| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 14:21
|
 |
I intend this thread to be about the LAW not Politics....
As any of us may shortly been thrown into jail, with no access to legal representation, for SEDITION when the new LAWS come into effect, I would like to know exactly what it is...
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 14:28
|
|
my english japanese dictionary defines it as:
speech, writing, or actions intended to encourage people to disobey a government.
i can't remember which US based dictionaries it uses tho..
(casio exword XD-M900 if you wanna look it up)
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 14:33
|
|
but when was the last time the ausie govenerment actually told you to do somethign directly? or anyone? apart from having to vote....
it sounds as if the definition is pointed toward anarchy as the result, but it is probably intended as anti-terrorism... not that we pledge allegiance to the aussie flag yet anyway...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 14:39
|
|
|
draft? they can kiss my arse if they want me to fight for them
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
Casula
Registered:
January 2005
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 20:30
|
|
From Dictionary.com
| Quote: |
Latin seditio, literally, separation, from sed apart + itio act of going, from ire to go
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction
|
So yes, it is to do with anti-terrorism.
And if you have no dark skeletons in your closet you should not have any problem with the law.
I for one would sooner see laws in place now to try and prevent terrorist acts on Australian soil, then wait until after something like 911 or the London bombings.
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 26 October 2005 23:09
|
|
|
so whos protesting on the 19th?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne - NthSubs
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 00:06
|
|
can we do hektic burnouts infront of parlament?
i might have to invest $200 into a commodore (prefered VL, but VN might do)
we can also set it on fire and claim insurance!
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 00:28
|
|
| Hi-Ace wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 06:30 |
From Dictionary.com
| Quote: |
Latin seditio, literally, separation, from sed apart + itio act of going, from ire to go
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction
|
So yes, it is to do with anti-terrorism.
And if you have no dark skeletons in your closet you should not have any problem with the law.
I for one would sooner see laws in place now to try and prevent terrorist acts on Australian soil, then wait until after something like 911 or the London bombings.
|
i agree with you... i guess the problem comes about in the interpretation, ie with americas "anit-american behaviour" crap..
before i left Aus, i distinctly remember when the government began labelling things as "anti-australian".. seems they have new PR ppl onboard with some US experience 
anti-australian... anti-australian government, anti???
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 07:24
|
|
chrisss sounds a bit like americans building nuclear shelters in there back yards in the 50's dosnt it. mate if you have never done anything wrong and get arrested for no reason,feel free to ring me with your one phone call!ill get you out. i can tell you if you want to learn about law you had better hit the books not the forums. as my old man is one of the top barristers in the country i can tell you,you will need more advice than you will get here,if arrested as a suspect terrorist. it will be a case of no case and no contact with the outside world.i see maybe 50 people max arrested a year under the new laws.there would have to be{this is a guess}800 000 + muslims in australia so lotto looks like a better bet.
buy making a big deal about will only make more people come under the spotlight.
mick
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 12:59
|
|
i heard also under these sedition laws that badmouthing the prime minister could get you into trouble... dont know to what extent.
but what i find hilarious is the fact that if your arrested under sedition you can contact your family, but you cant tell them your in prison 
hi ma... im errr on holidays lol.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 13:09
|
|
| Hi-Ace wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 06:30 |
And if you have no dark skeletons in your closet you should not have any problem with the law.
|
In a just world your right. but these sort of things have to be put up in the spot light and made fuss about because they can potentially be abused... and i hope everyone realises that governments cannot be trusted completely. any goverments, even our own. there are certain countries where the people(as a % majority) are / have followed their governments with complete trust.. nazi germany, stalinist ussr, china (currently) and the u.s.a (currently) and now we've fallen into that catagory also it seems.
lets not forget governments are run by people and people above all seek power.. and these people are politicians! its not like our government is a swahilian tribe where the leaders are ellected by who is the most wise and knowledgable
so yeah, always be weary!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 15:12
|
|
| illuminatus wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 09:09 |
so whos protesting on the 19th?
|
whats the go? where?
SHAKRA : yeah thinkin that NZ is lookin better and better by the day - theyre not following the US bullshit, not bringing in any BS laws either and r far from being a terrorist target.........plus they have heaps of cheap jap import stuff there as well 
what should concern everyone is what happens if u r mistakenly arrested because u have the same name as a REAL terrorist.....how long will u rot in jail with no legal rights and no way to prove your innocence!!!
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 15:34
|
|
was thinking about the definition
| Quote: |
Latin seditio, literally, separation, from sed apart + itio act of going, from ire to go
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction
|
How is this targeted at terrorists??? terrorists dont want to overthrow governments they want to kill civilians and ultimately destroy the western capitalist system.....
it seems like any government (left/right...liberal or Labour) could use these laws to basically arrest the entire opposition partie(s) and anyone else.....as all oposition parties intend to "overthrow" the current government...
I am all for preventing another 911 type event but I dont see how installing a police state is going to do it.......most of the 911 hijackers were nice mild mannered boys, the fbi/cia had no idea!!!
these laws are intended to shut people up - you know "radical" people like Bob Brown & Michale Moore who want to change the SYSTEM - mindless Lemmings will be fine....
but we all know what happened to that other unquestioning drone, Tom Parsons, in ORWELLS 1984 - arrested and executed after his children dobbed him in for shouting "down with big brother" in his sleep....
[Updated on: Thu, 27 October 2005 15:58]
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 15:44
|
|
| chrisss wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 01:34 |
How is this targeted at terrorists??? terrorists dont want to overthrow governments they want to kill civilians and ultimately destroy the western capitalist system.....
I am all for preventing another 911 type event but I dont see how installing a police state is going to do it.......most of the 911 hijackers were nice mild mannered boys, the fbi/cia had no idea!
|
are you sure thats what "terorists" want?? seems to be mor eoften linked to religion, specifically christian and muslim or them other ones..... brain freeze...
and who says 911 was a terrorist attack..... i use dto think so, but there is an awful lot of anti evidence, and a remarkable unwillingness of the US govenrment to release any information beyind their horribly flawed "official accounts"
who bought and reinsured the WTC just beforehand.. and who got paid out TWICE when the courts ruled hat there were two seperate attacks??
can anyone say "double or nothing" 
it's all knee-jerk reaction and howard sucking up, but..... is it better to newter the security system of a country? or over-endow it?
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 16:08
|
|
despite the fact the US government has never had to justify to the population that it was Alkida (cant speel) behind 911......im not going down that conspiracy crap path...u trying to bait me? 
yeah what do the terrorists want?? if we actually had some discussion on it in the media maybe we'd be closer to finding a solution....1st rule of war : know your enemy (empathy)...
seems the media is happy to label them "evil" and be done with it..
as far as I can tell there is not 1 group but several.....the most extreme being hell bent on getting a complete fundementalist religious system of government and nothing short of this.....
love to see them get G.W.Bush and Osama in a televised debate.....bet george would loose big time..
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Thu, 27 October 2005 21:48
|
|
wish they would shut bob brown up!he is one of the dumbest people i have come across.he has done the greens more harm than good.they need someone in there with half a brain and they might achieve something.
what do terrorist want?i bullet in the head each.they are gutless little girls and stupid.if you dont have any friends and you will never achieve anything in your life.if you have never helped anyone or your community,are a virgin and will always be, then the terrorists want you.
lmao
mick
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 01:14
|
|
Terrorists aren't gutless. Just stupid.
Nobody has really asked what their leaders and their followers want. You can't stop terrorism by just killing people. Doing that will make more people who used to be on your side think twice, and those that where thinking twice to actualy join terrorist groups to fight against you! You have to root out the cause of the problem. Why hasn't anyone tried to figure out what the cause is?
Anyway, the question about if it's better to give police more freedom or reign them in... I think balance is in order. Something as open to interpritation as these laws are NOT balanced. The reason people have rights isn't so that bad people can get off when the police make a mistake in processing them, it's so that good people can get off when the police make a mistake by detaining them.
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 01:46
|
|
i figured it out years ago!they are gutless,stupid and loosers that will not achieve anything in there life,so this is how they think they can make there mark.most would be loner's{read,strange people},the dont care at all for there fellow man.
they have been brainwashed by other idiots.
they are gutless,what they do is gutless,they would piss themselves if confronted to fight,they would more likely run up behind you and stab you or do it when your asleep.
they are worse than child molesters and pedo's.
the main problem is that they a religious rednecks that dont even understand the writings of there own religion.
mick
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 01:48
|
|
| kingmick wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 11:46 |
i figured it out years ago!they are gutless,stupid and loosers that will not achieve anything in there life,so this is how they think they can make there mark.most would be loner's{read,strange people},the dont care at all for there fellow man.
they have been brainwashed by other idiots.
they are gutless,what they do is gutless,they would piss themselves if confronted to fight,they would more likely run up behind you and stab you or do it when your asleep.
they are worse than child molesters and pedo's.
the main problem is that they a religious rednecks that dont even understand the writings of there own religion.
mick
|
So which one of these comments are you going to apply to the IRA  .
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 02:00
|
|
they IRA is diffrent.i can see some of there points, but they stood up and had face to face fights.the bombing they did had the same idiots as the terrorists today.i believed if they had calmed it down it would be the way it is now without the bombings.the bombing made it far worse for them.instead of getting support from around the world they got loathing.if you look at the backbone{bombing makers and users} of the IRA its the same.blokes that wouldnt achieve anything so they jumped on the bandwagon without even really knowing what they where doing it for.
i thought the poms where idiots for doing it the way they did and still do,but the IRA was a great way for the criminal elemnt to make money and have fun killing at the same time.
being half irish and half scot i think alot of poms need there head read,but that dosnt excuse most of the IRA's behaver or the poms.
the IRA is a lot diffrent from the arab terrorists as they had guts and did stand toe to toe on many many ocassions.
mick
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 02:38
|
|
Unfortunately there is a large amount of religious and political cross infection so Arab, Muslim and terrorist are almost used interchangeably. 
Muslim extremists wish for an Islamic "superstate" where shariah rule would exist. The "infidels" (Westerners, predominantly Christian types) have for too long exerted influence in this region - Saudi royalty in their pocket, the support for many years of an imperialist like Saddam Hussein, support of Israel at a political, financial and military level, lack of direction regarding the millions of displaced Palestinians, oil - the list goes on. Despite many of these states being in oil rich areas, much of the population lives in Third World conditions, and therefore feel as though the West has fleeced them of their riches. They would see themselves as freedom fighters - fighting to free themselves from the shackles of Western interference. Hence the rolling series of attacks since the early 80's against Western interests in the ME, which very spectacularly escalated to an attack at "home" with 911 (although everyone forgets about the first attack on the Twin Towers in the early 90's) and subsequent attacks on Madrid and London.
The realists would say that it's 50 years of shitty American foreign policy coming home to roost.
Why Australia? Indonesia, Malaysia and southern Phillipines are extremely populous Muslim regions over which Australia (is perceived to have) exerted control (East Timor, lots of other low level crap over the last 20 years). Obviously not really wanted by those Muslims with a superstate thinking, hence Bali x 2, Jakarta Hilton and Aussie Embassy.
Yes we need to protect ourselves - these people are crazy and will stop at nothing to achieve their end - but ultimately it's not the solution. The solution is in reducing poverty and destitution in these regions of political unrest.
|
|
|
Location:
melb
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Fri, 28 October 2005 06:39
|
|
| gianttomato wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:38 |
Muslim extremists wish for an Islamic "superstate" where shariah rule would exist. The "infidels" have for too long exerted influence in this region - Saudi royalty in their pocket, the support for many years of an imperialist like Saddam Hussein, support of Israel at a political, financial and military level, lack of direction regarding the millions of displaced Palestinians, oil - the list goes on. Despite many of these states being in oil rich areas, much of the population lives in Third World conditions, and therefore feel as though the West has fleeced them of their riches.
The realists would say that it's 50 years of shitty American foreign policy coming home to roost.
Yes we need to protect ourselves - these people are crazy and will stop at nothing to achieve their end - but ultimately it's not the solution. The solution is in reducing poverty and destitution in these regions of political unrest.
|
thats what im talking about!!! understand the enemy...
yeah the solution is to change our ways - but that would cost us money - and people are way more self obsessed these days so theres liitle chance of that happening....
strangely despite its record on human rights I beleive its going to be China that starts to press for alternate strategy....its the only country that will ever oppose the US.
there is no quick solution, its going to take 10+ years to even consider another strategy.....look at the history books
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Tue, 01 November 2005 12:56
|
|
|
anyone bringing some cream pies?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: define SEDITION...
|
Wed, 02 November 2005 06:49
|
|
I agree with you Giant Tomato. We need to change the way we treat these countries. We aren't the SOLE contributor to their suffering, but we aren't blameless either. We need to take responsibility for that.
Ofcourse we need to defend ourselves aswell. But we can't JUST kill them, that wont work.
|
|
|
