Dutchy wrote:Who would actually be his lawyer?
Remember, some of the worst criminals had lawyers. Think they will make there career
Dutchy wrote:Who would actually be his lawyer?
Dutchy wrote:Who would actually be his lawyer?
Brodlach wrote:CENTURION wrote:RB wrote:CENTURION wrote:I think banning those huge pro-palestinian marches could be a good step in the right direction,
they create fear, anger & aren't necessary here,
Hamas isn't going to go, "look on the TV, there's a march in Australia,
the Palestinians aren't going to get comfort from them, they don't even know they are happening!
As we have seen at these marches, they also bring in the wrong people, people that are there just to create shit,
marching over the Bridge with ISIS flags, WRONG!
protesting at Sydney Opera House, saying gas the jews & death to the IDF, WRONG!
Aussies just want their old way of life back!
We don't want to have to live in fear & the government needs to step up & show us that THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE!
While I appreciate your frankness, I personally can't agree with much of what you've written at all.
Firstly, what you're proposing would essentially be an end to free speech and assembly in this country. I support these freedoms - which means that I also support them for those with whom I disagree totally.
Australians should be able to protest (safely and peacefully of course) about any issue they believe in. This is what happens in a liberal democracy.
Numbskulls with ISIS flags or who advocate gasing the Jews etc. should be held to account for their actions. Bear in mind however, that this amounts to a tiny portion of people.
For instance, NSW Police estimated 90,000 people were in attendance at the most recent Harbour Bridge protest. Do you propose all those people being thrown in gaol? Most are ordinary people. I'm sure you'll find many on this forum who share their cause. Remember, and this cannot be stressed enough, support for Palestinians does not mean support for Hamas or ISIS.
I'm sure that you would have found a (very small) number of extremists (e.g. neo-Nazis) at some of the recent marches in Adelaide associated with the right-wing.
There are various factual assertions which I question as well, such as Palestinians not being aware of support they have received from the international community.
What you are proposing is totally contrary to Australian values, in my view, is hardly likely to work (and indeed I'm not sure that banning protests changes the minds of any would-be-protestors - quite the opposite I suspect), and is the sort of thing I associate with the Soviet Union or North Korea.
OK, but our government has shown their weakness by not doing anything about the "wrong-doers & extreme antagonists" that attended those marches.
Serious question, what could they have done?
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
CENTURION wrote:At the time I don't know BUT surely we can make a new law regarding creating civil unrest etc etc by displaying ISIS flags, burning the Aussie flag, I don't know, I'm not a bloody lawyer BUT let's do SOMETHING, instead of talking about it & just shrugging our shoulders & waiting for things to get worse, because they will.
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
Brodlach wrote:Easy for people to point fingers when they don’t have their own solutions
Brodlach wrote:Easy for people to point fingers when they don’t have their own solutions
Booney wrote:Brodlach wrote:Easy for people to point fingers when they don’t have their own solutions
The "What could we do?" argument shits me no f*cking end. Nobody is saying we have the answers or the perfect outcome it's the start of the conversation to find the answer.
Booney wrote:Brodlach wrote:Easy for people to point fingers when they don’t have their own solutions
The "What could we do?" argument shits me no f*cking end. Nobody is saying we have the answers or the perfect outcome it's the start of the conversation to find the answer.
Booney wrote:Brodlach wrote:Easy for people to point fingers when they don’t have their own solutions
The "What could we do?" argument shits me no f*cking end. Nobody is saying we have the answers or the perfect outcome it's the start of the conversation to find the answer.
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
dedja wrote:
The bravery of the lone detective in plain clothes who took down the older shooter is hard to describe. He could have easily been a 16th victim.
There was also a lot of drone footage of the siege, which begs the question whether drones could and should be part of the arsenal of police and law enforcement to help neutralise future incidents.
Dutchy wrote:Where did the drone footage come from, did they just happen to be flying over the scene when it happened or did people nearby put them up when they heard the shooting?
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 126 guests