drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2006
- Messages
- 7,538
Once again you fail to address a good few points in here that don't gel with your opinion. For the record I don't particularly appreciate being referred to as a tin foil hat wearer and I don't see how me not liking citizens rights being taken away justifies me being lumped in with paranoid conspiracy theorists?
What I meant by a well thought out plan was more like, identifying the times and areas where G20 participants are most vulnerable, bolstering police presence more at these locations during these times and also sweep for explosives regularly, perhaps also limiting public access to these spaces would be an idea. What about those explosive swab tests? They do them at airports, is there any reason that couldn't be done, it seems MUCH less invasive than searching people without permission and I could understand the justification for swabbing some people.
Have these measures been applied at other G20's? I am honestly curious because I don't know, might look it up myself later when I am less busy. So far as I know though, I have never heard of this shit being implemented and I have also never heard of a world leader being killed at a G20, again I am not super informed so perhaps I am misinformed on that. Assuming I am right in thinking that police didn't need these powers in the past and no world leader was ever killed then any justification for these laws here is pretty flimsy. Even if I am wrong on that, I don't really care because I still stand by the fact that the freedoms of many should trump the potential safety of a few.
I do see how these laws MIGHT limit a populations ability to riot as effectively as they otherwise might, but I don't really see them preventing a major attack like a sniper or a bombing any more effectively than the security measures they would otherwise take would. It begs the question, is it about safety or is it about image, if in the past people have rioted and there has never been a world leader hurt or killed then is there any real reason to think that would happen in riots this time around? It seems to me more than anything, they are probably concerned with image more than safety. As I said in a previous post, I don't agree with rioting and I hope it doesn't happen, it certainly sucks for any business or home owners who's property gets damaged, however, I don't believe that thousands of peoples rights should be violated just so K Mart doesn't get looted.
I don't think if Putin got killed in Australia by some rogue idiot, terrorist/terrorist cell, individual Australian citizen rioting, etc. that we would be in any real immediate danger of Russia going to war with us. I don't think on a world stage they could justify that at all, and with some of our allies they would really be getting into something quite major. I imagine that the idea of self preservation would prevail and prevent Russia from unleashing any real military threat on Australia, and that is in the INCREDIBLY unlikely event that Putin ever got killed at the G20 from here. I could obviously be wrong on that but I don't see how focusing on this one very unlikely scenario is particularly intelligent or helpful when it comes to determining the best way to handle the Brisbane G20. Also, you could make the argument this could happen regardless of how extreme the security measures are, so wouldn't the best argument be not to host the event in Australia at all? If your argument is that these laws protect all Australians by preventing any chance of war resulting from a world leader being assassinated then surely you agree that not hosting the G20 alltogether is the most foolproof way to achieve that?
Who here said that the protesters spoke for the majority of Australian's? Nobody is saying that, some of the shit you throw in is just a distraction from the real issue and the flaws in your argument. Wouldn't you say that the fact they DON'T speak for the rest of us is a very good reason the rest of our rights should not be taken away due to their actions? (and let me add they are predicted actions, not even ones that have been taken yet for fucks sake)
Again, I find it incredibly rich and a bit smug for you to sit and talk about you being happy for your rights to be infringed upon, when you know as well as the rest of us that it is never going to be you in your business suit or designer clothing that is stopped and harrassed under this legislation. Your anecdote about sharing a spliff with several coppers amuses me, not because I doubt the truth in that story, but because you seem to think we all live in a world where that is possible. Yes, I am positive that plenty of cops realise that processing a well off professional for a small bit of weed probably isn't going to go anywhere, and depending who said professional golfs with they might be able
to make said coppers life a little bit more difficult than the ticket for weed made the professionals. I am sure that in this circumstance where they either have no desire or see no benefit in booking you, that they may say fuck it and take a toke or two, but in circumstances where they can arrest or otherwise charge somebody and make themselves look better on paper they will probably go this route rather than the puff puff pass.
Again, I don't think these laws are likely to be abused on any noticeable scale, especially not this time around, it does not mean that we aren't setting a very dangerous precedent of the Government taking away citizens rights at a moments notice with justification that isn't particularly logical and that the people have zero say in. That is the type of shit that happens under totalitarian Governments. I agree with you that we live in one of the safest democratic nations in the world, but if we allow this type of thing to happen once too often then it might not be a democratic nation forever. I also fail to see how living in a safe democratic nation is an argument for taking away citizens rights without the democratic process of the people voting for either the legislation or even the hosting of the event the legislation is made to protect?
What I meant by a well thought out plan was more like, identifying the times and areas where G20 participants are most vulnerable, bolstering police presence more at these locations during these times and also sweep for explosives regularly, perhaps also limiting public access to these spaces would be an idea. What about those explosive swab tests? They do them at airports, is there any reason that couldn't be done, it seems MUCH less invasive than searching people without permission and I could understand the justification for swabbing some people.
Have these measures been applied at other G20's? I am honestly curious because I don't know, might look it up myself later when I am less busy. So far as I know though, I have never heard of this shit being implemented and I have also never heard of a world leader being killed at a G20, again I am not super informed so perhaps I am misinformed on that. Assuming I am right in thinking that police didn't need these powers in the past and no world leader was ever killed then any justification for these laws here is pretty flimsy. Even if I am wrong on that, I don't really care because I still stand by the fact that the freedoms of many should trump the potential safety of a few.
I do see how these laws MIGHT limit a populations ability to riot as effectively as they otherwise might, but I don't really see them preventing a major attack like a sniper or a bombing any more effectively than the security measures they would otherwise take would. It begs the question, is it about safety or is it about image, if in the past people have rioted and there has never been a world leader hurt or killed then is there any real reason to think that would happen in riots this time around? It seems to me more than anything, they are probably concerned with image more than safety. As I said in a previous post, I don't agree with rioting and I hope it doesn't happen, it certainly sucks for any business or home owners who's property gets damaged, however, I don't believe that thousands of peoples rights should be violated just so K Mart doesn't get looted.
I don't think if Putin got killed in Australia by some rogue idiot, terrorist/terrorist cell, individual Australian citizen rioting, etc. that we would be in any real immediate danger of Russia going to war with us. I don't think on a world stage they could justify that at all, and with some of our allies they would really be getting into something quite major. I imagine that the idea of self preservation would prevail and prevent Russia from unleashing any real military threat on Australia, and that is in the INCREDIBLY unlikely event that Putin ever got killed at the G20 from here. I could obviously be wrong on that but I don't see how focusing on this one very unlikely scenario is particularly intelligent or helpful when it comes to determining the best way to handle the Brisbane G20. Also, you could make the argument this could happen regardless of how extreme the security measures are, so wouldn't the best argument be not to host the event in Australia at all? If your argument is that these laws protect all Australians by preventing any chance of war resulting from a world leader being assassinated then surely you agree that not hosting the G20 alltogether is the most foolproof way to achieve that?
Who here said that the protesters spoke for the majority of Australian's? Nobody is saying that, some of the shit you throw in is just a distraction from the real issue and the flaws in your argument. Wouldn't you say that the fact they DON'T speak for the rest of us is a very good reason the rest of our rights should not be taken away due to their actions? (and let me add they are predicted actions, not even ones that have been taken yet for fucks sake)
Again, I find it incredibly rich and a bit smug for you to sit and talk about you being happy for your rights to be infringed upon, when you know as well as the rest of us that it is never going to be you in your business suit or designer clothing that is stopped and harrassed under this legislation. Your anecdote about sharing a spliff with several coppers amuses me, not because I doubt the truth in that story, but because you seem to think we all live in a world where that is possible. Yes, I am positive that plenty of cops realise that processing a well off professional for a small bit of weed probably isn't going to go anywhere, and depending who said professional golfs with they might be able
to make said coppers life a little bit more difficult than the ticket for weed made the professionals. I am sure that in this circumstance where they either have no desire or see no benefit in booking you, that they may say fuck it and take a toke or two, but in circumstances where they can arrest or otherwise charge somebody and make themselves look better on paper they will probably go this route rather than the puff puff pass.
Again, I don't think these laws are likely to be abused on any noticeable scale, especially not this time around, it does not mean that we aren't setting a very dangerous precedent of the Government taking away citizens rights at a moments notice with justification that isn't particularly logical and that the people have zero say in. That is the type of shit that happens under totalitarian Governments. I agree with you that we live in one of the safest democratic nations in the world, but if we allow this type of thing to happen once too often then it might not be a democratic nation forever. I also fail to see how living in a safe democratic nation is an argument for taking away citizens rights without the democratic process of the people voting for either the legislation or even the hosting of the event the legislation is made to protect?