Shoot-to kill? Here's what He-Man says!
Its been a really depressing week in politics.
Johnny has been listening to a little too much Acca Dacca and is pushing for a "shoot-to-kill" provision in the new Terrorism law. Actually, thats probably sensationalising it more than it really is, but as I understand it, heres the situation.
Current Police officers has the right to "use fatal force" to protect themselves or anyone else under their duty of care in a situation. This varies slightly from state to state, and is enacted under common law. This can only be brought to bear on a person resonably suspected of *having committed* a crime.
Now, what is being proposed is that this power will be formalised (as I understand it), and will extend to people under "control orders", if they resist arrest. "Control Orders" are the new thing in the "anti-terrorism" laws, where if you are suspected of being involved in terrorism (or being associated with one, lived with one, lived in the same building with one, purchased something from ...etc), you can have your movements restricted and be forced to do as authorities order at all times. There is no judicial oversight of this process.
The concern comes because the shoot-to-kill powers are apparently being extended to cover people who have not yet committed a crime. This raised the possibility of what happened in Britain - when someone ran from the police (it now turns out that he was running for the train), and was shot for 'resisting arrest'. The counter-argument run by the government, is that these laws already exists, this is just clarifying the police's position, should they be put in such a situation.
Kim Beazly made a good point on Lateline last night - that police, when put in a situation where life is threatened can and will shoot anyways, and are perfectly entitled to, under existing law. Why do we need this change, that suddenly (potentially) extends their legal right beyond neutralising an immediate threat? Do we want that?
The Law Council of Australia has come out hard against these laws, saying it bypasses normal due process. The Government says, nothing will change. I know who I believe.
The new "anti-terrorism" legislation is very important to Australia, because it (potentially) changes many of the social freedoms we take for granted. So by the governments own logic, such a crucial bill should be advertised to the nation. So where is the $100mil advertising campaign for this, johnny? Oh, its not been passed through parliament yet? WELL NEITHER HAS IR! I'm so dismayed that people aren't more angry about the fact that THEIR TAX MONEY is being used to fund LIBERAL PARTY PROPAGANDA! Not a little bit, but THE MOST EXPENSIVE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN IN AUSTRALIA'S HISTORY!!! Reports are out that they paid the extra's $6000 - and didn't even use all of them! What sheer arrogance to loot the public purse! AND NOBODY CARES! Sorry for shouting, but sometimes i fear that this damn country deserves this damn government.
*ok... deep breath....calm*. And now for something completely different...
A very strange clip of He-Man singing a 70's tune This is a 20Mb Download, but strangely amusing. Thanks to Tim Smith (of ex- The Cage fame) for the link
Johnny has been listening to a little too much Acca Dacca and is pushing for a "shoot-to-kill" provision in the new Terrorism law. Actually, thats probably sensationalising it more than it really is, but as I understand it, heres the situation.
Current Police officers has the right to "use fatal force" to protect themselves or anyone else under their duty of care in a situation. This varies slightly from state to state, and is enacted under common law. This can only be brought to bear on a person resonably suspected of *having committed* a crime.
Now, what is being proposed is that this power will be formalised (as I understand it), and will extend to people under "control orders", if they resist arrest. "Control Orders" are the new thing in the "anti-terrorism" laws, where if you are suspected of being involved in terrorism (or being associated with one, lived with one, lived in the same building with one, purchased something from ...etc), you can have your movements restricted and be forced to do as authorities order at all times. There is no judicial oversight of this process.
The concern comes because the shoot-to-kill powers are apparently being extended to cover people who have not yet committed a crime. This raised the possibility of what happened in Britain - when someone ran from the police (it now turns out that he was running for the train), and was shot for 'resisting arrest'. The counter-argument run by the government, is that these laws already exists, this is just clarifying the police's position, should they be put in such a situation.
Kim Beazly made a good point on Lateline last night - that police, when put in a situation where life is threatened can and will shoot anyways, and are perfectly entitled to, under existing law. Why do we need this change, that suddenly (potentially) extends their legal right beyond neutralising an immediate threat? Do we want that?
The Law Council of Australia has come out hard against these laws, saying it bypasses normal due process. The Government says, nothing will change. I know who I believe.
The new "anti-terrorism" legislation is very important to Australia, because it (potentially) changes many of the social freedoms we take for granted. So by the governments own logic, such a crucial bill should be advertised to the nation. So where is the $100mil advertising campaign for this, johnny? Oh, its not been passed through parliament yet? WELL NEITHER HAS IR! I'm so dismayed that people aren't more angry about the fact that THEIR TAX MONEY is being used to fund LIBERAL PARTY PROPAGANDA! Not a little bit, but THE MOST EXPENSIVE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN IN AUSTRALIA'S HISTORY!!! Reports are out that they paid the extra's $6000 - and didn't even use all of them! What sheer arrogance to loot the public purse! AND NOBODY CARES! Sorry for shouting, but sometimes i fear that this damn country deserves this damn government.
*ok... deep breath....calm*. And now for something completely different...
A very strange clip of He-Man singing a 70's tune This is a 20Mb Download, but strangely amusing. Thanks to Tim Smith (of ex- The Cage fame) for the link
You claim to be a Beazley fan and you can't even spell his name right. tut tut tut
Lena! Can you stop posting as vanmale! People will start to think i'm schizophrenic!