Australian Government Censors Draft Snooping Laws 150
coolstoryhansel writes "Stating that release of the draft legislation is not in the public interest [PDF] because it would prejudice decision making processes already in train, the Attorney General's Department has denied the release of the draft laws that would see wide-scale dragnet surveillance implemented along with an expansion of law enforcement powers for the purposes of 'national security'. Serkowski, speaking for the Pirate Party who lodged the FOI request labelled the Department response as 'disgraceful and troubling' saying the decision is 'completely trashing any semblance or notion of transparency or participative democratic process of policy development.'"
And when passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
And when passed,one more step to Police State (Score:4, Informative)
Labor & Liberal yet again **voting together** to preserve and extend a _privatised_ police state [youtube.com] in Australia, extend surveillance of Australian citizens without any oversight.
for example:
Flawed cybercrime Bill dodges national security inquiry
20 Aug 2012 | Scott Ludlam
Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy
The Australian Government is pursuing a draconian cybercrime law scheduled for debate in the Senate tonight despite warnings from its own MPs and before an inquiry into national security legislation has taken evidence or reported, the Greens said today.
The Greens communications spokesperson, Senator for Western Australia Scott Ludlam, said Labor's cybercrime legislation would open the door to Australians' private data being shared with agencies overseas.
"This proposed law goes well beyond the already controversial European convention on which it is based, and no explanation has been provided as to why. The European Treaty doesn't require ongoing collection and retention of communications, but the Australian Bill does. It also leaves the door open for Australia to assist in prosecutions which could lead to the death penalty overseas. These flaws must be addressed before the Bill proceeds."
Senator Ludlam said the Government had addressed only one of a range of problems identified by a unanimous Parliamentary committee on the legislation.
"The Government ignored a series of recommendations from MPs on all sides of Parliament, and fixed one embarrassing drafting flaw that would have prevented accession to the European Convention and invalidated the whole point of the Bill.
"The Attorney General's Department did the bare minimum they thought necessary to acknowledge the existence of the critical and unanimous committee report. The Government was urged by its own MPs to fix this legislation but chose to leave it as is. The national security legislation review - which will be looking at a highly controversial data retention proposal - has barely begun, yet the Government has now brought a key piece of enabling legislation forward.
"We have recommended a number of improvements to the bill including fixing these flaws and clarifying the Ombudsman's powers to inspect and audit compliance with the preservation regime."
Re:And when passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
"This bill is not in the public interest, so we're not allowing the public to see it."
EU's Clean IT is the same (Score:2, Informative)
I bet foreign powers get to see this bill, even if the public never does! Can I remind you also of Clean IT. The EU similar spying, monitoring, censorship law. Which follows the same pattern of secrecy:
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2012/09/its-coming-leaked-document-on-eu.html
To sum up:
1. It calls for widespread monitoring and censorship of the internet, and end to privacy and anonymity.
2. It is largely agreed, with only some sections are marked for discussions.
3. The discussion document is secret, those sec
Re:EU's Clean IT is the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Has Australia have no brave MPs who could stand up, invoke Parliamentary privilege, and make people aware of the more noxious aspects of the legislation?
I mean, how, in the post-Glorious Revolution age of Parliamentary democracy can a government submit a secret law to a Parliament in any of the Commonwealth Realms and have it passed? Something like this would have been seen even in Queen Anne's time as a violation of Parliament's authority and dignity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
something something terrorists
Re: (Score:3)
Even Guy Fawkes was tried in public
Re: (Score:2)
Phrase it like: "This bill is not of interest to the public, so we are allowing them to not see it"
Re: (Score:2)
This is insane. I can't even comprehend how a government can even make a claim like this.
Re: (Score:3)
This is insane. I can't even comprehend how a government can even make a claim like this.
Apparently, the politicians in Oz are learning by US example.
"We have to pass the bill...to find out what's in the bill."
"When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I will act."
I think it's about time we cleaned out the whole lot. They seem to think they're the ones in charge or something. Time to introduce some politicians to this thing called "humility", as they obviously are unacquainted with the concept.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has certainly given the US Government some unseemly powers, to be sure, but still, the bills themselves were debated openly. This is quite another thing entirely, and if it is as written, is pretty much alien to the way laws have been passed in the United States and the Commonwealth since before either even existed as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should just follow the lead of the U.S. legislature: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it [youtube.com]."
Now if only they hadn't banned Huawei (Score:2)
then we could download the draft off some obscure chinese website by now. Hmpf.
j/k
Re:Now if only they hadn't banned Huawei (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
internet archive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The traditional place has always been cryptome.org [cryptome.org]. Please note that that's the place where early Wikileaks leaks were leaked giving some of us an insight into the possibility that Wikilieaks would turn out to be less than fully competent. The question you should ask yourself is a) how do I get it there safely (the same applies to Wikileaks drop of points) and anonymously b) how do I make sure there isn't a water mark or some other code which makes the information traceable to me or someone close to me.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Just lose a USB key or two. The rest is up to the person who finds it.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know which leak you are referring to. Manning was caught because he bragged to Adrian Lamo. If he'd kept his mouth shut he might still have been a free man. (as much as anybody in the army is a free man)
This is new? (Score:2)
Sadly, how is any of this a surprise?
What is even worse is that most people would say it is morally wrong to withhold this information - but the voice of the average person is ignored these days...
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a surprise, and it is very, very sad.
God damn, Australia, for a nation founded by convicts, you certainly do seem to have a hard on for creating more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
'National Security,' 'For the Children,' and whatnot are magic words that make the average person go along with anything the government says.
Aussies, now you know why... (Score:2)
Aussies, now you know why you were disarmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aussies, now you know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Err, what are you saying would be different about the situation supposing that every person in Australia did have a gun?
The difference is, when the people go to the streets to protest, the government is afraid because people may have guns, meaning, if pushed, they can use force against the government. But if you take the guns away from the people, their protesting doesn't bother you as much, since you have all the force to keep the power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aussies, now you know why... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, but none of these are western democracies
And SOMEONE does not know their Western history! (Not surprising given the utter lack of proper history teaching in the West for the last 30 years. Thanks for that, Baby Boomers!)
By 1776 the Magna Carta had been in force in England for over 100 years. England was then, as now, a monarchic Democracy, and certainly a Western state (Actually, they were THE Western State at that point in history.) This is, of course, what led to the American revolution. The colonists felt that they were being made serfs again by lack of representation in Parliament. After years of protests and complaints and a series of political, social and police assaults by the crown on the colonies (designed to suppress dissent) the colonies banded together and revolted. The large scale presence of arms in the colonies attributed in part to the success of the revolution.
Nazi Germany was a Western Democracy prior to Nazi takeover. Hitler's election to Chancellor was by popular vote. It wasn't until after his election to Chancellor and subsequent seizing of power through political subterfuge (like having the army swear allegiance to HIM rather than to Germany or the German Constitution) that the people began to get a sense that there was a problem.
Unfortunately for them, one of the first laws that Hitler passed even BEFORE seizing full Dictatorial power was to outlaw private gun ownership. He knew that an armed populace was a dangerous and uncontrollable populace, even when doped up on the Nazi propaganda that was inescapable in Germany at the time.
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And SOMEONE does not know their Western history! (Not surprising given the utter lack of proper history teaching in the West for the last 30 years. Thanks for that, Baby Boomers!)
Don't blame us, our education was even worse than yours. Most early 20th centuy history I learned from my grandparents, who lived it. They didn't teach us any more than they did my kids, who are in their twenties, and they're probably doing a better job than then..
I once got an A+ on a science paper in high school because it was ov
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
I admire your knowledge of history, but in your zeal to show it I think you have missed GP's point. The question of "can you name a democracy where guns have helped a protest movement" is I think an important point. When you CAN vote, when you DO have free speech, skipping to using guns is a wonderful way to be counterproductive in your movement in a current western democracy. The media will focus on how crazy and violent your movement is, giving them cover to ignore the legitimate message that the other
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for them, one of the first laws that Hitler passed even BEFORE seizing full Dictatorial power was to outlaw private gun ownership.
It is a myth [guncite.com].
TL;DR version: the law long predated Nazis, but it didn't preclude citizens from owning any weapons whatsoever (and they did own plenty hunting rifles and such). By the times Nazis tightened it down (which still didn't prevent people from owning hunting rifles, except Jews), they already had their power well established.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA became a western democracy because the French gave the Continental Congress a helluva lot of financial and military aid. I suspect that without it, the best that could have happened for the revolutionaries would have been a long term guerrilla campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it for you, but armed paramilitaries were a crucial part of the power base of NSDAP. Guns work both ways.
Re:Aussies, now you know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Protests without guns that successfully toppled oppressive regimes include, but are not limited to:
* Phillipines, 1986
* A whole bunch of countries after the collapse of the USSR: Poland, 1988-9 Hungary, 1988-9 East Germany, 1989 Czechoslovakia, 1989 Bulgaria, 1989
* Serbia, 2000
* Georgia, 2003
* Ukraine, 2004
* Lebanon, 2005
* The "Arab Spring": Tunisia, 2011 Egypt, 2011
The point: You can resist a bad government with nothing but your bodies, your voices, and some semblence of organization, and have a decent chance of success. It's not a 100% chance of success, but neither is violent resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
India 1947
South Africa 1994
U.S.A. 1964 (Civil Rights Act)
Re: (Score:2)
A whole bunch of countries after the collapse of the USSR: Poland, 1988-9 Hungary, 1988-9 East Germany, 1989 Czechoslovakia, 1989 Bulgaria, 1989
There was nothing to topple there, the whole thing was so rotten that it was falling into pieces on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
1989 was the point where the USSR stopped trying to control the Eastern Bloc, including East Germany. It was definitely the beginning of the end for the Soviets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is, when the people go to the streets to protest, the government is afraid because people may have guns, meaning, if pushed, they can use force against the government.
Totally 100%. Look at Afghanistan and places like that where everyone has a gun and they totally had success resisting professional armed services with their own guns [youtube.com]. No asymmetry between people with Apache's and mini-guns and people with normal civilian assault rifles.
This stuff has to be stopped long before they get the chance to call you a terrorist. Small arms just act as a security blanket keeping you quiet. Nukes and heavy weapons are denied from "the people" everywhere. For fairly good reason
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you forget about guerilla warfare? e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In all three the US had the machines of war, but the guerillas slowly but steadily made the uniformed forces' lives miserable until they wanted to withdraw. The latter two, of course, aren't over yet, but the example still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're just hand-waving away the proven long-term effectiveness of guerilla warfare by citing an extreme example.
The local/foreign argument is missing the point. Besides, there are plenty of examples of domestic guerilla warfare. The issue is uniformed, government-backed forces vs. loosely-organized, armed, plainclothes civilians who outnumber the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Err you do realise we're a western civilisation right? Not some way back Arab nation, not some communist country ruled under tyranny, but a western civilisation. The people can rise with nothing more than rocks and baseball bats against a government and effectively topple it. It would be the end for the country and the end for the government if someone gave an order to gun down our own citizens.
As for guns, we were disarmed voluntarily. Sure the political party of the day disarmed us, but the opposing party
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, shooting unarmed civilians would be a complete end to any civilized western nation. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Errr yes because killing 4 people back in the 1970 has entirely the same weight as a Tiemann square style massacre 40 years later.
If you're going to pull some arbitrary case from history to aid your argument maybe look at something more relevant, say something that happened in 2008. Where one person was shot and an entire city went on to riot. [wikipedia.org]
But in any case we're quite safe from our government as we are allies with the USA and they have shown to go to war at the drop of a dime. Did I mention we have gas, c
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The last time the Citizenry were armed, and the country's leader (albeit in the following example, not an elected one) tried to abrogate the rights of the Citizen granted by God and reinforced in Law from the Code of Alfred onward... he was decapitated. Google Charles I and the Second English Civil War (1648-9).
Now, we're seeing - in every so-called "democracy" - the rights of the Citizen whittled away in the name of national security, which Government then arms the private security force known universally
Re: (Score:2)
What can we do?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could try starting a letter writing campaign to the Australian Governor General. At the end of the day, the GG has to give assent to any bill, and has the power to effectively veto or delay a bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I misunderstood you, or vice versa. I'm not Australian. I was thinking more generally.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the Citizenry soon found out that the Roundheads were even more egregious in their style of government than Charles I, and ultimately rejected Cromwell's heir in favour of Charles I's heir.
The Glorious Revolution, that's where real Parliamentary democracy had its birth. While it took another century or so before the forms of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were fully developed, it was at that point that Parliament gained, in law as well as in fact, supremacy.
Re:Aussies, now you know why... (Score:4, Informative)
Thank you for asking; the answer to that question is undoubtedly of the utmost importance. However, I firmly believe that equipping you to answer it for yourself (assuming you're not a troll) makes much more sense.
As such, here are more than a few relevant quotes that might broaden your perspective enough for you to do so:
"A free people ought to be armed."
~George Washington
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
~Richard Henry Lee
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
~St. George Tucker
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
~George Washington
"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
~Larry Elder
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
~Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
~Alexander Hamilton
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
~John F. Kennedy
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other."
~John Locke
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
~James Burgh
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people."
~Saint George Tucker
"The right of the people to keep and bearâ¦arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
~James Madison
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...it may still be early here in the States but...
Sorry; grammatical fuck-up there. That should have read "It is still early here in the States and..." :)
Mod this man up! (Score:2)
Thank you, that was amazing! I have copied it and will add to my copy whenever I come across relevant quotes.
I think the chief problem is that fear rules over reason in the minds of so many. And I don't know how to solve that, other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world. And people must make that decision on their own.
"Eternal vigilence..."
Re: (Score:2)
...other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world...
Not to throw a wrench into the gears of what some might prefer remain a highly-polarized debate... but I can't help disagreeing with you there: weapons are all about this world. The notion that "Gawd wants us to have 'em!" - whether we swallow it hook, line and sinker like a bunch of brainwashed fundamentalists or we completely scoff at it like properly-indoctrinated liberals - is just more framing-of-the-debate courtesy of TPTB.
But no, there's absolutely nothing divine or spiritually-healthy about weapons
Re: (Score:2)
...other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world...
Not to throw a wrench into the gears of what some might prefer remain a highly-polarized debate... but I can't help disagreeing with you there: weapons are all about this world. The notion that "Gawd wants us to have 'em!" - whether we swallow it hook, line and sinker like a bunch of brainwashed fundamentalists or we completely scoff at it like properly-indoctrinated liberals - is just more framing-of-the-debate courtesy of TPTB.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My point is not that God wants us to have guns. My point is that the reason people oppose gun ownership is that they are afraid. But having an eternity-focused worldview means that one need not fear dying. When one realizes that one's most valuable possession--one's soul--cannot be taken away, one is free to act out of courage rather than fear. One need not fear guns, or ultimately any harm, because the worst that an evil person can do is kill you.
But no, there's absolutely nothing divine or spiritually-healthy about weapons of death and destruction; you can bet your ass that neither Christ nor Buddha would've wanted to carry around a Taurus Judge or a Saiga 12...
This is a specious a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, it makes him feel more manly. It does nothing to guarantee democracy, and actually does much to retard it (in both senses of the word). Having a heavily armed population just gives the government a better excuse to surveil you. None of these 2nd Amendment wackos has ever done anything to advance democracy and human rights.
Re: (Score:1)
So you think that if the population isn't armed, the government won't want to surveil it or encroach upon its liberty?
Oh, yes, you're so right: none of the people in favor of the Second Amendment ever did anything to advance democracy or human rights:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
~Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed."
~George Washington
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
~George Washington
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
~George Washington
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."
~Thomas Jefferson
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison
Nevermind that those men are the ones who created the world's foremost democracy by the blood of many men, the nation which has thus far done the most to advance the cause of liberty and set the strongest example (no it's not perfect; that's not the point).
It's
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that if the population isn't armed, the government won't want to surveil it or encroach upon its liberty?
Of course it will -- it does. And in America, with a gun on every nightstand and glovebox, it does that too. The government isn't afraid of your guns.
Re: (Score:2)
The government isn't afraid of your guns.
That is a loaded statement and a useless generalization.
There are plenty of people in government who are afraid of citizens having guns. They would be happy if gun ownership were completely illegal.
There are also people in government who fully support the Second Amendment. They want good citizens to be armed, because they recognize that 1) the government is of, by, and for the people; 2) most people are decent and would never intentionally harm another person; 3) the government/police cannot ultimately pr
Re: (Score:2)
, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
Owning a gun is an admission that you live in fear, and want to make others fear you even more.
Re: (Score:2)
, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
Owning a gun is an admission that you live in fear, and want to make others fear you even more.
It's an admission that unfortunately, some people cannot be reasoned with.
Most people who actually own guns hope that they never have to use them. It's a bit like car insurance. You have it, but not because you're planning to crash your car.
Re: (Score:2)
, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
Owning a gun is an admission that you live in fear, and want to make others fear you even more.
I'll add that the only reason _you_ don't live in fear is because there are men with guns who are charged with your safety. They are the police in many places and the military in places where police don't usually carry guns. You hire them with your tax dollars to present deadly force on your behalf. Owning a gun simply means sharing this responsibility and not completely delegating it to someone else whom you've never met.
I long for a world where force or threat of force is no longer necessary to main
Re: (Score:2)
Any democratic government is simply the will of the people, distilled.
Wow, that's quite a lot of faith you have in democratic governments. Ideally it would be so, but in reality it's not nearly so simple.
All that will creates enormous power of action
This is a rather meaningless statement; kind of like synergistic buzzwordism.
Power, ANY POWER, corrupts. The more power you have, the more corrupt you are.
I generally agree with this. This is why term limits are a good thing; we probably need more of them.
Yes, having guns around gives the government an excuse to surveil you and encroach on your liberty.
No, the government can do those things quite well without you carrying a gun.
Then it makes no difference.
HOWEVER, a gun in your pocket or in mine does nothing to protect OUR FREEDOMS unless you are willing to USE IT.
There are different kinds of freedoms. The right of self-defense against random violence is one. The right to have a revolution and replace the government is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
If one agrees with quotes like:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
~George Washington
...then it is quite reasonable to argue that the citizenry should have the right to own weapons which are comparable with those used by the military.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for governm
Re: (Score:2)
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
Not everyone. Gun nuts, creationist, new agers, that kind of self righteous jerk who are impervious to rationality.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for government--then, naturally, you don't want any citizens to have any means by which to oppose government....
You have elections in America, I believe. That is how you "oppose government". You throw them out. You aren't in Gaddafi's Libya or Washington's British colony. All you have to do is turn up and vote and you can throw your government out on its ear. You want a fascist government? Vote for a fascist. You want a Muslim one? Communist? You can have whatever government you, and 51% of the people,
Re: (Score:2)
...that kind of self righteous jerk who are impervious to rationality.
The irony is killing me here.
You have elections in America, I believe. That is how you "oppose government". You throw them out. You aren't in Gaddafi's Libya or Washington's British colony. All you have to do is turn up and vote and you can throw your government out on its ear. You want a fascist government? Vote for a fascist. You want a Muslim one? Communist? You can have whatever government you, and 51% of the people, want.
Sure, ignore the problems of the current political system, and argue as if it were ideal.
But if you only represent 1%, well, you're right, you'll have to use murder to take power.
Sure, tear down your strawman, after you set it up again. Second Amendment advocates are not advocating a "1%" minority (this "1%" is just a meaningless buzzword!) taking control of the government by force.
It's also interesting to look at other nations where guns are illegal, like the UK, and see what effect the "government must protect me" mentality has had on society. I think it's quite
Re: (Score:2)
Can you be any less condescending? I am a Second Amendment supporter. I don't believe that it is truly a meaningful "safeguard against tyranny" today, but I consider it important for other reasons (like right to defend oneself). I support other organizations who defend our freedoms and human rights, like ACLU. But you just went out of your way to offend me, because I do have a gun in my pocket? Are you living in perpetual fear of being in a proximity of a lethal weapon, or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you be any less condescending? I am a Second Amendment supporter. I don't believe that it is truly a meaningful "safeguard against tyranny" today, but I consider it important for other reasons (like right to defend oneself). I support other organizations who defend our freedoms and human rights, like ACLU. But you just went out of your way to offend me, because I do have a gun in my pocket? Are you living in perpetual fear of being in a proximity of a lethal weapon, or something?
I live in a state where the law allows you to openly carry, or you can obtain a permit to conceal-carry.
Sometimes in public places I see people openly carrying. I suppose I also see people who conceal-carry but by the nature of that I don't know which they are.
When I am at a store and I see a fellow citizen openly carrying a gun, it makes me feel safer. I am happy to see it. I know that any would-be violent criminal can also see it and that it gives them a reason to think twice about trying somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that less than half of Americans bother to vote.
And neither would Australians if they weren't fined for not voting.
Probably. Which is why it's necessary. The alternative is large parts of the population are disenfranchised, that it is because they have been convinced their votes can't change anything rather than directly preventing them from voting, it has the same corrosive effect on the political situation. It encourages extremism, a relatively small group of motivated zealots, NRA members, for instance, can leverage their ability to turn out the vote to have an undue influence on government.
If you have a philosophic
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Which is why it's necessary. The alternative is large parts of the population are disenfranchised, that it is because they have been convinced their votes can't change anything rather than directly preventing them from voting
In a parliamentary system with multiple (i.e more than two) parties, this is a good idea. It tends to work. It works even better if the single transferrable vote system is implemented (something you may wish to look up if you are unfamiliar with it).
In the USA's winner-take-all system with only two parties that stand a chance of winning, lots of votes ARE wasted. A candidate can win 51% of the vote and the other 49% of voters may as well have stayed home.
Then there's another deal you may not have c
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" voters, in practice... you kno
Re: (Score:2)
In a parliamentary system with multiple (i.e more than two) parties, this is a good idea. It tends to work. It works even better if the single transferrable vote system is implemented (something you may wish to look up if you are unfamiliar with it).
Which we do have in Australia.
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" vote
Re: (Score:2)
When you vote you are exercising one of the few types of force that has any meaning. The real pity is that once you have exercised that force the party you voted for can change their whole agenda.
The major motivation for this is the influence money has on the political process.
There is a great remedy for this. Give a very generous amount of public money, with no strings attached, to all candidates who have met the requiremetns to appear on the ballot. Mandate that this money is their sole means of financing their campaigns. Mandate that candidates may not use their personal wealth and any attempt to do so disqualifies them, then audit them regularly. Then pass a law stating that any campaign
People First (Score:2)
Re:People First (Score:4, Insightful)
When they get elected?
They dream themselves your master. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The best quote from a game full of good writing.
Re:They dream themselves your master. (Score:5, Informative)
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
early days... nip it in the bud? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds troubling, but it's hardly even a Government proposal for legislation, never mind a Bill being laid before parliament. And the decision to withhold the draft may still be appealed.
This seems to be an early draft (a bit like the ACTA negotiations, perhaps) since the grounds for withholding are:
So the Department concerned is probably committed to something like the draft, and they are trying to work out what is feasible, but the rest of the government has not yet had a chance to comment.
The appropriate response at this stage is probably (1) appeal, (2) contact representatives in government and opposition who may oppose any provisions that threaten civil liberties, and (3) use the media (and slashdot) to raise awareness that something is coming in the future.
But it is not normal to release early drafts (that have not yet been thought through properly) to the public - at that stage you could not possibly have a workable policy, and people may get very worked up about errors that the government themselves will address. Surely the time for public scrutiny is when concrete proposals are made?
Though crowdsourcing of bills might be interesting... it worked for the constitution in Iceland, didn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo a jittery-finger-offtopic-mod (damn these virtual keyboards....)
For the record, I saw this as interesting/insightful....
cheers,
Re: (Score:1)
If a would be law can be derailed by public scrutiny... it has no business being *anywhere* in the process to become a law. Seriously. If the words are so sloppy, or the requirements so outrageous, then it needs to be scrapped in its entirety. Find some better fucking authors to start anew.
If my thesis advisor comes by and wants to see my work.. it's really not promising if I have to tell him that I can't let him see it because it might prejudice his reading of my final submission.
Will they even post it afer its law? (Score:2)
Kafka's The Trial. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's called a Star Chamber. Abolished in England 1641. Resurrected in the twentieth Century under the guise of Family Proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
There can be no democracy if institutions act in secret.
Super-Nanny State (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The grass is always greener, eh?
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Re: (Score:2)
Real reason for censoring... (Score:2)
The real reason for censoring such proposed laws would be if they were offensive. Do you guys feel offended by all this yet?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly what they said. The public is supposed to prejudice the decision making process that's called having input to the elected body that's supposed to represent there interests.
prejudice (Score:2)
So they don't want to tell the public about the laws they are looking to pass, because the public won't like them?
They sure have balls to say that. Now I hope they're exposed enough for someone over there to kick them, nice and hard.
Not in the public interest means... (Score:2)
until everyone is signed up for the National Broadband Network - then we'll tell you what we've done.
Can't get decent software to scan job applications but software to scan internet use will work perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
"release of the draft legislation... would prejudice decision making processes already in train"
Uh, pardon me good Sir, but isn't this practically the entire goal and description of participatory democracy?
Democracy? Either you're not Australian or you're not very well informed (the head of state is the Queen of England and government ministers briefing Americans is not considered traitorous). Seriously - the only "right" enshrined in the Consitution is "free trade between states" and even that has never been the case. Try posting Penthouse magazines to parts of the NT and see what happens. Or cigarettes from one state to another.
The decision making process is "commercial in confidence" - that is, the resale