It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Draconian Laws For Australia.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:06 PM

The measures proposed are dangerously flawed in that they contravene some important guarantees and safeguards which have always underpinned the Australian criminal justice system, including:

1. the presumption of innocence;
2. the requirement that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt;
3. the right of an accused person to a fair trial; and
4. rules of evidence which are fair to all parties.

Whole Article

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:10 PM
Just thought id bring this to everyone's attention as it is very worrying to me to watch what has happened in Australia the last 10 years.

Apologize if this thread isn't structured properly people, first thread ever so go easy eh.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by blayze]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:26 PM
I too have noticed a significant change in Australia in the last 10 years. Our country certainly has come a long way finacially but I have also noticed us becoming a police nation.

This is such a great country but it's being ruined by following the U.S. and the U.K.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:15 PM
Before I say this I must add that I am not a lawyer and further legal advice needs to be sought before pursuing this. And a lot of lawyers will be hesitant to go this way as they WILL be blacklisted.

Your response to any charge in Australia, when you get the option to plead ie. guilty or not guilty, is to plead 'no jurisdiction'. This put the onus on the courts to provide legal justification to rule in the matter at hand.

Australia's legal system, ie. their legal right to make law in the area of geographic Australia, is based on terra nullius.

This is old maritime law that sets out how to take over a country. The rules are/were that you needed to declare war and win, you need to buy/trade for the country, you need to sign a treaty that gives you right to make law (sovereignty), or the land is uninhabited and it is yours (ie terra nullius).

The United Kingdom at the time 1770's went with the terra nullius option.

Terra Nullius was overturned in 1992 in the Australian High court 'Mabo' decision.
This court case acknowledged that their were people here before European settlement, thus extinguishing terra nullius, the basis for all law in Australia.

Pleading 'no jurisdiction' puts the onus on the court to prove that they have recieved consent from the indigenous people, in the location where the 'crime' is alleged to have taken place, to make law in that place. This would take the form of a formal declaration that the indigenous people of that area have ceded their sovereignty to the United Kingdom or the Australian Government etc.

This has NEVER happened. I have witnessed cases being thrown out of court for this very reason and I think it is worth trying more often. Try it when you get the summons for not voting.

Of course this should only be used in a situation where you are not breaking a traditional law/lore as technically that 'crime' would stand in the old way, and this could cause you significant bother.

Sorry for no sources. Try looking it up yourself. Or talk to a (good) lawyer.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by ivycutler]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by ivycutler]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:59 PM
Wow, good thread.
"See what happens to a populace without firearms?"

The one that I found particularly strikingly bad was the provision that it is illegal for A to tell B that Mr. C has been secretly detained...and punishable by five years imprisonment.
I could recognize perhaps in some cases a good reason to detain someone without saying precisely why, and maybe even for the government to lie and deny holding someone if asked...maybe maybe maybe...but an unsupported and accurate assertion by a third party that so-and-so has been secretly detained doesn't seem to entail the release of national security type information...the government could just lie and say the whistleblower is lying, under this regimen anybody who disappears is going to be generally assumed to be secretly detained anyways, true or not...there is no need to imprison someone for disclosing something with so little security consequence...crazy bad for sure...

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:42 PM
Despite the best efforts of the last government to promote Australia’s position as an international terrorist target (e.g. by pointlessly sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan) it remains a fact that NEVER has Australia been attacked on its territory by Islamic Terrorists.
However I’d remain weary of using that argument; as otherwise you increase the chances of the Aus government allowing an attack on it’s own citizens e.g. 9/11 and 7/7 in London.

And there was me, foolishly thinking Howard had lost the premiership. However I guess I shouldn’t be surprised it seems his political spirit lives on in the form of his “opponent” Rudd, as The War Against Freedom has long sought cross party support.
In fact historically it remains in the interests of personal power for governments to suppress their subjects.

(Also historically) it seems Australia has had 3 principles…
1. Copy the U.K over domestic policy
2. Copy America over foreign
3. Sell it’s resources at a fraction of their worth

So if I were voting in Aus I would be voting for any party (except the big two) anyway.

Fortunately as a country of only 20 million you’re personal chances of successfully opposing this legislation are greatly increased compared with any other English speaking nation, (accept perhaps, New Zealand).

In the U.K the government promised they would only use anti-terrorist legislation to combat terrorists.
Since then…
1. Opposition MP’s and civil servants have been arrested by anti –terrorist police for “crimes” like leaking embarrassing information over immigration.
Civil servant arrested too

2. Peaceful protesters have been stopped and searched without cause for suspicion.
3. And all acts of peaceful protests (without government permission) have been banned within a kilometre of parliament. This was done not as part of anti-terror legislation; but the fear of terrorism is what apparently got it through parliament.

Don’t go down our route, for God’s sake!!!
(Rudd is probably merely jealous of how Gordon Brown runs “The Motherland”).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

new topics

top topics

log in