaceful country.

 

[anonymus]

Yet another Indian who can't read English.

The restriction of "extreme circumstances" and "no other option" is removed under the new laws, relaxing the use of lethal force.

Nothing in the wording talks about immediate self-defence. It only talks about preventing harm to others. A terrorism suspect, by definition, is suspected of planning harm to others. The law gives authorities the right to kill someone who is suspected of planning harm to others.

Once again, I suggest you read what is actually written.

This is most stupid explanation of self defence and harm that i have ever read, but then you are trying to make excuse for you terrorist brothers.

Individual self defence is always immediate self defence , and i am only stating this to humor you as there is no concept of immediate and temporally distant self defence. No one could claim self defence to be anything but immediate, unless one is confident of proving himself to be a psychic in court. In order to claim self defence, you need to prove that there is a cause-belle for that defence which would mean that victim of shootout would have to be armed, if not willing to use. In " extreme circumstance " and " no other option " interpretation, a policemen could shoot only if terrorist draws, not carry.

Similar is the case with "harm". In order to potentially harm someone, you must have capacity to harm.To cause harm to bystanders, a terrorist must have a weapon or explosive ( at least a boxcutter ) on his person.

The removal of " extreme circumstances " and " no other option " clause just means that once an officer ,who has shot a terrorist/suspect, has established that his life or life of anyone else was in danger,he does not have to exhaustively prove that there was no other way to resolve that situation. This is how American law works.

And finally; stop lying ,and stop raping English language and logic. You own link states that an officer would have a right to kill a suspect if and only if his or someone else's life is in danger/

Under new laws, Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves.

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

This combined with legal principle that any controversy would be resolved to the disadvantage of draftee means that there is no chance of this law becoming a " License to kill ".

You are inventing new loony concept like " immediate self defence " because you sympathize with Jihadis.

 

[halupridol]

I am part of an intelligence agency of Pakistan. The amount of information that we collect, although extremely important for official purposes, is scary to the point where we are more aware of the person then perhaps his/her family members! But there are certain checks and balances to ensure that we do not abuse our access to that information. And trust me, when we go after some one it is because we have solid evidence of his/her involvement in terrorism.

However, as per recent experience through the media, we are all aware of the crackdown that recently happened in Sydney by agencies. All the suspects that were picked up, as per their highest level of intelligence, proved to be innocents and were released. But what about the ordeal that those individuals and their families has to bear? Why make these stupid draconian laws that tear the fabric of society of which I was a part of about 8 years ago? Australia is 'INSIGNIFICANT' on the world map to Islamic radicals, why paint a big red bulls eye on it for no reason????

u were in a intelligence agency,,,hmm
but by the looks of Pakistan,ur way of doing things definitely was inadequate,,,i hope u accept this as a fact.
anyway what makes u think that Australians r not doing the same....they must have studied how other agencies (more experienced in the matter) worked such cases.
my opinion is that they r doing what needs to be done,,,,offcourse media shud be kept on leash(like in china)

 

[jaunty]

Abbot has managed to scare the shit out of an entire country with no evidence placed before the public of a valid threat. He is trying to turn the non existent threat from ISIS into a political tool. Scare the people so they see you as a saviour. Just like an xxxhole needs a bigger xxxhole in order to look good.

Their country their rules!

 

[Developereo]

This is most stupid explanation of self defence and harm that i have ever read, but then you are trying to make excuse for you terrorist brothers.

Individual self defence is always immediate self defence , and i am only stating this to humor you as there is no concept of immediate and temporally distant self defence. No one could claim self defence to be anything but immediate, unless one is confident of proving himself to be a psychic in court. In order to claim self defence, you need to prove that there is a cause-belle for that defence which would mean that victim of shootout would have to be armed, if not willing to use. In " extreme circumstance " and " no other option " interpretation, a policemen could shoot only if terrorist draws, not carry.

Similar is the case with "harm". In order to potentially harm someone, you must have capacity to harm.To cause harm to bystanders, a terrorist must have a weapon or explosive ( at least a boxcutter ) on his person.

The removal of " extreme circumstances " and " no other option " clause just means that once an officer ,who has shot a terrorist/suspect, has established that his life or life of anyone else was in danger,he does not have to exhaustively prove that there was no other way to resolve that situation. This is how American law works.

And finally; stop lying ,and stop raping English language and logic. You own link states that an officer would have a right to kill a suspect if and only if his or someone else's life is in danger/



No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

This combined with legal principle that any controversy would be resolved to the disadvantage of draftee means that there is no chance of this law becoming a " License to kill ".

You are inventing new loony concept like " immediate self defence " because this law would throttle you Jihadi imam brothers and you are trying to defend them.

Your long harangue is comical and worthless since you have failed to show where the law restrict the use of force to "self defence".

YOU made up that excuse, so it is up to YOU to show where the words "self defence" are used.

Secondly only in your English-challenged mind is there any requirement that the threat of harm must be immediate and involve visible weapons.

In the normal English speaking world, which I invite you to join, a terrorism suspect is someone who is suspected of having an intention to harm people at some time in the future.

This relaxation of lethal use is not just my interpretation, it is the view of the Daily Telegraph, which can hardly be accused of being sympathetic to Muslim concerns. Quite, quite, the opposite!

 

[Developereo]

So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet?

Don't know. It is a new change to the laws.

The point I am making is that the existing laws, which have been honed over centuries by many countries to deal with the most violent of criminals, from drug kingpins to crazed lunatics, are perfectly fine to deal with the situation.

These kinds of demagogic actions only server to sour relations between law enforcement and the law-abiding Arab/Muslim community, and will create suspicion and mistrust. Moreover, the media circus contributes to the demonization of all Muslims. There have already been increased incidents of abuse at Muslims, and youth unemployment within Muslim communities is almost three times the national average.