Comments on: Moroney moronic on civil liberties

By: al loomis

al loomis — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:46:46 +0000

so how come no one wants direct election of ministers, and a constitution written by citizen initiative?

apparently, because ozzies are feudal serfs with forelock firmly in hand when politics are discussed.

alternatively, because ozzies are perpetual adolescents who expect the ‘grown-ups’ in canberra to look after them. this in spite of consistent evidence that pollies are amoral mefirsters who are good at nothing but self promotion.

if you vote for politicians, and are disappointed, and vote for politicians, and are disappointed, and vote for politicians, and are disappointed- it’s not the pollies that are the weak link.

By: amphibious

amphibious — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:29:33 +0000

Paul – Howard-lite, IF we’re really, rilly lucky. T’rifc!

By: paul walter

paul walter — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:59:55 +0000

Well, Ronald Raygun, it has been a disappointing day as to Labor, apart from a lone hand from Beatty.
The wimmen running a blog thread on subjects similar last week would be in raptures over the oral anal lubrication exercise performed by Rudd on the CFMEU, down in Tasmania today in front of Adams ( tongue in cheek here, of course! ).
As with many, I have spent over a decade awaiting deliverance through a long cold political winter ( no pun intended , Anna )and when the miracle draws close it is not rescue from Howardism but the arrival of a botoxed version OF the same wretched thing?

By: amphibious

amphibious — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:24:09 +0000

Funny, I thought that I’d covered all these points previously. Must have been a dream or I’ve been channelling Moroney – the ‘ey’ is silent.

By: Ronald Raygun

Ronald Raygun — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:55:07 +0000

Paul, you’re not wrong. This smacks of Beazley backing down on the Tampa issue; the ALP allows the government to set the agenda and says “We’re right behind you!” rather than sticking up for the rights, due process and the rule of law. Rudd may just be avoiding a political wedge but abandoning your morals (and the cornerstones of liberal democracy) to try and win an election is a spineless thing to do.

By: free dr haneef

free dr haneef — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:00:08 +0000

The big problem with the DNA idea is most crimes can be committed without leaving any of your DNA at the scene.
I think inserting micro chips with GPS positioning systems in criminals (and all Muslims of course) would be a much better idea!
Seriously why has their been such an increase in the number of pollies going bonkers in the last week.
Screaming “terror” or “crime” is no excuse for going nuts

By: paul walter

paul walter — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:25:46 +0000

No one has mentioned yet that Morons comments involving the false dichtomy of rights versus security paralleled with that bout of frenetic nonsense from Iemma, beating up on the “flaw” revealed (for politicians) in the road tested detention laws, eg bail by a magistrate.
Answer, get rid of all workable bail mechanisms.
Do some folk here realise that the “terrism” stuff is actually gaining traction for Howard in some opinion polls?
Is the meanness and stupidity of the government exceeded by the cowardice of the Labor party and large sections of the community?

By: Guise

Guise — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:13:02 +0000

The first thing I thought of when I read Moroney’s remarks this morning was a scene in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman tosses a suspect through a window, and then threatens further violence. When the man complains that he has rights, he gets this response: “You’ve got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy.”

It’s the classic authoritarian response: we’ve all got rights, but some of us deserve them more than others. Adn if you violate someone else’s rights, you automatically lose all of your own …

Unless what you’re doing is somehow sanctioned by the state.

Moroney’s case is the classic “only the guilty have anything to fear”. It’s a position that, I’m happy to say, most police I’ve met don’t necessarily agree with (although it seems to be one that many of them come to over time). It’s a position which has a certain, simplistic appeal, bolstered these days by technology which seems to facilitate more certain determinations of guilt or innocence. The guys on CSI never get it wrong, after all.

But it’s a position which recognises little right to privacy (and does so by invoking a Greater Good) and has a shaky relationship, at best, with the presumption of innocence. And it’s a position which requires us to put a more absolute trust in the hands of very human and – as the Haneef case has shown – very fallible police.

And just in case you’ve forgotten, Commissioner, here’s the magic words: “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Assert that one person’s rights are greater or lesser than another’s, and the whole thing falls down.

By: Trevski

Trevski — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:17:43 +0000

I just love it when the cops start telling us what our civil liberties ought to be. Unregulated phone tapping, DNA….no doubt Dr.Haneef’s DNA will turn up somewhere in ‘evidence’just like the SIM card…

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:09:33 +0000

“And so I dismiss these issues…..”

You can’t blame a copper for thinking like a copper.

By the way, the “clear-up” rate for the SS, when they were policing pre-war Nazi Germany was terrific. Very few serious crimes were left unsolved and it was certainly safe to park your car and walk down the street at night.

Provided, of course, you weren’t Jewish, Leftie, Gay, mentally or physically disabled etc etc, it was a wonderully safe place to live.