bill_thorlin Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 They have just lost 2 more on their "Incitement" agenda. They lost the second one by one vote and Mr.Blair did not even bother to vote on it ! It strikes me that we have a situation where they believe that their "credentials" are so right that they cannot possibly be wrong and that given their majority they will get away with it somehow. I am afraid of big majorities - 20-30 will do me. To be honest I rejoiced in their defeats but we cannot leave it up to just the politicians ( whose motives are too often suspect ) or the judiciary. We are to my way of thinking duty bound to speak out - voting is not just a right it is a privilege and a duty as well. We can perhaps learn from the antipodeans here and not just Simon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Stuart - great idea for the UK.... that way the Poms can win something in future! :) Craig - I've no idea which school but a bunch of junior sporting associations in Qld have done the same thing - seems there is a view up there that parents cannot be trusted with a camera! :) Trevor - yes like the cold war and even worse still like the McCarthy era! We are now expected to look for paedophiles and terrorists under our beds as well as commies! Everyone - Keep up the fight back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 No ! No ! stay in - we will let you win once in a while - please don't sulk about the Ashes at least not until we beat you in the old penal colony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Under the popular and widely accepted headings of "combatting terrorism" and "countering pedophelia," and even under the guise of prohibiting the practice of "upskirting," all manner of statutes/ordinances/regulations/restrictions are in the offing. Some are carefully drafted. Many more, I'm afraid, are not. And who argues *for* the protection of terrorists, pedophiles, or those who would use image-capturing technology to violate a woman's privacy (in a place/manner where the legitimate expectation of privacy actually exists) ? Regrettably it's rather easy to provoke a democracy into overreaction on all of these fronts. This is why it's no challenge to isolate a seeming handful of cantankerous fans of the First Amendment (constitutional clause protecting free speech, expression, press, religion in the US) and comparable clauses in the U.K., Australia, and elsewhere. I agree with you, Simon, Bill, Trevor, and others. Good time to be issuing a "BOLO" (be on lookout) in this subject area. Hope you'll link or otherwise make available your piece when it's ready, Simon. I certainly look forward to reading it, and at some point, with your permission, probably quoting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 <i>comparable clauses in the U.K., Australia, and elsewhere</i><p> Erm - no Bill of Rights in the Australian Federal (or state) constitutions. So no "Freedom of Speech" in Australia either - despite a few bogus High Court cases finding there may be magically "implied" rights when it comes to political discourse :?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Andrew: <<...despite a few bogus High Court cases finding there may be magically "implied" rights ...>> It's in the vibes... it's about the vibes... like Marbo! Bill - we Aussies never kick a bloke when he is down... your turn to win an Ashes! Michael: This is the 200 word (199 actually) version agreed to be published in the major daily next week: "Increasingly we witness paranoia driven over-reactions to potential threats. Various organisations, even the police have attempted to prevent public photography suggesting photographers may be todayﾒs great threat to our safety! This is spuriously justified as preventing the evils of paedophilia and terrorism. Those who enjoy recording everyday events are now labelled as potential evil doers. Future generations risk the loss of recorded social history. Photography bans at childrenﾒs events insult us all by suggesting camera-owners cannot be trusted. This means of pursuing a safer world is at best illogical. The attempt to stop photographers near the Shell refinery ludicrously suggested a potential terrorist threat. More worrying is that police have no business ﾓenforcingﾔ non-existent laws. It was once hard enough to get police to intervene in real crimes such as domestic violence against women. What can we expect next - the banning of binoculars and telescopes because their owners may be spies and peeping Toms? Fear should not be driven by people in senior positions whom we trust to have greater sense. We must stop such over-reactions from securing a permanent foothold that risks a less rich era in which we are denied the benefits of visual social records. " Cheers and keep fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Peter, you generally make a good point that fear distracts people from the real issues that matter. The picture we get of domestic America shows that. In Australia much the same takes place but to a far lesser degree. However, while the Australian Government could find A$1.1Billion to gift Indonesia after the sunami, our health system would not subsidise a woman's cancer treatment drugs costing A$70,000 forcing her to sell her home, becuase her cancer is not far advanced enough! It's all about twisted priorities. But, we should not sit back and allow officials to screw with normal social behaviour because they want to drive a culture of fear and paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 You do not have a monopoly on this problem in Australia and the US. Hospital wards here are being shut down for lack of funds putting people's lives at risk. I do not know how much money has been and is being spent invading Iraq ( it must be billions ) and putting people's lives at risk ( we have just suffered our 100th casualty ). WMD - the ultimate fear factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_gillette Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Hmmh, good thing they've still got their guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 What - the ones that do not work too well ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_m Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Everyone should have their eyes put out at birth with red hot pokers. That way they can never see anything pornographic. The only problem is who is going to do it since everyone will be blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 a red light allows everyone the free access of travel at an appropriate moment. It serves everyone's rights of free travel. You agreed to that stipulation when you applied for a driver's licence. The person not abiding by this requirement WILL eventually cause harm to another person. It should be illegal. Producing and distribution of child pornography should be illegal. I am not fully convinced that purchase of said should also be. There's a line there that is worth considering. "Looking" at a picture is not causing harm to anyone, regardless of it's content. Owning a gun should not be illegal.......period! Killing or harming a person with that gun (except in self defence), should be. Again, it takes the act to be illegal temporary restraining orders are only granted if there is substantial proof, usually of previous less harmful acts upon the person requesting the action. They are not granted on "thought". "...you are being an utter asshole, I hope you realize that...." That must be akin to "you're taking this too far". What else do you think it is when an unjust law is passed. When the accused...based solely on someone else's thoughts....is arrested. If he refuses, he does so at the point of a gun....the authorities gun. There is no other way to force a person to submit to unjust laws except at the point of a gun. "....And you will then--perfectly legally--be restricted even more...."......aaahhhh, the true purpose of all those that object to personal freedom of an individual. I do care immensely about other people. I care so much that I will voice my opinion any time anyone attempts to diminish those people's rights. People deserve to be free. they do not deserve to be under the whim and fancy of those that think that they "might" do something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 hmmmm...looks like my post is meaningless considering the post I responded to was deleted.....might as well delete that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Let me just point out that people who show up with big SLRs and tripods and lenses aren't trying to hide anything. "Here I am, I'm shooting photos". It's the cameraphone owners who need to be clamped down on, sneaking shots while pretending to fiddle with their phones. If there's going to be a law, these devices should be banned. Aye, and stupid ringtones too, while we're about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 What happened here? I obviously missed something that caused posts to be deleted, including mine. If one has contravened the rules is it not a good idea to let one know how and why ? Or does the baby get thrown out with the bath water ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Good point Bill - moderator, please say something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now