It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Rudd retreats on passing web filter legislation

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Rudd retreats on passing web filter legislation


www.theaustralian.com.au

KEVIN Rudd has put another election promise on the backburner with his controversial internet filtering legislation set to be shelved until after the next election.

A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the legislation would not be introduced next month's or the June sittings of parliament.

With parliament not sitting again until the last week of August, the laws are unlikely to be passed before the election.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Maybe, just maybe common sense may have a victory here after all...

This is VERY good news as it gives opponents of the internet filter like me who are actively involved in the community trying to have this measure defeated time to re-group and plan new strategies should Labor win government at the next election...

It also gives us more time to win over people who aren't computer literate and aren't aware of exactly the type of sites the government plans to ban access to should this filter become reality...

I do hope the government has seen the stupidity of its ways and the growing opposition to this draconian idea...

Not quite time to break out the champagne yet, but might as well crack open a VB


www.theaustralian.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Is there not a possibility that he's only appeared to shelve it so as to gain more popularity in the election ?
Then - if he gets elected again - he'll have a full three or four years ( not sure how long the term is in Australia ) to push this unpopular legislation through without having to worry about losing any votes or even an election over it.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Is there not a possibility that he's only appeared to shelve it so as to gain more popularity in the election ?
Then - if he gets elected again - he'll have a full three or four years ( not sure how long the term is in Australia ) to push this unpopular legislation through without having to worry about losing any votes or even an election over it.


Its a maximum of 4 yrs, CCF...The government can call an early election tho...I'm not 100% sure of the rules around this or the earliest date they can call one...

You might well be right about shelving it to try and snare or grab back the votes of people who would have voted against Labor over this issue...

And you are right that they may well try the whole thing on again if they are re-elected, which is more likely than not...

As I said in my OP, should they push this again after the election, people like myself will be ready and even better prepared than we are now to fight this tooth and nail...

[edit on 28/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


I have been following this proposed legislation for the last few months or so, and it appears they are dead-set on pushing it through no matter how unpopular it is amongst the people. Call me cynical, but I can't believe they'd just scrap it completely and I wouldn't be surprised if they got most the key elements of the bill through one way or another...
Although it would be great if people power and common sense beat corrupt governments and politicians for once.

What is the stance of the opposition parties on this ?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


I have been following this proposed legislation for the last few months or so, and it appears they are dead-set on pushing it through no matter how unpopular it is amongst the people. Call me cynical, but I can't believe they'd just scrap it completely and I wouldn't be surprised if they got most the key elements of the bill through one way or another...
Although it would be great if people power and common sense beat corrupt governments and politicians for once.

What is the stance of the opposition parties on this ?


I guess time will tell...But we will be ready and more prepared than ever after the election if they proceed with this nonsense...

The only member of the Liberal party who has spoken out against this in public is Joe Hockey (shadow treasurer)...The Greens oppose the filter as one of their party policies...I'm not sure where the Nationals or independents stand on this...

I would expect most Liberal MP's would be in favour as it would resonate well with their conservative constituents...

The bill will pass the House of Representatives as Labor has a majority and will still obviously have one if it wins the election...It will be in the Senate where they will need the support of some of the Liberals/Nationals and perhaps Nick Xenophon (Independent) or Family First...

I'd be really surprised if it didn't get support from the Coalition if it was presented to the Senate, to be honest...Hence the campaign to try and have the whole thing killed without making it to Parliament...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Well it doesn't look too hopeful from a political perspective then.
However, I wish you and your compatriots the best of luck with any ethical action that you take after the election !



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Well it doesn't look too hopeful from a political perspective then.
However, I wish you and your compatriots the best of luck with any ethical action that you take after the election !


I'd say you're right...We're hoping the government has noticed the groundswell against this building, even tho we're not a majority of voters yet...

Thanks for the kind words
And of course any action we take will be er...um...ethical.....



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Thanks for the headsup on this news and for the link OP


This, hopefully, turns out to be more than just a delay but ends up being something that they drop completely. I think they may also have found that in theory it may have worked, but in a practical sense it would not. Lets hope it burns out and the talk about it at the announcement is saving face to those who want to get this through.

Im thinking this is good news at the moment - it does buy some time to advocate for its complete scrapping.
Now that would be awesome - it should never has been proposed in the first place.

Smigs



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smiggle
Thanks for the headsup on this news and for the link OP


This, hopefully, turns out to be more than just a delay but ends up being something that they drop completely. I think they may also have found that in theory it may have worked, but in a practical sense it would not. Lets hope it burns out and the talk about it at the announcement is saving face to those who want to get this through.

Im thinking this is good news at the moment - it does buy some time to advocate for its complete scrapping.
Now that would be awesome - it should never has been proposed in the first place.
Smigs


No probs Smigs


Yep, definitely hoping its more than a delay and it is dead and buried for good...

It may well turn out to be a case of Labor "saving face" as you suggested, as the proposal has become more and more unpopular as time has gone on...

Definitely should never ever have been proposed...As you said, at worst, it will buy us more time to make it even more unpopular should they try it on after the next election...



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
And now we have some conflicting news

"The federal government has rejected claims it has abandoned plans to introduce mandatory internet filtering before the next election.

While legislation is yet to be introduced into parliament, a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the government remained committed to the policy."


Seems there might be a chance that white-haired imbecile Rudd and his lapdog Conjob might just take their chances with this legislation before the election...Given the pathetic political announcements made by the Rudd government in the last day or two, nothing would surprise me



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
And now we have some conflicting news

"The federal government has rejected claims it has abandoned plans to introduce mandatory internet filtering before the next election.

While legislation is yet to be introduced into parliament, a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the government remained committed to the policy."


Seems there might be a chance that white-haired imbecile Rudd and his lapdog Conjob might just take their chances with this legislation before the election...Given the pathetic political announcements made by the Rudd government in the last day or two, nothing would surprise me


Thanks for such a jump on that article. I read through it and was considered this piece of the article because this sounds like they are looking to strengthen, not reduce, the Filter'. Enhance Accountability? Its become murky again. As one person said on the ABC today they have brought up the Tobacco Tax increase of 25% today to cover some of this. Somehow, Im not hearing much about the filter today - except for yours.

Smigs



The department was working with other government agencies to consider submissions on its filter policy and examine whether the ideas could enhance accountability and transparency measures.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smiggle
Thanks for such a jump on that article. I read through it and was considered this piece of the article because this sounds like they are looking to strengthen, not reduce, the Filter'. Enhance Accountability? Its become murky again. As one person said on the ABC today they have brought up the Tobacco Tax increase of 25% today to cover some of this. Somehow, Im not hearing much about the filter today - except for yours.
Smigs



The department was working with other government agencies to consider submissions on its filter policy and examine whether the ideas could enhance accountability and transparency measures.



No probs Smigs


Yep, from that little quote you posted, it looks like they're looking to further strengthen the filtering regime...Who knows what their reasons are for having other government agencies involved


Apart from that article that hit The Australian early this morning and this article in The Age today, there hasn't been a lot of talk about the filter this week at all..

Rudd is throwing up smoke screens (pardon the pun) left, right and center after he went soft-cock on the ETS...He's a sniveling little bastard and that prick Conroy should be sent back to where he came from...

The fight against the filter isn't over by any measure, tho if they do delay until after the election, it gives people like me and the groups I'm involved with more time to perfect our "game plan" to have it defeated...



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Retrovertigo.....

We also have a discussion going over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Retrovertigo.....

We also have a discussion going over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


And ?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Retrovertigo.....

We also have a discussion going over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


And ?


And what.....?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Retrovertigo.....

I did not check the time stamps properly.

You started your thread before I did.

The mods will move my thread.

I apologise if I sounded rude.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Retrovertigo.....

We also have a discussion going over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


And ?


And what.....?


*Hands you a towel so you can wipe the # off your face*

There ya go champ



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join