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

[anonymus]

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!

You have not disproven even a single point of mine , except frothing from the end of your mouth.Let's rip your post line by line.

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.

Now this is what i call a shameless white lie.

The reference of " self-defence " is not from any link that i have posted, but from your own link.

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

Let's analyse each phrase of this sentence, since you are either language challenged or pretending to be one .

Under new law : This phrase signifies that this was not the case under old law.

Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity: This clause talks about the legal fact that agents would be retaining legal immunity.

if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects: This clause is the first conditional modifier setting condition on aforementioned clause that legal immunity would be retained "only" in case where receptor is a terrorist.

to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves: This clause is a second conditional modifier which further limits the scope of immunity of officials to instance where the aforementioned terrorist " posed a danger to their lives or that of bystanders " which presupposes that Terrorist must have potential to endanger life of a law officer or a by stander.Pretty much the definition used as standard in US.

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

First, reference to harm was brought up by you.

It only talks about preventing harm to others.

It was one of your lies where you deliberately misinterpreted " to protect lives of bystanders or themselves" as " harm ".

Second, Your vocabulary is either defected, or you are lying because you are motivated to make excuse for your Jihadi brothers but in English, Definition of harm is

harm(härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
tr.v. harmed, harm·ing, harms
To do harm to.

harm - definition of harm by The Free Dictionary

harm
[hahrm] Spell Syllables

noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt:
to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:
to harm one's reputation.

Harm | Define Harm at Dictionary.com

1harm
noun\ˈhärm\
: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.

Harm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What you are babbling about is Potential to harm, not harm. And even a potential to harm means carrying some weapon , visible or conceal carry .

BTW, I have already stated that presence of weapon has to be proved, not that it was visible.

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.

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.

Which normal English speaking world? Jihadist Koranic english speaking cult where the final objective of language learning is to misinterpret laws ,in order to claim victimhood

 

[Developereo]

You have not disproven even a single point of mine , except frothing from the end of your mouth.Let's rip your post line by line.

The only one frothing at the mouth is a foul-mouthed bigot like you. Just because you have lost the plot, and the argument, is no reason to start vomiting.

Your bigotry clouds your intellect (to use the word loosely), since you have utterly failed to read my complete post.

No one is debating this part of the law. The whole crux of the argument is the changes to lws, and I highlighted that in my earlier post. Clearly, your bigotry damaged your ability to read English, so I will repeat it here.

New laws will retain those but amend the legislation to remove other provisions stating force is permitted only if there is no alternative way of taking a person into custody.

Source: Crackdown on freedoms? Australian Senate passes draconian anti-terror laws | Page 5

Now, sit down, get yourself a dictionary, and read it again. Note the bold part, that's the part that is in BOLD font.

Going back to this gem of a fabrication from your mind,

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.

The way the law works right now is that an officer has to make a reasonable (not exhaustive) case that lethal force was the only remaining option. That requirement will be removed, meaning that an officer can use lethal force as the first option.

And, before you go frothing at the mouth again, open your eyes and note that this is not my interpretation, but the claim comes from the Daily Telegraph, which is a right-wing newspaper.

 

[anonymus]

The only one frothing at the mouth is a foul-mouthed bigot like you. Just because you have lost the plot, and the argument, is no reason to start vomiting.

Your bigotry clouds your intellect (to use the word loosely), since you have utterly failed to read my complete post.

Ha Ha.

An apologist frothing at his mouth,calling others bigot when exposed for being sympathetic to Jihadi cause.

Now, sit down, get yourself a dictionary, and read it again. Note the bold part, that's the part that is in BOLD font.

This is the part which you stated as being a muzzie killer

New laws will retain those but amend the legislation to remove other provisions stating force is permitted only if there is no alternative way of taking a person into custody.

Probably, if you had cut some time of your Da'wah classes, and invested that time in getting even superficial understanding of logic, you would not have been telling lies while frothing from your mouth ( or you would have considering that you are following your religious duty of doing taqqiya and kitman ).


This sentence clearly states that there would be amendment in legislation which would strike down the clause which states that "force is permitted only if there is no alternative way of taking a person into custody". This is a open ended clause which states that an officer does not have to prove that each and every possible method has been exhausted before using force.

This statement:

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.

Limits the application of force to only those situations where that officer or Bystanders life is in danger.


Read together, these statements clearly state that " An officer could use force against terrorist suspect only and only if his or someone else's life is in danger, but he does not has to prove that he had exhausted all options before taking that action ".

This law does not absolve officer from proving reasonable cause ( his or someone else's life was in danger ), which could be proved only of terrorist has potential to endanger his or someone else's life. It just absolve him from proving that " there was no other way to resolve that situation ", once he has established that there was danger to his or someone else's life.

This removes burden from Anti-terror officials to prove that they have no other way to resolve situation, except using force; which is a negative thus making it very difficult to prove which lead to it's exploitation by terrorist sympathizers to gain compensation even from just police actions against them.

Going back to this gem of a fabrication from your mind,

Who is fabricating and telling lies is for all to see.


SO, Finally after all this frothing, questioning my intellect and language abilities, because i punctured your attempt to paint Australia as muslim hating devil ; you have accepted that you were wrong, even though without knowing that yourself.

The way the law works right now is that an officer has to make a reasonable (not exhaustive) case that lethal force was the only remaining option. That requirement will be removed, meaning that an officer can use lethal force as the first option.

What is wrong with this? This interpretation is what i was arguing for since beginning. The amendment not only states that officer could use lethal force as first option,but also limits circumstances when he could use lethal force to those in which his or someone else's life was in danger.You would have easily comprehended this, if you were not busy defending your Jihadi aka terrorist brothers.


This does not mean that Aussies would go around shooting peaceful unarmed muslims. It only means that if a terror suspect is carrying weapon, police could shoot him down without exhausting all possibilities ( like cordoning the area and trying to get him to surrender ). Police would have to still prove that he was danger to either them or bystanders, which means that they have to prove that he had an object with which he could have threatened their or bystander's safety.

And, before you go frothing at the mouth again, open your eyes and note that this is not my interpretation, but the claim comes from the Daily Telegraph, which is a right-wing newspaper.

Don't know, Don't care, Does not give a damn.

 

[Developereo]

What is wrong with this? This interpretation is what i was arguing for since beginning. The amendment not only states that officer could use lethal force as first option,but also limits circumstances when he could use lethal force to those in which his or someone else's life was in danger.

Ignoring your vitriolic attacks on Muslims and Islam, let's examine the facts of the matter.

There are two clauses under discussion here:
(1) 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.
(2) Officers must show that lethal force was the only remaining option.

I am saying that removal of (2) will relax the rules of engagement, allowing lethal force to be used as a first resort merely on suspicion of intent to cause harm. You are claiming that (2) is superfluous and its removal will have no effect.

You are wrong. Clause (2) s significant; it is there for a reason.

Here's a specific example:
Let's say you are a common .criminal who is mistakenly suspected of terrorism intentions (yes, mistakes and faulty intelligence happens). If you get apprehended after a robbery (nothing to do with terrorism), the police can either arrest you or shoot you. In both cases, they have protected the lives of bystanders and themselves, but clause (2) requires them to arrest you if you offer no resistance. Removal of clause (2) means a common robber will be shot merely on an unfounded suspicion.

 

[Jaanbaz]

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.

I don't know the ground situation in Australia. My experience in UK has been good. If you are a law abiding citizen and mind your own business then no one would bother you. Anti terror laws in UK has made no difference to peaceful and law abiding Muslims and other minorities. Life goes on as usual.

Media in the UK is slowly giving more voice to moderate and peaceful Muslims. It is still disappointing that they still give voice to a small extremist Anjem Choudhry's gang.

 

[peacefanBackpacker]

crack down on freedoms? vital defence measures, provoked and announced by alQuada.

you muslims forget your history even on a 20 year timescale. no wonder you're stuck in violence and misery.

--- last bit applied only to muslims who support violence as having any other valid purpose than actual-and-true-and-immediate self-defence.. ---

 

[Developereo]

I don't know the ground situation in Australia. My experience in UK has been good. If you are a law abiding citizen and mind your own business then no one would bother you. Anti terror laws in UK has made no difference to peaceful and law abiding Muslims and other minorities. Life goes on as usual.

Media in the UK is slowly giving more voice to moderate and peaceful Muslims. It is still disappointing that they still give voice to a small extremist Anjem Choudhry's gang.

I am sure most police would behave responsibly but there are always rogue elements, even in law enforcement, and the trust and relationship between police and local communities suffers because of this. Usually, police are the first to stress the importance of staying calm and upholding trust in the fairness of law enforcement.

As I mentioned, the existing laws have been perfected over centuries to deal with the most violent of criminals, while still retaining due process because mistakes do happen. The wrong people get accused of crimes by mistake. These knee-jerk, demagogic adjustments to well-honed laws have a tendency to have unintended consequences.

 

[xdrive]

It's completely pointless arguing or debating with Developereo. Everything he says is factless and just resorts to baseless name calls of "Racist" "bigot" etc when the bullshit he spouts isn't accepted.

Moving on.