What if We Couldn't Write to You Anymore

FullMetalFever said:
This really pisses me off .... my pet hate you could say.

I'm sick of having my liberties stripped from me, of the state telling me what is safe or not, and as if the whole discrimination sympathy stuff wasn't bad enough already, they want to broaden it.

Soon the only safe topic of conversation will be about last night's reality TV show. However, be sure not to discuss the contestant's possible political allegiances or "its" preference for red over blue underwear (the only two colours available in the future) as you may just offend the eavesdropper on the other side of the partition who prefers the blue underwear.

It's getting beyond a joke ..... the other day I had a Brazilian guy here at work tell me an anecdote about when he was called a racist for making a comment during the Olympics that the Jamaican's are fast runners. Unfarkenbelievable.

Problem is, I love this country and find it hard to consider living elsewhere (even though I was originally from Europe). Also, most of the countries in which civil liberties are protected, are down the sh1tter on an economic front. What to do???
Click to expand...

Preaching to the chior my friend. With you there 100%.
 
Auspm said:
Places like the Dominican Republic and China/Singapore express more value towards individual liberty and freedom than the western powers do now.
Click to expand...

I agree with the premise that the west is eroding freedom of speech fast but to say China has more liberty and freedom is just wrong.

Now sure if you just roam around like a little nobody in China you do just fine and nobody gives a rats ass BUT if you even TRY to voice dissent? You're gonna be on some watchlist or worse you'll be rotting in some PLA jail.

You can talk a LOT of shit in Australia and get away with it at least compared to places like China.

I hate extreme political correctness as much as the next guy but let's not get carried away here.
 
You can't legislate righteousness.

(language warning for this article in a leading world newspaper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/21/melbourne-racist-bus-rant-australia
Melbourne bus abuse video puts Australian attitudes on trial. Woman singing in French was told to 'speak English or die' and threatened with stabbing
Police in the Australian city of Melbourne are investigating the verbal abuse of a French-speaking woman travelling on a bus.
Click to expand...

Apart from the irony of this youtube clip, the questions of personal freedoms taken to actual policeable offences (drinking on public transport, abusive language, vandalism, threatening behaviour etc - and a few offences I take exception to being on the statute books in the first place) make the issues of 'free speech' and 'politically correct' a moot point, even when such is claimed as justification for letting these sort of events continue.

Whilst the population continues to choose being ill-educated, irresponsible and self-indulgent, the do-gooders will continue to legislate and support those who legislate 'for our own good'. And I agree, on one side this type of legislation lessens the chance of the sort of people shown on this bus establishing local brigades of 'brown shirts', it could equally be used to silence criticism of the government of the day.

Note also the quiet acquiescence to the brutality shown here, and not a 'brown shirt' in sight.

another language warning of course(!)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgy5lkqSy8k[/youtube]
 
Auspm said:
r0dman said:
So where then? :/
Click to expand...

I am honestly not sure there will be in the end.

Places like the Dominican Republic and China/Singapore express more value towards individual liberty and freedom than the western powers do now.

This is how you know the west is dying - it's falling into the grip of totalitarianism, fascism and communism not just in name, but in principles. As the elite get more desperate, I have absolutely no doubt they'll embark on a course of action that would make even the Third Reich era look tame in comparison.

I wouldn't live in the USA now even if you paid me and gave me land for free, it's not even a shadow of what it was once founded as and a true tragedy of the modern age IMHO.
Click to expand...

The US may be a shadow of what it once was in terms of individual liberties, but it's still a whole lot more free than Australia is - we are the Police State Par Excellence of the western world ...
 
The US is not really that much freer than Australia imo.

All one needs to be locked up indefinitely is to be a 'terror suspect'.

Look up how many 'terrorists' were locked up in G Bay because they owned a Casio watch and/or had the wrong skin color. That has not happened in Australia as far as I know.
 
fishball said:
The US is not really that much freer than Australia imo.

All one needs to be locked up indefinitely is to be a 'terror suspect'.

Look up how many 'terrorists' were locked up in G Bay because they owned a Casio watch and/or had the wrong skin color. That has not happened in Australia as far as I know.
Click to expand...

While I'm not condoning G BaY - skin colour had buggerall to do with it. Ask David Hicks

This article clearly shows that Australia is the leading police state of the west - and that in Australia the state is 18 times more likely to spy on its citizens than in the US.

http://www.theglobalistreport.com/australian-government-spies-on-its-citizens/
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
fishball said:
The US is not really that much freer than Australia imo.

All one needs to be locked up indefinitely is to be a 'terror suspect'.

Look up how many 'terrorists' were locked up in G Bay because they owned a Casio watch and/or had the wrong skin color. That has not happened in Australia as far as I know.
Click to expand...

While I'm not condoning G BaY - skin colour had buggerall to do with it. Ask David Hicks

This article clearly shows that Australia is the leading police state of the west - and that in Australia the state is 18 times more likely to spy on its citizens than in the US.

http://www.theglobalistreport.com/australian-government-spies-on-its-citizens/
Click to expand...

I read that, it was quite shocking.

I wouldn't say that Australia is the least free. I reckon we're about equal with the US and the UK. The reason is in some area's we are ahead and some behind. For example there is a list of banned food additives here which in the US is not banned and VISA VERSA, which indicates to me that among the western countries there is variations of the implementation of tyranny. London, many many cameras, here not so many, here no guns for Self defence and in America it's ok. Here we cannot opt out of the naked body scanners, in America you can. More GM foods in US than here. America has put their citizens in financial bondage with so much debt, here not so much. ... it's tit for tat among the western nations, though we are definitely one of the leading countries for the erosion of freedoms.
 
JulieW said:
You can't legislate righteousness.

(language warning for this article in a leading world newspaper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/21/melbourne-racist-bus-rant-australia
Melbourne bus abuse video puts Australian attitudes on trial. Woman singing in French was told to 'speak English or die' and threatened with stabbing
Police in the Australian city of Melbourne are investigating the verbal abuse of a French-speaking woman travelling on a bus.
Click to expand...

Apart from the irony of this youtube clip, the questions of personal freedoms taken to actual policeable offences (drinking on public transport, abusive language, vandalism, threatening behaviour etc - and a few offences I take exception to being on the statute books in the first place) make the issues of 'free speech' and 'politically correct' a moot point, even when such is claimed as justification for letting these sort of events continue.

Whilst the population continues to choose being ill-educated, irresponsible and self-indulgent, the do-gooders will continue to legislate and support those who legislate 'for our own good'. And I agree, on one side this type of legislation lessens the chance of the sort of people shown on this bus establishing local brigades of 'brown shirts', it could equally be used to silence criticism of the government of the day.

Note also the quiet acquiescence to the brutality shown here, and not a 'brown shirt' in sight.
Click to expand...


Very scary to watch, thanks.
 
Sargeant Argent said:
I dont know give me a house at the rivermouth at rincon and a hi 6 figure salary and id have no problem living in the states ;)
Click to expand...
Being Canadian, your in effect half American anyway aren't you? ;)
 
lucky luke said:
Sargeant Argent said:
I dont know give me a house at the rivermouth at rincon and a hi 6 figure salary and id have no problem living in the states ;)
Click to expand...
Being Canadian, your in effect half American anyway aren't you? ;)
Click to expand...

Isn't Canada part of the USA?

;) ;)
 
JulieW said:
You can't legislate righteousness.

(language warning for this article in a leading world newspaper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/21/melbourne-racist-bus-rant-australia
Melbourne bus abuse video puts Australian attitudes on trial. Woman singing in French was told to 'speak English or die' and threatened with stabbing
Police in the Australian city of Melbourne are investigating the verbal abuse of a French-speaking woman travelling on a bus.
Click to expand...

Apart from the irony of this youtube clip, the questions of personal freedoms taken to actual policeable offences (drinking on public transport, abusive language, vandalism, threatening behaviour etc - and a few offences I take exception to being on the statute books in the first place) make the issues of 'free speech' and 'politically correct' a moot point, even when such is claimed as justification for letting these sort of events continue.

Whilst the population continues to choose being ill-educated, irresponsible and self-indulgent, the do-gooders will continue to legislate and support those who legislate 'for our own good'. And I agree, on one side this type of legislation lessens the chance of the sort of people shown on this bus establishing local brigades of 'brown shirts', it could equally be used to silence criticism of the government of the day.

Note also the quiet acquiescence to the brutality shown here, and not a 'brown shirt' in sight.

another language warning of course(!)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgy5lkqSy8k[/youtube]
Click to expand...

It's interesting that a video maker which seems to want to combat prejudice would use prejudicial descriptions of some of the people at the start of the video. He could have been a bit more neutral in the video like he was on the bus, I guess he was angry at something.

If anything the people on the bus are ignorant and confrontational both traits are secondary to fear and both are by choice. If you choose to be humble and admit you are afraid, you won't attack people to prove you are not and if you choose to combat your ignorance by learning about the things you do not understand you won't be afraid of them anymore.

Prejudice (pre judgement) had a place in our evolution just like cholesterol has a place in our body. When you are out of balance you become ill.
 
bordsilver said:
The whole "reasonably likely to cause offence" is very extremely distasteful. So not only can you be convicted for causing "offence" (whatever that is) but it doesn't even need to actually offend the person. It just needs to be "reasonably likely" that they may have been offended. WTF!?!
Click to expand...


The government legislating that being "reasonably likely to cause offence" leading to prosecution itself is reasonably likely to cause offence to me. Can I then charge the government with its' own law? I wish...
 
AngloSaxon said:
bordsilver said:
The whole "reasonably likely to cause offence" is very extremely distasteful. So not only can you be convicted for causing "offence" (whatever that is) but it doesn't even need to actually offend the person. It just needs to be "reasonably likely" that they may have been offended. WTF!?!
Click to expand...


The government legislating that being "reasonably likely to cause offence" leading to prosecution itself is reasonably likely to cause offence to me. Can I then charge the government with its' own law? I wish...
Click to expand...

This is all about blurring the lines of ACTUAL LAW and instilling fear amongst those who wish to voice an opinion. That way the Govt can shut down those who offend it and at the same time utilise the law itself to achieve it's own aims, IE no dispute means acquiescence to new legislation.
 
southerncross said:
AngloSaxon said:
bordsilver said:
The whole "reasonably likely to cause offence" is very extremely distasteful. So not only can you be convicted for causing "offence" (whatever that is) but it doesn't even need to actually offend the person. It just needs to be "reasonably likely" that they may have been offended. WTF!?!
Click to expand...


The government legislating that being "reasonably likely to cause offence" leading to prosecution itself is reasonably likely to cause offence to me. Can I then charge the government with its' own law? I wish...
Click to expand...

This is all about blurring the lines of ACTUAL LAW and instilling fear amongst those who wish to voice an opinion. That way the Govt can shut down those who offend it and at the same time utilise the law itself to achieve it's own aims, IE no dispute means acquiescence to new legislation.
Click to expand...

In many respects I feel for the judges (as well any defendants). They have a hard enough time interpreting and meting out appropriate justice on laws that don't include highly subjective clauses like this. If you read some of the court cases of people charged under Section 18C you can see that one judge can easily rule one way and another judge rule the other way. It is fully against the principle of equality before the law.
 
AngloSaxon said:
bordsilver said:
The whole "reasonably likely to cause offence" is very extremely distasteful. So not only can you be convicted for causing "offence" (whatever that is) but it doesn't even need to actually offend the person. It just needs to be "reasonably likely" that they may have been offended. WTF!?!
Click to expand...


The government legislating that being "reasonably likely to cause offence" leading to prosecution itself is reasonably likely to cause offence to me. Can I then charge the government with its' own law? I wish...
Click to expand...

No, but you can vote them out and replace them with a libertarian government.

Australians are too dumb though ... they'd rather complain about how the gubmint ia screwing them (without a condom) and then a week later they'll vote the same socialist scumbags in again... whether it be on local, state, or federal level.

:lol:
 
bordsilver said:
southerncross said:
AngloSaxon said:
The government legislating that being "reasonably likely to cause offence" leading to prosecution itself is reasonably likely to cause offence to me. Can I then charge the government with its' own law? I wish...
Click to expand...

This is all about blurring the lines of ACTUAL LAW and instilling fear amongst those who wish to voice an opinion. That way the Govt can shut down those who offend it and at the same time utilise the law itself to achieve it's own aims, IE no dispute means acquiescence to new legislation.
Click to expand...

In many respects I feel for the judges (as well any defendants). They have a hard enough time interpreting and meting out appropriate justice on laws that don't include highly subjective clauses like this. If you read some of the court cases of people charged under Section 18C you can see that one judge can easily rule one way and another judge rule the other way. It is fully against the principle of equality before the law.
Click to expand...

The only way to fix this f..up is to elect a Ron Paul like government and their first and primary task would be to dismantle all the millions of "laws" which have been created by government that strip away individual freedoms.

There is NO PLACE for any statutes - they should ALL be dismantled 100%. The only LAW that should remain is COMMON LAW - screw the rest!!

This would simplify matters considerably for judges since 99% of all "laws" would then be nulled and they could spend all their time applying Common Law - which is the only real law needed.

This would be akin to bringing back the gold standard ...
1. it's the right thing to do
2. coercive governments (i.e. ALL governments) would therefore not adopt it as it would strip them of their coercive powers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top