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.


Australia on fast track to tyranny

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 02:55 AM
This is unbelievable. I thought the U.S. was leading the way, but if this is true then the Aussies will be first to cross the finish line. A couple of examples:

Detainees aged 16 to 18 can speak to their parent or guardian, but only for two hours a day.

Deadly force can be used to break into houses to drag someone away for detention. The Bill authorizes police to use lethal force to stop someone “fleeing” custody, if they deem it necessary to prevent serious injury to another person. The police are only obliged to call on the person to “surrender” (“if practicable”) before opening fire.

Here is a really squirrelly thing. If a child between 16 and 18 is detained, one parent may be notified, but if that parent notifies the other, the notifying parent can go to jail for 5 years! I'm sure there is logic in there somewhere, I'm just not seeing it:

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:06 AM
It is getting a little scary over here I must admit, although the Bill hasn't actually been passed yet. As you can understand there is quite a large backlash. There's even talk of it being toned down a little, whether or not that happens I really don't know.

I do have a lot of friends in the MidSouth of th US, maybe I'll move there

[edit on 24-10-2005 by madhatter]

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:35 AM
I have voiced my disapproval over these proposed laws on a number of threads, but there is a factor which I had not previously considered which I feel bears further discussion. Clearly, a number of Australians are opposed to the implementation of these new laws. Many of us consider them to be counter to the spirit of this nation as well as doing little to actually counter the threat of terrorist attacks against Australia or her interests. However, it appears as though the laws are going to be passed with little or no alterations, despite the voices raised in protest over such an action.

As an Australian, it seems to me that our representatives no longer reflect the wishes of the people in these matters and others besides. Yes, we elect our representatives to ensure our safety and to make decisions in our stead. However, surely when a great many people voice their outrage at a Government decision, our representatives should at least pay such concerns the attention and respect they deserve.

I am reminded of the mass protests prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary, everyday Australians protested our Government's role in that action, yet the Government paid such protests no heed, saying that they would in no way shape Government policy or decision-making. Now, I supported the invasion of Iraq, but I think that the Australian Government is beginning to lose sight of who exactly works for who. There is a difference between being a leader and being a representative, which is what our politicians are supposed to be. I do not elect someone to lead me, I elect them to represent me.

Clearly, protesting the introduction of these new laws will not serve to change Government's mind or alter their decision to do so. My question, then, is: If dissenting voices are paid no heed and if legitimate, legal protest has no effect on Government and if Government is determined to introduce controversial laws despite rational, reasoned concerns being raised against such an action, what avenues do we as Australians have left to us to influence Government decision-making or to voice our disapproval? Because, in my opinion, when a Government rejects the concerns of its citizens to carry out its own agenda, we cease to be participants in a democracy and they cease to be representatives. It appears as though the Australian Government views itself as a shepherd and us, its citizens, as naught more than sheep.

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:44 AM
In short Jeremiah25 I don't see us being able to do anything about it. An armed overthrow is all I can come up with.
What I am noticing is that Australians are starting to wake from their "she'll
be right" slumber. (finally) Albeit too little too late.

too much power in the hands of too few....I think thats how the saying go's

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:49 AM
I've voiced my disgust of these laws in all my podcasts on them.

We're now the land downunder the jackboot.

And did any of you aussies catch Phil Ruddock saying these laws would be used against people who WERENT TERRORISTS on Sunday?

Just adding - the States , who Howard needs to pass the shoot to kill provisions , arent playing ball and are all refusing to pass that particular provision that he snuck into the legistaltion and they never agreed to .

Also - I was at a rally on Sunday and Bob Brown , a Greens Senator, made a very very good point -

under these new laws, that rally, which was a peaceful dissent against these laws, would be ILLEGAL!

bye bye freedom.

Thomas - I've done some podcasts on this topic if you want/ or need any further information please let me know I'll be happy to foreward it on.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by mulberryblueshimmer]

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:26 AM
I'll go and lisaten to your podpeople casts. I usually don't bother with them as I prefer to read, but I'll head over there.

I hope you guys beat this insidious plot against you. It is quite insane. Yeah, I know, to be expected for all of us, but insane.

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:28 PM
australia was the first to disarm the populace. i figger aussie land is the home base for the NWO.

"KROIKEY! you gaw ta graibit bouy the beck of the nick" -crocodile hunter

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:34 PM
Really? For some reason I thought the Canadians bought in to the weapons ban thing first. Didn't they have their handguns registered one year only to have them taken a year or two later?

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:52 PM
the firearm registration never took off. it got mired in disinterest. too expensive, not enough benefit.
canadians have lots of guns. mostly hunting rifles. there are strict rules about gun ownership, ie. seperate storage of ammo and gun, gun in locked cabinet, no fully automatic weapons, etc., but basically, anyone who wants a gun can get one.
i have notices that here in canada's largest city, there has been a HUGE increase in the reporting of gun crime. innocents are getting hit on buses at random. drug wars.
i figger it's no coincidence. a mini pearl harbour to sway the people into 'realising' the 'need' for stiffer gun laws. (of course, these gun crimes are all done with ILLEGAL weapons, anyway, so any strict gun laws won't affect the criminals, just the regular citizens. typical nwo)

i could be wrong about this stuff. i don't watch the firearms drama that closely, but i think it's fairly on the mark.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:24 AM
Thomas Crowne I just found this article a little while ago. May be worth a read if your interested. Seems Howard has some opposition to it within the government, sadly not enough I would say. He seems hell bent on pushing this through.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:21 PM
I guess I am confused. What exactly is the Australian government trying to do with these laws? It seems to me that they are just trying to give teenagers less rights. I dont feel this will do anything for the safety of the country, and it will only anger young adults to the point of hating their country and either wanting to move or over-throw their government.

There must be a reason that they want to do this. What exactly do they think will benefit them about doing this?

Hope to get an answer, and good luck!

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by covertoperative

There must be a reason that they want to do this. What exactly do they think will benefit them about doing this?

Hope to get an answer, and good luck!

I don't know if this helps you any and it's a bit of a long read I'm still trying to find a copy of the original draft of the Bill. Sorry about the short reply.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:37 PM
Don't forget now that no one can own a gun it was pretty obvious that Austrail was headed down that road same thing with The Uk but we must be careful if our Allies are doing the same we may follow.

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:46 PM
The triggers are definitly starting to be set up in Australia. Here are a few more links talking about it, and one article thats obvious NWO propaganda.

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 12:20 AM
Well with France in the grips of there "Second Revolution" by the people, looks like the Aussies are about to repeat there history too ......... once more becoming a Convict Colony ..... Forced to submit under the Jack Boot of martial law with evil laws and restrictive policy!!!!

Gee ...... I bet that old prison in Tassie will be popular with the tourists again ..... when Howard starts chagin $5.00 entry fee to see the LIVE CONVICTS ....... so he can pay for his war partisipation

Dun worry Stralia ...... you'll get used to the chains of servitude ..... ya great great great grand parents did OK ...... you'll be fine too

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 01:47 AM

Originally posted by The_Camel

Dun worry Stralia ...... you'll get used to the chains of servitude ..... ya great great great grand parents did OK ...... you'll be fine too

not this one my friend, I am outta here in a few months - a year tops

I shall read your links at a further date cownosecat, am on my way out the door but good looking out

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 05:47 AM
A Convict Colony.. please i dont think so . Yes there much need to look into these new laws but lets look at what comes of this first.

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 06:46 AM
We should be cautious of any potential changes to our legislation that serves to weaken our rights. That said we have yet to see the final legislation. I may be wrong but I sense that no one who has posted here or those who have made comment via the various links (included in comments) are Legislative / Constitutional Lawyers so interpretation would be flawed. I would also feel reasonably safe on stating that some of the links and therefore comments contained therein are certainly from people / groups who have their own political agenda. As they say – never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Something has to be done to reduce the potential for a London or New York type attack on our shores. The threat to us as individuals is increasing. This has resulted from events both current and past. An immigration policy that is far too liberal. Our involvement in Iraq! The list goes on.

But honestly, if the following is the only concerns (lifted from one of the World Forum link) Then I say on with the bill. I can live with this. The rest is pure scare mongering in my book.
Concerns with the Bill
The concern with the bill has centered on a number of areas:

· A so-called "shoot to kill" policy, especially in the wake of the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man in London. (very sad but people die everyday)

· The inclusion and definition of sedition, which in the bill may include "to bring the sovereign [i.e. the Queen] into hatred or contempt", or to "urge disaffection" with the Australian Government. Australian law does not protect freedom of speech, so this proposed law may effectively outlaw criticizing the Australian Government. It may also effectively outlaw some protests. (perhaps this may lead to a better society based on values and respect – not such a bad thing)

· The ability of judges to make decisions outside of the court system. (you think this doesn’t happen now?)

· 'Recklessly' providing funds to anyone who 'might' be a terrorist is an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, even if they are not a terrorist (rightly so, if you are stupid and reckless enough to fund possible terrorist you deserve to go to prison)

Before we start jumping off the roof we need more information and we need someone who knows what they are saying to clearly spell exactly what the proposals mean.

[edit on 9/11/2005 by Lady of the Lake]

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 08:14 AM
I will defend the "government knows best act" to my last breath and that's all i have to say about that. Seriously though, we are only at patriot act stage 1 and many of the proposed changes should have been made ages ago. I think I will wait until i see some actual abuse of power before i get too worried. To date all we have seen as a result of the changes is a major terrorist attack foiled. It's better to be reading in the news that the usual alarmists in the media have concerns about the changes than reading that the Melbourne stock exchange and Sydney Opera house have been destroyed in a major terrorist attack (assuming that they were the targets the terrorist would have hit).

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Trent]

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
· A so-called "shoot to kill" policy, especially in the wake of the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man in London. (very sad but people die everyday)

Who cares about terror attacks then? Very sad, but people die everyday.

Freedom or security, you choose. But if you choose the latter, you might loose both.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in