I love you aussies as well. And hspdr are you serious? I understand that there is the possibility of some negative attitudes towards muslims in general. Hate to break it to you, but if terrorists continue to make terror attacks under the flag of islam, then muslims will eventually be persecuted in any country where the attacks take place. So either way muslims have the potential to be persecuted. One way, australia is going to try to prevent a terrorist attack and keep the peace so to speak. The other way, which would be to allow the hate speech to continue, will increase the chances of a terrorist strike in australia to happen.
Here’s the kicker, the islamofacist have put the entire religion of islam into the fray here. We didn’t target them, they let a portion hijack thier flag and start a war under it’s colors. To me the solution is clear, islam needs to take care of these idiots and clean thier religion and turn it back into the peacful religion that it could be. Now my question is, why is this not happening at all? Where are all the authority figures going out and meeting with OBL and they boys and demanding thier surrender? We barely hear of them denouncing an attack after it happens, quite the opposit in most cases there is dancing in the streets.
I don’t know how many australians you have met, but the ones I have met are quite a hard bunch. They basically don’t give a shit and are going to do what they think is right. If it hurts someones feelings oh so sorry. Frankly, I wish more americans were like that. I just wish that americans and aussies, would go visit these mosques, listen to the message and see what it’s all about. If the guy is sitting there telling his people to go incite violence, I walk up and say, heres some violence for you right here, pull out a club and smash him over the head. I mean he did ask for it right?
This whole debate about mainstream vs. radical muslims is bullshit. Until these “mainstream” muslims start acting and stop giving us lip service then they can’t cry foul if some of them get caught up in this mess. It’s not enough to simply “denounce terrorism” or run some ad in the paper like they’ve done here in the states.
I want to see the mosques and clerics who preach this radical shit being picketed. Moderate muslims should be organizing protests against this Islamo-fascism in front of the mosques and the clerics homes. I want to see local muslims dragging these radicals to the police stations saying “here you go, this guy is dangerous and does not represent us”, or at least pointing them out to the police. They need to put pressure on these guys from inside their own communities. We get little to no real action from the muslim communities. Talk is cheap…
BTW, there was a pole taken in the U.K. after the London bombings asking local Muslims if they would alert authorities and turn in a radical if they knew of an impending terror attack and 27% said they wouldn’t. Scary stuff…
Good on ya Australia! All I can say is this reflects their no nonsense attitude toward approaching and solving problems and issues, which I generally like.
When I was down there the latest issue (and my details might be a little out of whack) was overturning a Motor Vehicle decision about an arab woman who claimed it her right to wear the face mask for her friggin ID!!!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sometimes - in order to show how “civilized” we are and to curry positive spin amongst the Euros, but without thinking through all the consequences - we sign onto some bad treaty commitments and then are forced to the uncomfortable position of having either to honor them or disingenuously pick our way around them.[/quote]
Kudos for providing the details on the treaty I was referring to. You’re clearly very good at what you do for a living, and that’s something I respect a lot. Even when I don’t agree with your opinions…
By the way, you know how I feel about this comment (and how I profoundly disagree with it), so I’m not going to tell you what you already know…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The US signed on, in 1994 under the Clinton Administration, to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”). Article 3 of UNCAT states: “No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Notice, there are no exceptions here to give a party the right to send a person back to his own country.
[/quote]
BB - I don’t think it is a bad thing that the US signed this treaty. Deliberately sending someone to another country knowing they will get tortured is pretty fucked up (unless, apparently, you work for the CIA. That would be a different thread, though).
I think the problem is two-fold:
How do these radicals get the visa’s or assylum in the first?
What laws does a country have in place to ensure that if they can’t deport the individual in question, what other measures can be taken.
In Australia’s case, we can reply on the whole inciting violence thing. Does the US protection of free speech mean that this is not an option in the US?
One thing I have noticed is that many of these extremists talk about trying to actively over through the government in question. Where does treason come into it?
I think it’s a good idea on Australia’s part to do this. I do disagree with the take on CIA’s torture/interrogation methods as I wholeheartedly agree with torture as a means to extract information in a warzone.
As a former United states sailor i can attest to the greatness and beauty of Australia(boxer Kostya Tszu evidently knew what he was talking about).They can run their country anyway they would like and believe all that they are saying is that thy don’t want any trouble. Is that too much too ask from one of the few beautiful places left on this earth?
Brandon Green
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The US signed on, in 1994 under the Clinton Administration, to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“UNCAT”). Article 3 of UNCAT states: “No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Notice, there are no exceptions here to give a party the right to send a person back to his own country.
Massif wrote:
BB - I don’t think it is a bad thing that the US signed this treaty. Deliberately sending someone to another country knowing they will get tortured is pretty fucked up (unless, apparently, you work for the CIA. That would be a different thread, though).
I think the problem is two-fold:
How do these radicals get the visa’s or assylum in the first?
What laws does a country have in place to ensure that if they can’t deport the individual in question, what other measures can be taken.
In Australia’s case, we can reply on the whole inciting violence thing. Does the US protection of free speech mean that this is not an option in the US?
One thing I have noticed is that many of these extremists talk about trying to actively over through the government in question. Where does treason come into it?[/quote]
Massif,
I generally agree that we shouldn’t condone actual torture in all but the most dire circumstances (for instance, if someone knew where a nuke was going to be set off, and you knew he knew, and he was refusing to divulge the information).
However, I do have a problem if that means we have to harbor foreign radicals who present national security problems simply because we can’t find anyone else to take them who will treat said foreign radicals with kid gloves. That’s why I don’t like the treaty.
Now, w/r/t 1st Amendment protections, there are two issues. Firstly, while it’s been policy to treat all noncitizens as if they have full Constitutional rights, I don’t think that’s inherent in the Constitution, and I think the federal government could adopt a policy that limited the application of Constitutional protections to foreign nationals.
This seems like an opportune moment for me to point out, again, that I think offering dual citizenship is a folly - it makes for divided loyalties, and makes it difficult to control borders and track criminals.
Secondly, w/r/t citizens, with a broad protection like the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech, it’s often unclear precisely how it applies on the edges. A lot of academics, including Robert Bork, have argued that there is definitely an exception to Free Speech protections regarding people who are advocating breaking current law (as opposed to advocating changing current law). This would definitely apply to people who advocate holy war on the home country. You can find plenty of evidence for such an exception in looking at the case law, but it’s never been officially spelled out. The best examples are probably the sedition laws that were passed during WWI and WWII, which were held up by the USSC when they were tested.
So I think a very good case could be made for prosecuting someone who was actively advocating suicide bombing, for instance.
Well, this article made it easier to find stuff, – apparently the Brits are having their own issues with treaty:
Expulsions illegal, UN tells Clarke
Ewen MacAskill, Julian Glover and Vikram Dodd
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian
A senior UN representative last night threatened to cite the British government for violation of human rights over its planned deportations of alleged terrorist sympathisers.
Manfred Novak, the UN human rights commission’s special investigator on torture, told the Guardian he is seeking permission through the Foreign Office to visit Britain to discuss the issue with the home secretary, Charles Clarke.
In a statement on Tuesday night, Prof Novak said that the government’s intention to return radical preachers to their countries of origin, even though some of those countries have a track record of human rights abuses, “reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent the international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk that he or she might be subjected to torture”.
His intervention came as Mr Clarke, in response to the London bombings, yesterday introduced a list of “unacceptable behaviour” which would allowing him to deport or exclude foreign citizens for glorifying or encouraging terrorism. Mr Clarke said the first exclusions and deportations would take place within the “next few days”.
He rejected the UN criticism. He said “the human rights of those people who were blown up on the tube in London on July 7 are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts.”
He added: “I wish the UN would look at human rights in the round, rather than simply focusing all the time on the terrorist.”
But Prof Novak refused to accept the rebuke. “The UN is strongly concerned about terrorism and counter-terrorism. But there are certain standards that have to be observed in the context of counter-terrorism,” he said last night. “We in the western democratic countries, in the fight against terrorism, should not step over these limits by violating international law.”
Prof Novak, whose investigations take him round the world, said he could cite Britain when he reports to the UN general assembly in October but he hoped the issue could be sorted out before then. His main objection is to the government’s policy of seeking memoranda of understanding from countries to which people would be deported that they would not be tortured. He said the memoranda were not an appropriate tool to eradicate the risk of torture.
The new rules were first announced by Tony Blair in the wake of the London bombings. Mr Clarke, in an effort to preserve cross-party unity, yesterday toned down one of Mr Blair’s original suggestions that would have allowed the Home Office to act against people who express “extreme views that are in conflict with the UK’s culture of tolerance”.
The wide-ranging clause alarmed civil liberties groups and was dropped after a two-week consultation that also brought in opposition parties and Muslim groups.
The Home Office is expected in the next fortnight to publish a consultation paper on new anti-terrorist legislation.
Mr Clarke’s announcement yesterday clarifies his existing powers under the 1971 Immigration Act and requires no new legislation. It comes into effect immediately and sets out the sort of behaviour likely to lead him to exclude foreign citizens.
They include expressing views which “foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence”, “seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts”, fomenting “other serious criminal activity”, or encouraging hatred “which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK”.
Mr Clarke argued that the new list of unacceptable behaviour would make it “absolutely clear” where the law stood, but was not intended to “stifle free speech or legitimate debate”.
Although the moves mark a toning down of the government’s original anti-terror intentions, they have caused unease among international observers. A second UN body last night also condemned the deportation proposals, saying Britain would be in breach of the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees if they were enacted.
The UN high commissioner for refugees said the government had failed to reply to a letter expressing its concerns.
Peter Kessler, spokesman for the UNHCR, said: “An application of these proposals, without access to due process, could amount to sending people back to countries where they could be persecuted. That would be in abrogation of the UK’s obligations under the 1951 convention.”
Yesterday both major opposition parties welcomed Mr Clarke’s announcement. But the plans prompted concern from the Muslim Council of Great Britain. It argued that people should be prosecuted in Britain, not deported.
Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, warned that the rules should pass what he called the Mandela test - whether they would have covered African National Congress supporters.
as an aussie, i have seen the mentality of muslims. most refuse to integrate, most other nationalities or religous ethinicities do integrate over a peroid of time, normally over a generation to three generations. my mother, her brother and my grandparrents did it from the get go. others find it harder to let go, but they eventully do. msulims in australia have proclaimed they dont.
there are also muslims ( not all) who rape our women in organsied rape gangs (most aussie can remember the reports of this shit happening in sydney) and they are happening in melbourne in the north western suburbs.
a lot of these muslims believe they can use and abuse our women as they are just “infidels” or “kafirs”. which is un-australian and just plain wrong.
they trash our country that has given them education,healthcare, justice, rights and freedoms, yet these people fled from shit holes like iraq. which they praise on and on.
people say these so called mainstream muslims are not the problem, i can say from living in a highly multicultural area in the western suburbs of melbourne, even the so called mainstream muslims are not a part of the solution. they are part of the problem with their attitudes and beliefs that this great secular nation is bad.
the point i am trying to put out is this, most aussie feel like this is a massive slap in our face. so if muslims want to act in this way then they should piss off back to shit hole they crawled out from, if they refuse to be aussies and accept our culture and way of life.
[quote]warnie wrote:
as an aussie, i have seen the mentality of muslims. most refuse to integrate, most other nationalities or religous ethinicities do integrate over a peroid of time, normally over a generation to three generations. my mother, her brother and my grandparrents did it from the get go. others find it harder to let go, but they eventully do. msulims in australia have proclaimed they dont.
there are also muslims ( not all) who rape our women in organsied rape gangs (most aussie can remember the reports of this shit happening in sydney) and they are happening in melbourne in the north western suburbs.
a lot of these muslims believe they can use and abuse our women as they are just “infidels” or “kafirs”. which is un-australian and just plain wrong.
they trash our country that has given them education,healthcare, justice, rights and freedoms, yet these people fled from shit holes like iraq. which they praise on and on.
people say these so called mainstream muslims are not the problem, i can say from living in a highly multicultural area in the western suburbs of melbourne, even the so called mainstream muslims are not a part of the solution. they are part of the problem with their attitudes and beliefs that this great secular nation is bad.
the point i am trying to put out is this, most aussie feel like this is a massive slap in our face. so if muslims want to act in this way then they should piss off back to shit hole they crawled out from, if they refuse to be aussies and accept our culture and way of life. [/quote]
I agree with the non integration thing. Aussies are VERY tolerent of culture and people. These rats are taking advantage of it and hopfully you can stop it. I would be called a racist if I made the same statement, however true it was, here in the States.
Massif hit the nail on the head: “They have the same rights as any Australian citizen, but they also have the same responsibilities.”
The same holds true here. Our right of free speech allows us to say almost anything to anyone. But it doesn’t allow us to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It’s a crime because it creates a real danger that people will get trampled in the panic.
Where to draw the line is a judgement call. But a line must be drawn.
No rule is perfect. There will always be instances where its application is unfair. But it is not an option to do nothing simply because the stuation is complicated.
Secondly, w/r/t citizens, with a broad protection like the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech, it’s often unclear precisely how it applies on the edges. A lot of academics, including Robert Bork, have argued that there is definitely an exception to Free Speech protections regarding people who are advocating breaking current law (as opposed to advocating changing current law). This would definitely apply to people who advocate holy war on the home country. You can find plenty of evidence for such an exception in looking at the case law, but it’s never been officially spelled out.
[/quote]
The 1st amendment doesn’t protect against speech that incites a “clear and present danger”. You can’t claim free spech protection under the 1st amendment, for example, if you wanted to overthrow the government using violent force and you gave specifics on how to do so. This was established in Gitlow vs. New York. So in that regard our limits on free speech are similar to those of the Aussies.
Australians are the best, finest people I’ve met while traveling. They have a lot of fun, enjoy a good time, and would fit in well in the T-Nation. They also, in general, have real balls and don’t mince words: if something is a crock of shit, they say so. They also make the best damn beer on the planet!
Yeah, but “clear and present danger” is pretty hard to satisfy, given the caselaw subsequent to Gitlow - and there’s a lot of it, and most of it was expansive concerning the protection provided by freedom of speech. You’d not only need to advocate and have a plan, but it would need to be likely that you were capable of enacting the plan immediately. Advocacy of disobeying established laws seems like a much sounder base, assuming you don’t mind citing Bork.
Until the end of WWII was over 95% of the population of Australia was of British descent. Post WWII our government adopted the policy of “populate or perish” and assisted migrants to come to Australia particularly those from war torn Europe.Families emigrated to Australia on ten pound fares (A$20) subsidised by our government. The result is a country that has a magnificent multicultural tolerant society where all races, religion and beliefs are tolerated. The main attraction of living in Oz is our cultural diversity that overlays traditional Aussie culture. The 1970’s saw major Indo Chinese and Middle Eastern immigration into Oz which has further enriched our society.
The issue that inflames passions in Australians and has caused our government to react is the insanity of Islamic figures making public statements that the laws of Australia do not apply to them, denouncing the values of wider Australian society and inciting violence in our communities by pitting Muslims against all other “inferior cultures”.
The action of our government to consider deporting residents (but not Australian citizens) who advocate violence against Australia back to their original countries has widespread support. As Warnie stated we have assisted these people in escaping racism, tyranny and political oppression in their home countires only to have it turn around and bite us in the arse. We do not expect Muslims to turn into stereotypical Aussies who love a beer, or fifteen, while watching the football nor do we expect them lose their identity and forget their past. Criticism and comment helps our society to evolve
but we do not tolerate fools who state they wish to kill us, whine incessantly about how fucked Australia is and tell us they above our laws.
[quote]honkie wrote:
I have found Australia to be one of the more racist countries I’ve been to.
They way they treated the Aboriginals was truly disgusting.
[/quote]
Damnit! I knew there was something wrong with us! 20 Million racists!
Lucky we have enough time after oppressing the black man to cause trouble with the Muslims and other minority groups. Oppression takes up a large part of my day so finding time to lift is tough.
