Lateline - 27/10/2005: Lateline Survey Of Australian Security Experts
See link above to the details of a "Lateline" survey of security experts on their opinion about the proposed anti-terrorist legislation.
Most have formerly held government positions relevant to security or defence; most also now seem to be in academic positions. Certainly, it would appear unlikely that any of them have any detailed knowledge of the information on which the Federal Police and ASIO currently briefed the federal and state governments.
But what makes me really laugh is to see Andrew Wilkie as one of the experts polled. As if he (who left the employ of the federal government in a huff, wrote a book called "Axis of Deceit", and then ran for Parliament in John Howard's own seat) was ever going to say anything supporting this government.
It's like polling Richard Alston on the question of left wing bias in the ABC.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Time for a series on Islam
The Australian: TV airs fiction that inspired Hitler [October 28, 2005]
See link above to a short story about a TV series being shown in Jordan (maybe elsewhere in Muslim middle east - it is not clear) which apparently is based on the "Protocols of Zion".
I suggest that if it as bad as alleged, someone in the West should do a soap based on the historical events surrounding the creation of Islam. I would be interested. I share a general Western semi-ignorance about the subject. I know there was a lot of camel riding in the desert, a lot of tribal fighting, several wifes, and many people put to death. As I think a lot of the true historic detail is a bit vague (or disputed), just take the juicy bits, and then make up some to fill in blanks.
Just his domestic life should be sufficient enough for a mini series. From Wikipedia:
"Muhammad's family life
From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death he married Aisha, then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven (nine or ten living at the time of his death). Some say that he married his slave girl Maria al-Qibtiyya, but other sources speak to the contrary.
Khadija was Muhammad's first wife and the mother of the only child to survive him, his daughter Fatima. He married his other wives after the death of Khadija. Some of these women were recent widows of warriors in battle. Others were daughters of his close allies or tribal leaders. One of the later unions resulted in a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.
His marriage to Aisha is often criticized today citing traditional sources that state she was only nine years old when he consummated the marriage. (See Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages."
Now to be fair, I know that to show Mohammed is taboo to Muslims. I therefore suggest using a blue screen technique to blank out his body. You would just see his robes floating around on an invisible man. This, and a lot of the sword fighting, would get the kiddie audience in too. (Then again, not sure that the possible marriage to a 9 yr old is the sort of thing they need to see.) The voice - well I think they can create a fake computer generated one now, using a generic Arab accent.
There - no one should be too offended!
See link above to a short story about a TV series being shown in Jordan (maybe elsewhere in Muslim middle east - it is not clear) which apparently is based on the "Protocols of Zion".
I suggest that if it as bad as alleged, someone in the West should do a soap based on the historical events surrounding the creation of Islam. I would be interested. I share a general Western semi-ignorance about the subject. I know there was a lot of camel riding in the desert, a lot of tribal fighting, several wifes, and many people put to death. As I think a lot of the true historic detail is a bit vague (or disputed), just take the juicy bits, and then make up some to fill in blanks.
Just his domestic life should be sufficient enough for a mini series. From Wikipedia:
"Muhammad's family life
From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death he married Aisha, then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven (nine or ten living at the time of his death). Some say that he married his slave girl Maria al-Qibtiyya, but other sources speak to the contrary.
Khadija was Muhammad's first wife and the mother of the only child to survive him, his daughter Fatima. He married his other wives after the death of Khadija. Some of these women were recent widows of warriors in battle. Others were daughters of his close allies or tribal leaders. One of the later unions resulted in a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.
His marriage to Aisha is often criticized today citing traditional sources that state she was only nine years old when he consummated the marriage. (See Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages."
Now to be fair, I know that to show Mohammed is taboo to Muslims. I therefore suggest using a blue screen technique to blank out his body. You would just see his robes floating around on an invisible man. This, and a lot of the sword fighting, would get the kiddie audience in too. (Then again, not sure that the possible marriage to a 9 yr old is the sort of thing they need to see.) The voice - well I think they can create a fake computer generated one now, using a generic Arab accent.
There - no one should be too offended!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Drawing a long bow
The Australian: Ross Fitzgerald: Keatingesque hubris [October 27, 2005]
Ross Fitzgerald in the opinion piece above thinks that the Howard government is starting to "look more and more like the Keating government in its dying days." This is drawing a very long bow indeed.
The image of the last Keating government got off to a spectacularly bad start when TV shots of MPs and senators dancing at the celebration party were shown within a week or so of the election. (For some reason, I retain a clear image of Gareth Evans dancing with some female MP, but I don't think it was Cheryl Kernot.)
It was the perfect image of a party that was too much in love with itself and power.
For all I know, Howard's people may have done the same, but at least they have the sense not to let TV images of it be splashed over the media.
Fitzgerald thinks that Howard is too ideologically obsessed. In fact, I think that it was the ideological bent of the Labor Party (which indicated that no further substantial reform was coming) that led to its downfall. Sure, their major reforms under Hawke/Keating were a triumph over previous party policy, and good on them. But (as I recall it), it was pretty clear that it was not going much further by the time Keating took over.
And rigidity and "capture" by certain interest groups was certainly there in aboriginal affairs (when it was impossible for the Minister to ever accept the compelling evidence that the Hindmarsh Island affair was a fraud perpetrated by one subset of aboriginal locals.) I also remember Paul Keating being caught for a few seconds with his mind madly ticking over when he was asked in an election debate with Howard what he thought about gay marriage (or gay something.) As I recall it, while Keating's mouth was still frozen in uncertainty (as his privately expressed view that 2 men and a dog are not a family was, I think, already known,) Howard leapt in and gave an answer. (The answer being the conservative but moderate line he presumably still holds.)
My point is that the fact that the Howard government still wants major reforms is a sign of substantial life and vitality in it yet. The reforms are pragmatic as much as ideological, and that's how it should be. (The dissolution of ATSIC is certainly one example of pragmatic desire to improve aboriginal administration over the ideology of self rule.)
I don't think that there is any fair perception of the Liberal government as being held hostage by big business as an interest group; they may be happy with IR reform, but I didn't see them making that much of a fuss about it before the last election. (In fact, didn't the government had to prod companies to try and use the current regime of workplace agreements more frequently?)
As I see it, the primary government motive is not to "smash"unions, but rather a desire to improve pragmatic outcomes (decreasing the persistent level of unemployment, assisting productivity increases and flow on wage increases.) If unions get hurt in the process, so be it, as this government does not have to be concerned about dealing with them as part of their power base. Sure there is some "risk" involved, but as some commentators have pointed out, the failure of the extremely dire predictions against the GST to materialise must be making many voters realise that they need to be at least a little skeptical of the ACTU's worst claims. The unavoidable fact of demographics making workers increasingly scarce over the next decade must work in worker's favour as well.
The poor polls of this week are so far from an election they don't matter one iota. Fitzgerald knows that in his heart, I am sure.
Ross Fitzgerald in the opinion piece above thinks that the Howard government is starting to "look more and more like the Keating government in its dying days." This is drawing a very long bow indeed.
The image of the last Keating government got off to a spectacularly bad start when TV shots of MPs and senators dancing at the celebration party were shown within a week or so of the election. (For some reason, I retain a clear image of Gareth Evans dancing with some female MP, but I don't think it was Cheryl Kernot.)
It was the perfect image of a party that was too much in love with itself and power.
For all I know, Howard's people may have done the same, but at least they have the sense not to let TV images of it be splashed over the media.
Fitzgerald thinks that Howard is too ideologically obsessed. In fact, I think that it was the ideological bent of the Labor Party (which indicated that no further substantial reform was coming) that led to its downfall. Sure, their major reforms under Hawke/Keating were a triumph over previous party policy, and good on them. But (as I recall it), it was pretty clear that it was not going much further by the time Keating took over.
And rigidity and "capture" by certain interest groups was certainly there in aboriginal affairs (when it was impossible for the Minister to ever accept the compelling evidence that the Hindmarsh Island affair was a fraud perpetrated by one subset of aboriginal locals.) I also remember Paul Keating being caught for a few seconds with his mind madly ticking over when he was asked in an election debate with Howard what he thought about gay marriage (or gay something.) As I recall it, while Keating's mouth was still frozen in uncertainty (as his privately expressed view that 2 men and a dog are not a family was, I think, already known,) Howard leapt in and gave an answer. (The answer being the conservative but moderate line he presumably still holds.)
My point is that the fact that the Howard government still wants major reforms is a sign of substantial life and vitality in it yet. The reforms are pragmatic as much as ideological, and that's how it should be. (The dissolution of ATSIC is certainly one example of pragmatic desire to improve aboriginal administration over the ideology of self rule.)
I don't think that there is any fair perception of the Liberal government as being held hostage by big business as an interest group; they may be happy with IR reform, but I didn't see them making that much of a fuss about it before the last election. (In fact, didn't the government had to prod companies to try and use the current regime of workplace agreements more frequently?)
As I see it, the primary government motive is not to "smash"unions, but rather a desire to improve pragmatic outcomes (decreasing the persistent level of unemployment, assisting productivity increases and flow on wage increases.) If unions get hurt in the process, so be it, as this government does not have to be concerned about dealing with them as part of their power base. Sure there is some "risk" involved, but as some commentators have pointed out, the failure of the extremely dire predictions against the GST to materialise must be making many voters realise that they need to be at least a little skeptical of the ACTU's worst claims. The unavoidable fact of demographics making workers increasingly scarce over the next decade must work in worker's favour as well.
The poor polls of this week are so far from an election they don't matter one iota. Fitzgerald knows that in his heart, I am sure.
A trilogy of nutters
This morning's peruse of the news was notable for 3 stories found in quick succession on men who could only be described as absolute nutters.
First: this story is horrifying. (Middle aged man in Adelaide - which after all, has a reputation for weirdo's that it has to keep up - found with child porn and material showing that he has even worse fantasies.) Not funny at all.
Second story: random ear biting attack in Sydney. Only sort of funny if you think how unlucky you can be.
Third story: (found via Drudge) - terrible if it happened to you, but otherwise so odd it is gross-out funny.
"A Dallas cab driver is in big trouble for getting caught on tape sprinkling dried feces on pastries.
First: this story is horrifying. (Middle aged man in Adelaide - which after all, has a reputation for weirdo's that it has to keep up - found with child porn and material showing that he has even worse fantasies.) Not funny at all.
Second story: random ear biting attack in Sydney. Only sort of funny if you think how unlucky you can be.
Third story: (found via Drudge) - terrible if it happened to you, but otherwise so odd it is gross-out funny.
"A Dallas cab driver is in big trouble for getting caught on tape sprinkling dried feces on pastries.
49-year-old Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh is on trial for allegedly throwing fecal matter on pastries at a Fiesta grocery store.
Police said they found a pile of human feces by his bed.
He would dry it, either by microwave or just letting it sit out and grate it up with a cheese grater and then sprinkle it at the store, officials said.
Neither attorneys in the case is clear about a motive or why the defendant would resort to something so repulsive."
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Idiots with lasers
The Australian: Jet pilots targeted by lasers [October 21, 2005]
I meant to post on the above story a few days ago but forgot.
It's interesting to see the number of incidents of this in Australia recently.
The Maroochydore incidents I would strongly suspect as coming from a row of new-ish holiday apartment buildings running parallel to the runway, many of which have balconies with good, high line of sight to the approaches. Teenagers on summer holidays would be the most likely culprits, I expect.
I don't recall reading anything about these last summer, but maybe I missed it.
I meant to post on the above story a few days ago but forgot.
It's interesting to see the number of incidents of this in Australia recently.
The Maroochydore incidents I would strongly suspect as coming from a row of new-ish holiday apartment buildings running parallel to the runway, many of which have balconies with good, high line of sight to the approaches. Teenagers on summer holidays would be the most likely culprits, I expect.
I don't recall reading anything about these last summer, but maybe I missed it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Useless poll questions
Voters say yes to terror Australis - National - smh.com.au
The link above is about an AC Nielson poll in which 60% of the respondents apparently were against the police being given "shoot to kill" authority when pursuing terrorist suspects.
As I detailed at length a few days ago, the legal question about currrent police authority to use lethal force in an arrest is complicated. It relies on both legislation (that varies slightly from State to State) as well as common law. There is no way possible that this poll could have given the respondents sufficient background information for them to make a meaningful response. Even the use of "shoot to kill" in the first place (if indeed that is the phrase used; this story does not make it clear) was really so prejudicial as to make the poll results useless.
It is a "gut reaction" poll, but we shouldn't make law on that basis.
The link above is about an AC Nielson poll in which 60% of the respondents apparently were against the police being given "shoot to kill" authority when pursuing terrorist suspects.
As I detailed at length a few days ago, the legal question about currrent police authority to use lethal force in an arrest is complicated. It relies on both legislation (that varies slightly from State to State) as well as common law. There is no way possible that this poll could have given the respondents sufficient background information for them to make a meaningful response. Even the use of "shoot to kill" in the first place (if indeed that is the phrase used; this story does not make it clear) was really so prejudicial as to make the poll results useless.
It is a "gut reaction" poll, but we shouldn't make law on that basis.
I told you so....(cats and madness again)
I did a post recently about my surprise that there had been research going on for decades about the possible (or likely) link between toxoplasma gondii (which people commonly catch from cats) and schizophrenia. I had stumbled across an article that was a couple of years old about this.
Turns out my post was rather prescient. An article today from Science Daily shows that there should be some concern about this disease. To quote:
Turns out my post was rather prescient. An article today from Science Daily shows that there should be some concern about this disease. To quote:
McAllister, also a clinical professor of pathology in the U. of I. College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign, made his case based on his review of numerous studies on the animal-carried pathogen during the past decade. His review, prepared for the conference, appeared in the Sept. 30 issue of the journal Veterinary Parasitology.
"Our profession needs to come to grip with the accumulating body of evidence about the tremendous burden wrought on society by toxoplasmosis," McAllister wrote. "Further research is needed to clarify the association between toxoplasmosis and mental health, but until such time that this association may be refuted, it is my opinion that the current evidence is strong enough to warrant an assumption of validity."....
In his review, McAllister noted a long list of maladies made worse by toxoplasma infection in people with suppressed immunity, and he cited a growing list of studies that link problems in people whose immune systems are not impaired. Among the latter problems are fever, enlarged lymph nodes, weakness and debilitation, damaged vision, or multi-systemic infections with serious complications such as pneumonia and hepatitis. Toxoplasma also is a causative agent of encephalitis in AIDS patients....
"Evidence is mounting to link toxoplasmosis with schizophrenia or similar psychiatric disorders (in people)," McAllister wrote. "Recent studies from three countries found that schizophrenic patients had higher antibody levels to T. gondii than did matched control subjects." He also cited older studies that used a toxoplasma skin test that "showed highly significant associations between toxoplasmosis and psychiatric disorders." Recent studies also have linked infections with reduced average intelligence. Gosh. This has just 3 links in Google News. You would think the MSM would run with a story about this.
In the news...
I suppose I had better post again, as my hit rate does slide away if I don't.
Of interest in the news today:
Abortion: I posted last week on the Victorian government's modest plan to require women seeking a late term abortion for "psychosocial reasons" to have a 48 hour cooling off period and counselling independent of that provided by the clinic that is providing this service. Given that a recent increase in the numbers of women seeking this service is largely among teenagers, who one might expect are the most in need of some independent counseling and time to think, it seemed to be a very sensible suggestion. Well, this is just all too much for Labor women, because it dares suggest that some women might not get want they want, regardless of the reasons they want it. Anyway, the Minister (a woman) is expected to drop the cooling off period, but still require the independent counselling.
It's better than doing nothing, but the militancy with which Labor women oppose any reform on an area that is a matter that most doctors find ethically challenging is what bothers me most.
Phillip Adams: in the Australia, has a go at Australians for not getting upset about the planned execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore for drug smuggling. It's all racism, he says. He draws comparison with Schapelle Corby. One big difference he fails to mention: Nguyen's lawyer said yesterday on Radio National that his client had never denied guilt and fully co-operated with police.
I don't think he should be executed either. The amount involved was relatively small, and he has apparently provided evidence that could be used to prosecute figures in Australia (if he is alive to give evidence.) In any event, drug smuggling is just not one of those offences that I would ever consider worthy of capital punishment.
But Adams' having a go at Australians for being racist by failing to take this case to heart is going to have the opposite effect from what he wants.
Gerard Henderson: in the SMH today has another good article on the supposed cynicism and alienation of the Australian electorate. (It's all a bit of a "beat up", basically.) Well worth reading.
Tony Parkinson (The Age) on the problem with Syria is good too.
The number of kid's deaths from driveway accidents now exceeds pool drownings, according to the Australian. That surprises me, and as I hate urban 4WD's anyway, my bias against them is further boosted. (Yes I know, not all of these deaths would be from 4WD.)
I would like to finish with something lighter, but haven't found anything yet...
Of interest in the news today:
Abortion: I posted last week on the Victorian government's modest plan to require women seeking a late term abortion for "psychosocial reasons" to have a 48 hour cooling off period and counselling independent of that provided by the clinic that is providing this service. Given that a recent increase in the numbers of women seeking this service is largely among teenagers, who one might expect are the most in need of some independent counseling and time to think, it seemed to be a very sensible suggestion. Well, this is just all too much for Labor women, because it dares suggest that some women might not get want they want, regardless of the reasons they want it. Anyway, the Minister (a woman) is expected to drop the cooling off period, but still require the independent counselling.
It's better than doing nothing, but the militancy with which Labor women oppose any reform on an area that is a matter that most doctors find ethically challenging is what bothers me most.
Phillip Adams: in the Australia, has a go at Australians for not getting upset about the planned execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore for drug smuggling. It's all racism, he says. He draws comparison with Schapelle Corby. One big difference he fails to mention: Nguyen's lawyer said yesterday on Radio National that his client had never denied guilt and fully co-operated with police.
I don't think he should be executed either. The amount involved was relatively small, and he has apparently provided evidence that could be used to prosecute figures in Australia (if he is alive to give evidence.) In any event, drug smuggling is just not one of those offences that I would ever consider worthy of capital punishment.
But Adams' having a go at Australians for being racist by failing to take this case to heart is going to have the opposite effect from what he wants.
Gerard Henderson: in the SMH today has another good article on the supposed cynicism and alienation of the Australian electorate. (It's all a bit of a "beat up", basically.) Well worth reading.
Tony Parkinson (The Age) on the problem with Syria is good too.
The number of kid's deaths from driveway accidents now exceeds pool drownings, according to the Australian. That surprises me, and as I hate urban 4WD's anyway, my bias against them is further boosted. (Yes I know, not all of these deaths would be from 4WD.)
I would like to finish with something lighter, but haven't found anything yet...
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Racing the pigeons
The recent news that imported Canadian racing pigeons were to be killed for having (at least) bird flu antibodies left me a little bemused - over the fact that there is hobby in Australia that I hadn't heard of for decades. I also wonder why they are imported from Canada. Presumably, it is one of Canada's claims to fame - if you are into pigeons. (This reminds me of Gonzo from the Muppets, with his intense interest in chickens.)
Googling "racing pigeons Australia" in fact brings up 15,700 hits (if you limit it to Australian web sites - 153,000 if you don't!) This could make a guy feel paranoid. What else is going on around me in this country that I have never noticed?
Things get a little weird when you look at the first link on that google search (entitled, oddly enough, "Racing Pigeons Australia".) It explains that the first section:
"is for the dedicated pigeon fancier who is only interested in viewing close up photography of pigeons eyes."
Wow. I suspect that getting stuck next to a racing pigeon fancier at a singles dinner party might be some girl's idea of hell.
Googling "racing pigeons Australia" in fact brings up 15,700 hits (if you limit it to Australian web sites - 153,000 if you don't!) This could make a guy feel paranoid. What else is going on around me in this country that I have never noticed?
Things get a little weird when you look at the first link on that google search (entitled, oddly enough, "Racing Pigeons Australia".) It explains that the first section:
"is for the dedicated pigeon fancier who is only interested in viewing close up photography of pigeons eyes."
Wow. I suspect that getting stuck next to a racing pigeon fancier at a singles dinner party might be some girl's idea of hell.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Shooting to kill
Just to prove that I can be as even handed as the next right wing Aussie blogger, and even though I don't like to go out of my way to support grandstanding Labor State premiers, I think I agree with them that the so-called "shoot to kill" provision in the anti terrorism bill deserves either amendment or ignoring.
The Australian runs a not bad summary of the issue in its article here.
The proposed bill's section is s105.23:
"An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is
necessary and reasonable:
(a) to take the person into custody; or
(b) to prevent the escape of the person after being taken into
custody.
(2) An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous
bodily harm to, the person unless the AFP member believes
on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to
protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person
(including the AFP member); or
(b) if the person is attempting to escape being taken into custody
by fleeing—do such a thing unless:
(i) the AFP member believes on reasonable grounds that
doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent
serious injury to another person (including the AFP
member); and
(ii) the person has, if practicable, been called on to
surrender and the AFP member believes on reasonable
grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any
other manner.
This section in the proposed bill simply copies the power that is already in the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Also, to take one example, Queensland has a similar legislative power which is worth reading in detail by way of comparison:
"(1) This section applies if a police officer reasonably suspects a person--
(2) This section also applies if--
(i) will engage in a terrorist act; or
(ii) possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation
for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
(iii) has done, or will do, an act in 1 preparation for, or
planning, a terrorist act; and
(b) making the order would substantially assist in preventing a
terrorist act occurring.
(3) A terrorist act referred to in subsection (2):
(a) must be one that is imminent; and
(b) must be one that is expected to occur, in any event, at some
time in the next 14 days."
Clearly, the proposed bill may be used to allow the police to nab people who may be seriously dangerous, so serious powers relating to arrest are needed. However, you would have to suspect that the very fact that a preventative detention order has been made will make the police more ready to assume that lethal force is necessary to "...protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the AFP member) ". The Commonwealth section, although almost certainly intended to cover necessary steps if the danger is immediately present at the time of the arrest, does not spell that so clearly.
Frankly, I think the wording of the Queensland provision is better and clearer in that it's emphasis in section (2) is obviously more clearly on the "here and now" of the arrest: the person "... is doing, or is about to do" the thing that will cause death or gbh.
There was no nefarious intent in the Commonwealth drafters in putting the current Crimes Act provision in the Bill, and the Premiers have been guilty of grandstanding on this. But, it is still the case that the Commonwealth power is left a little ambiguous when you try to apply it to arresting someone for an possible future offence, not one that is already committed. The wording of the Commonwealth provision should therefore, in my view, be tightened.
But frankly, I doubt that it would matter much if the States just all keep their own laws on "shoot to kill" anyway. I am no expert, but I think that their provisions are not going to work dramatically differently to the AFP's. It just takes care and common sense (and good police training onrecognizingg quickly when the different levels of force are needed).
There, I have done it. Supported Labor Premiers. (Sort of.) Now must have a shower and come to my senses!
The Australian runs a not bad summary of the issue in its article here.
The proposed bill's section is s105.23:
"An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is
necessary and reasonable:
(a) to take the person into custody; or
(b) to prevent the escape of the person after being taken into
custody.
(2) An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous
bodily harm to, the person unless the AFP member believes
on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to
protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person
(including the AFP member); or
(b) if the person is attempting to escape being taken into custody
by fleeing—do such a thing unless:
(i) the AFP member believes on reasonable grounds that
doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent
serious injury to another person (including the AFP
member); and
(ii) the person has, if practicable, been called on to
surrender and the AFP member believes on reasonable
grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any
other manner.
This section in the proposed bill simply copies the power that is already in the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Also, to take one example, Queensland has a similar legislative power which is worth reading in detail by way of comparison:
"(1) This section applies if a police officer reasonably suspects a person--
(a) has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence punishable by life imprisonment; or(b) has committed an offence punishable by life imprisonment and is attempting to escape arrest or has escaped from arrest or custody
(2) This section also applies if--
(a) a police officer reasonably suspects a person is doing, or is about to do, something likely to cause grievous bodily harm to, or the death of, another person; and
(b) the police officer reasonably suspects he or she can not prevent the grievous bodily harm or death other than in the way authorised under this section.
(3) It is lawful for the police officer to use the force reasonably necessary--
(a) to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence punishable by life imprisonment; or
(b) to apprehend the person; or
(c) to prevent the escape of a person from arrest or custody; or
(d) to prevent the commission of an act mentioned in subsection (2).
(4) The force a police officer may use under this section includes force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death.
(5) If the police officer reasonably believes it is necessary to use force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death, the police officer must, if practicable, first call on the person to stop doing the act."
The difference is that the Queensland provision is talking about persons who are already suspected of having commited a serious offence (or are currently engaged in something that will harm others,) whereas the Commonwealth section is aimed at people who are the subject of preventative detention orders.
Now, such orders may only be granted in cases where:
(i) will engage in a terrorist act; or
(ii) possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation
for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
(iii) has done, or will do, an act in 1 preparation for, or
planning, a terrorist act; and
(b) making the order would substantially assist in preventing a
terrorist act occurring.
(3) A terrorist act referred to in subsection (2):
(a) must be one that is imminent; and
(b) must be one that is expected to occur, in any event, at some
time in the next 14 days."
Clearly, the proposed bill may be used to allow the police to nab people who may be seriously dangerous, so serious powers relating to arrest are needed. However, you would have to suspect that the very fact that a preventative detention order has been made will make the police more ready to assume that lethal force is necessary to "...protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the AFP member) ". The Commonwealth section, although almost certainly intended to cover necessary steps if the danger is immediately present at the time of the arrest, does not spell that so clearly.
Frankly, I think the wording of the Queensland provision is better and clearer in that it's emphasis in section (2) is obviously more clearly on the "here and now" of the arrest: the person "... is doing, or is about to do" the thing that will cause death or gbh.
There was no nefarious intent in the Commonwealth drafters in putting the current Crimes Act provision in the Bill, and the Premiers have been guilty of grandstanding on this. But, it is still the case that the Commonwealth power is left a little ambiguous when you try to apply it to arresting someone for an possible future offence, not one that is already committed. The wording of the Commonwealth provision should therefore, in my view, be tightened.
But frankly, I doubt that it would matter much if the States just all keep their own laws on "shoot to kill" anyway. I am no expert, but I think that their provisions are not going to work dramatically differently to the AFP's. It just takes care and common sense (and good police training onrecognizingg quickly when the different levels of force are needed).
There, I have done it. Supported Labor Premiers. (Sort of.) Now must have a shower and come to my senses!
Other people's blogs
I don't recall how I stumbled onto neo neocon, but it is a particularly good little personal blog on all things neocon, and best of all is the reasons the author gives for her creating it:
"I'm a woman in my fifties, lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11. Born in New York, living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles."
Tim Blair should link to it. But then, he should link to me too!
Next, I sometimes click on a random blog name on the "blogs updated" list that scrolls continuously on the Blogger site. That is how I found this one, from a Malaysian guy who hates his boss and has a strange turn of phrase. From his first post:
"Work wise, currently I'm attached to an investment company. The work description and job scope sound very dynamic but most of the time I'll be swinging my two beloved balls."
??
The next post, about his cat, notes:
"I guess female cats are not interested in him since he has no balls, secondly he can't swing his balls when he's not doing anything like I enjoy doing during office hour hehe...(He was already castrate when I adopted him)."
What exactly is he doing in his spare time in the office??
Another post complains about how tired he is because of Ramadan (it's true, then, as I had a previous post about this.) He complains:
"Not only that, the eyes feel so heavy too. So heavy that you would not care even if there is a bare stinky butt beside your face."
Next, he is posting that his wife is pregnant and it is a girl. What a worry. Just remember, I read it so that you don't have to.
Finally for now, while not really a blog as such, Newsbusters seems a pretty good professionally run conservative site on "liberal media bias" in the States.
"I'm a woman in my fifties, lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11. Born in New York, living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles."
Tim Blair should link to it. But then, he should link to me too!
Next, I sometimes click on a random blog name on the "blogs updated" list that scrolls continuously on the Blogger site. That is how I found this one, from a Malaysian guy who hates his boss and has a strange turn of phrase. From his first post:
"Work wise, currently I'm attached to an investment company. The work description and job scope sound very dynamic but most of the time I'll be swinging my two beloved balls."
??
The next post, about his cat, notes:
"I guess female cats are not interested in him since he has no balls, secondly he can't swing his balls when he's not doing anything like I enjoy doing during office hour hehe...(He was already castrate when I adopted him)."
What exactly is he doing in his spare time in the office??
Another post complains about how tired he is because of Ramadan (it's true, then, as I had a previous post about this.) He complains:
"Not only that, the eyes feel so heavy too. So heavy that you would not care even if there is a bare stinky butt beside your face."
Next, he is posting that his wife is pregnant and it is a girl. What a worry. Just remember, I read it so that you don't have to.
Finally for now, while not really a blog as such, Newsbusters seems a pretty good professionally run conservative site on "liberal media bias" in the States.
Really, really trivial news
MSN-Mainichi Daily News: National News
See link above if you want to see a Japanese poodle crossing the road very safely on two legs.
"Passersby contacted police afterwards, saying the dog had given them renewed recognition of the importance of road safety.
Pluto walked on his hind legs into an office at Ise Police Station to receive the honor. Station head Etsujiro Kurachi addressed the canine saying, "Thank you, Pluto," and handed over the dog food prize."
See link above if you want to see a Japanese poodle crossing the road very safely on two legs.
"Passersby contacted police afterwards, saying the dog had given them renewed recognition of the importance of road safety.
Pluto walked on his hind legs into an office at Ise Police Station to receive the honor. Station head Etsujiro Kurachi addressed the canine saying, "Thank you, Pluto," and handed over the dog food prize."
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Songs you don't normally expect at a wedding
In Mali, women debate circumcision
See link above for interesting story on female "circumcision" in West Africa. To quote:
"Female circumcision -- also known as female genital mutilation -- is widespread in West Africa, despite a smattering of national laws and campaigns to eradicate the practice. In Mali, for example, almost 92 percent of women of childbearing age have been circumcised, according to a recent government study.
But Mali is now spearheading a new regional initiative against female circumcision using an unusual medium: Griots like Gamara, who exert a powerful and indispensable role in traditional West African culture."
A Griot is a "member of the cast of traditional singers and storytellers" in that part of the world.
"Pitted against the anti-circumcision movement are powerful social and religious forces. Although the tradition of cutting off part or all of a girl's clitoris before marriage was practiced long before Islam arrived in Africa, many Muslim adherents describe it as a religious necessity.
Others, like Gamara, argue that female circumcision is hygienic, even though it can cause major medical problems if unclean instruments are used."
Hygienic?? What do they conceive the clitoris as doing to make a woman unhygienic?
""At the beginning it was very difficult to decide to sing against circumcision," recalled Kida, a nationally renowned singer and griot who often appears on Malian TV. "People said, 'Assitan, you shouldn't meddle with that. Because circumcision is part of our culture.'
"But I said no," Kida added. "Even doctors are telling people to stop."
Kida herself has been circumcised. But her three young daughters have not. She is currently recording a CD that includes songs promoting children's rights and speaking about the problems of female circumcision. But she says she approaches the subject gingerly when she sings at weddings or at other public occasions.
"I never sing about it in an aggressive way," Kida said, adding that she usually approaches the subject of female circumcision at the end of her act. "And often people will come up to me and say, 'This is good. What you have sung about circumcision is true.'"
Wedding receptions are a little different there...
See link above for interesting story on female "circumcision" in West Africa. To quote:
"Female circumcision -- also known as female genital mutilation -- is widespread in West Africa, despite a smattering of national laws and campaigns to eradicate the practice. In Mali, for example, almost 92 percent of women of childbearing age have been circumcised, according to a recent government study.
But Mali is now spearheading a new regional initiative against female circumcision using an unusual medium: Griots like Gamara, who exert a powerful and indispensable role in traditional West African culture."
A Griot is a "member of the cast of traditional singers and storytellers" in that part of the world.
"Pitted against the anti-circumcision movement are powerful social and religious forces. Although the tradition of cutting off part or all of a girl's clitoris before marriage was practiced long before Islam arrived in Africa, many Muslim adherents describe it as a religious necessity.
Others, like Gamara, argue that female circumcision is hygienic, even though it can cause major medical problems if unclean instruments are used."
Hygienic?? What do they conceive the clitoris as doing to make a woman unhygienic?
""At the beginning it was very difficult to decide to sing against circumcision," recalled Kida, a nationally renowned singer and griot who often appears on Malian TV. "People said, 'Assitan, you shouldn't meddle with that. Because circumcision is part of our culture.'
"But I said no," Kida added. "Even doctors are telling people to stop."
Kida herself has been circumcised. But her three young daughters have not. She is currently recording a CD that includes songs promoting children's rights and speaking about the problems of female circumcision. But she says she approaches the subject gingerly when she sings at weddings or at other public occasions.
"I never sing about it in an aggressive way," Kida said, adding that she usually approaches the subject of female circumcision at the end of her act. "And often people will come up to me and say, 'This is good. What you have sung about circumcision is true.'"
Wedding receptions are a little different there...
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Dumb question
BBC NEWS : Should Saddam die?
The BBC story above puts the two sides to the question of whether Saddam should be executed.
There is no great inconsistency, in my view, in being opposed to capital punishment as a possible consequence of ordinary domestic crime, but allowing that it should be available in the case of crimes against humanity. The argument for it in Saddams case is overwhelming, in terms of the on-going "hope" his life gives to domestic terrorists who are willing to take countless civilian lives to prove precisely nothing.
The Human Rights Watch guy cares more about procedure than anything else, and the idea that the death penalty is a "cruel and inhuman punishment."
"Now, should Saddam Hussein be found guilty, when it comes to his being executed the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that violates the right to life and the prohibition against torture. I know well how strongly many Iraqis feel about Saddam and others. But to impose the death penalty on these individuals will be a throwback to the ancien regime - it will suggest business as usual in terms of cruel and inhuman punishment."
To me, common sense dictates that such concerns, in the case of someone convicted of ordering the killing of hundreds or thousands of civilians, are outweighed by the gravity of the offence, no prospect of "rehabilitation" and the fact that, to the extent that other murderous leaders can be deterred, imprisonment for life with good chance to catch up on reading and see the wife and kids is rather pathetically inadequate.
As I said, it is also not just about Saddam; it is about stopping the continuing killing as far as possible as soon as possible.
The BBC story above puts the two sides to the question of whether Saddam should be executed.
There is no great inconsistency, in my view, in being opposed to capital punishment as a possible consequence of ordinary domestic crime, but allowing that it should be available in the case of crimes against humanity. The argument for it in Saddams case is overwhelming, in terms of the on-going "hope" his life gives to domestic terrorists who are willing to take countless civilian lives to prove precisely nothing.
The Human Rights Watch guy cares more about procedure than anything else, and the idea that the death penalty is a "cruel and inhuman punishment."
"Now, should Saddam Hussein be found guilty, when it comes to his being executed the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that violates the right to life and the prohibition against torture. I know well how strongly many Iraqis feel about Saddam and others. But to impose the death penalty on these individuals will be a throwback to the ancien regime - it will suggest business as usual in terms of cruel and inhuman punishment."
To me, common sense dictates that such concerns, in the case of someone convicted of ordering the killing of hundreds or thousands of civilians, are outweighed by the gravity of the offence, no prospect of "rehabilitation" and the fact that, to the extent that other murderous leaders can be deterred, imprisonment for life with good chance to catch up on reading and see the wife and kids is rather pathetically inadequate.
As I said, it is also not just about Saddam; it is about stopping the continuing killing as far as possible as soon as possible.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Useful Hitchens article
Tribal Ignorance - What you think you know about Iraq's factions is all wrong. By Christopher Hitchens
See the link above to a good Hitchens article on the tribal groupings in Iraq, and how the Western media tends to misrepresent their situation. A crucial paragraph (the bit about the Kurds was news to me):
"To be a Sunni or a Shiite is to follow one or another Muslim obedience, but to be a Kurd is to be a member of a large non-Arab ethnicity as well as to be, in the vast majority of cases, a Sunni. Thus, by any measure of accuracy, the "Sunni" turnout in the weekend's referendum on the constitution was impressively large, very well-organized, and quite strongly in favor of a "yes" vote. Is that the way you remember it being reported? I thought not. Well, then, learn to think for yourself."
See the link above to a good Hitchens article on the tribal groupings in Iraq, and how the Western media tends to misrepresent their situation. A crucial paragraph (the bit about the Kurds was news to me):
"To be a Sunni or a Shiite is to follow one or another Muslim obedience, but to be a Kurd is to be a member of a large non-Arab ethnicity as well as to be, in the vast majority of cases, a Sunni. Thus, by any measure of accuracy, the "Sunni" turnout in the weekend's referendum on the constitution was impressively large, very well-organized, and quite strongly in favor of a "yes" vote. Is that the way you remember it being reported? I thought not. Well, then, learn to think for yourself."
Those wacky Dutch
Found via Julian Calendar (see link on my blogroll) is this story. In the Netherlands, a man with a passing resemblance to "Dr Evil" has entered into a legal "civil union" with 2 bisexual women. The first modern government endorsed European form of polygamy?
What I find curious is that when you do a Google news search for "Netherlands polygamy" it comes up with a miserly 20 reports on this (and many of these are conservative American sites, not major news ones.)
I would have thought this would attract more attention in the MSM, as the idea of "civil union" legislation has been pushed a lot in the last year or two. But surely the gay lobby would not want to press for it to cover 3 -somes? I recall Mark Steyn warning in a column that if you allow gay marriage, the next push (which had already been started by some group in the States) would be to legalise polygamy.
God, think of the fun the Courts would have in deciding property settlements or child custody cases with more than one partner!
What I find curious is that when you do a Google news search for "Netherlands polygamy" it comes up with a miserly 20 reports on this (and many of these are conservative American sites, not major news ones.)
I would have thought this would attract more attention in the MSM, as the idea of "civil union" legislation has been pushed a lot in the last year or two. But surely the gay lobby would not want to press for it to cover 3 -somes? I recall Mark Steyn warning in a column that if you allow gay marriage, the next push (which had already been started by some group in the States) would be to legalise polygamy.
God, think of the fun the Courts would have in deciding property settlements or child custody cases with more than one partner!
More on Latham Diaries
There's an interesting comment piece (the first of 2 parts apparently ) over on the APO website on the Latham Diaries. Written by former Latham "booster" David Burchell, I like this part best:
"In his rage and revulsion, Latham has doubtless traduced the reputations of some decent and honourable people, both in the ALP and elsewhere. (What his hapless ex-staffers did to deserve their various '‘serves'’, for instance, is hard to fathom.) There doesn'’t seem to be any particular strategy to this: as Latham sees it, he'’s just speaking the truth as he finds it. There'’s a kind of compelling brutal honesty to this approach, but also a strange emotional autism."
The general argument in the article is that Latham is obviously emotionally and physically unwell, but his basic points about the party are valid. Sure, but everyone knew about the factional problems endemic in the party before the Diaries anyway.
"In his rage and revulsion, Latham has doubtless traduced the reputations of some decent and honourable people, both in the ALP and elsewhere. (What his hapless ex-staffers did to deserve their various '‘serves'’, for instance, is hard to fathom.) There doesn'’t seem to be any particular strategy to this: as Latham sees it, he'’s just speaking the truth as he finds it. There'’s a kind of compelling brutal honesty to this approach, but also a strange emotional autism."
The general argument in the article is that Latham is obviously emotionally and physically unwell, but his basic points about the party are valid. Sure, but everyone knew about the factional problems endemic in the party before the Diaries anyway.
Posts to make you grind your teeth
So, the awful Cindy Sheehan has a permanent blog of sorts at Huffington Post. Her posts are excruciating to read, but then again, so are those of nearly everyone at Huffington. I suppose it's the Daily Kos for those a bit more grown up.
Cindy's latest words of wisdom:
"I have two points to make about the referendum vote in Iraq on Saturday. First of all, George told us in his headlong rush to disaster in Iraq that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was culpable for 9/11. George and his band of war monsters still despicably say 9/11 in every major speech in defense of the invasion and continued occupation. He never said "regime change" or spreading "freedom and democracy." If the constitution passes, what will be the next devious justification for the occupation?"
This can be criticised as being factually and morally in error in so many ways , I can't be bothered responding.
An earlier post is weirdly paranoid about using the military to help in the event of a dire outbreak of bird flu:
"The war machine and the people who serve it in our government are getting a little afraid themselves of not being able to keep the industrial military complex rolling in the bloody dough, so George and friends have come up with a new enemy whose atrocities also can't be contained to borders and that doesn't wear a national uniform: The Bird Flu. What kind of person who doesn't bow before the warmongers and war profiteers calls the military as his first plan of action when a health threat is supposedly brewing? Instead of calling out the National Guard (who by the way are still fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq), do you think his first call should have been to the CDC? Or to his Surgeon General, and not his military Generals? These people do not walk on this earth anywhere near reality or peace. Our new enemy of the state will be Birds who may be ill and we shall be very afraid every time we sneeze and pray that our government saves us from more imaginary threats. While we are praying, the war profiteers are laughing at us on our knees as they are counting their stacks of wicked and immorally gotten gains." (Emphasis mine)
Just how far will she have to go before she loses credibility even with the Huffington crowd?
By the way, I notice that Huffington Post is absolutely full of commentary on the Judith Miller story. For me, even with Professor Bunyip's useful commentary, it has become just too complicated to follow. It would appear that the whole matter seems to be fizzling out, and maybe that is why the Left is in a bit of a lather. (Of course, seeing I have lost track, I could be proved wrong.)
Cindy's latest words of wisdom:
"I have two points to make about the referendum vote in Iraq on Saturday. First of all, George told us in his headlong rush to disaster in Iraq that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was culpable for 9/11. George and his band of war monsters still despicably say 9/11 in every major speech in defense of the invasion and continued occupation. He never said "regime change" or spreading "freedom and democracy." If the constitution passes, what will be the next devious justification for the occupation?"
This can be criticised as being factually and morally in error in so many ways , I can't be bothered responding.
An earlier post is weirdly paranoid about using the military to help in the event of a dire outbreak of bird flu:
"The war machine and the people who serve it in our government are getting a little afraid themselves of not being able to keep the industrial military complex rolling in the bloody dough, so George and friends have come up with a new enemy whose atrocities also can't be contained to borders and that doesn't wear a national uniform: The Bird Flu. What kind of person who doesn't bow before the warmongers and war profiteers calls the military as his first plan of action when a health threat is supposedly brewing? Instead of calling out the National Guard (who by the way are still fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq), do you think his first call should have been to the CDC? Or to his Surgeon General, and not his military Generals? These people do not walk on this earth anywhere near reality or peace. Our new enemy of the state will be Birds who may be ill and we shall be very afraid every time we sneeze and pray that our government saves us from more imaginary threats. While we are praying, the war profiteers are laughing at us on our knees as they are counting their stacks of wicked and immorally gotten gains." (Emphasis mine)
Just how far will she have to go before she loses credibility even with the Huffington crowd?
By the way, I notice that Huffington Post is absolutely full of commentary on the Judith Miller story. For me, even with Professor Bunyip's useful commentary, it has become just too complicated to follow. It would appear that the whole matter seems to be fizzling out, and maybe that is why the Left is in a bit of a lather. (Of course, seeing I have lost track, I could be proved wrong.)
Arab freedom revolution continues (at snail's pace)
Stumbled across this today:
"A source in a private Saudi media company announced on Sunday that its company, in an agreement with Riyadh city secretariat, will display a children cinema retrospective during the three days of Eid al-Fitr to be the first cinema shown in the Kingdom, 20 years after banning such shows. The source said that the show will start on November 3 will be limited to women and children in the halls of one of the big hotels in the Saudi capital. The hall includes 1400 seats. Thirty year ago, the Saudi authorities used to permit the display of cinema films in private clubs but in the beginning of the 1980s prevented cinema shows in public places under the charge that they are religiously prohibited. On the other side, the authorities permit the use and selling of video films in public shops which sell tapes and CD ROM for most recent Arab and foreign films."
I am guessing that the dire risk of a unmarried man and woman touching hands in the darkness are behind the ban, but who knows.
It's pretty unbelievable, isn't it?
"A source in a private Saudi media company announced on Sunday that its company, in an agreement with Riyadh city secretariat, will display a children cinema retrospective during the three days of Eid al-Fitr to be the first cinema shown in the Kingdom, 20 years after banning such shows. The source said that the show will start on November 3 will be limited to women and children in the halls of one of the big hotels in the Saudi capital. The hall includes 1400 seats. Thirty year ago, the Saudi authorities used to permit the display of cinema films in private clubs but in the beginning of the 1980s prevented cinema shows in public places under the charge that they are religiously prohibited. On the other side, the authorities permit the use and selling of video films in public shops which sell tapes and CD ROM for most recent Arab and foreign films."
I am guessing that the dire risk of a unmarried man and woman touching hands in the darkness are behind the ban, but who knows.
It's pretty unbelievable, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)