Berlusconi wanted dead or alive
1926 -- Italy: Mussolini (former anarchist-syndicalist) escapes assassination attempt by 15-year-old anarchist Anteo Zamboni who is lynched by the fascistes.
Deported peace activist blameless
AN AMERICAN peace activist deported from Australia on the grounds he was a threat to national security was not involved in any dangerous or violent protests in Australia, ASIO revealed yesterday.
Scott Parkin, 36, from Houston, Texas, returned to the US in September after his visitor's visa was cancelled on the grounds he posed a national security risk. He was kept in solitary confinement by Australian Federal Police in Melbourne following an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
ASIO chief Paul O'Sullivan denied his agency was pressured by the US into making the adverse assessment. Asked if Mr Parkin had been violent in Australia, Mr O'Sullivan said he had not.
Having aggressively invaded another country that presented no threat to us and, in doing so, increased our exposure to terrorism, politicians now promote fear of terrorists in an attempt to justify unjust laws. The same tactic has been used previously; for example, to justify the internment of refugees, including children. Like apathy, fear is an enemy of democracy.
For the sake of our children and their children, Australia must become a true democracy rather than merely the site of a contest for power between a few political parties. Public pressure can achieve the reform needed to make our system of government less vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by politicians for personal and party benefit. Author Norman Mailer observed: "Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries [that] have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labour of maintaining it." As politicians are unwilling to take that task, others must.
Tony Fitzgerald, a former Federal Court judge, headed the far-reaching 1987-88 commission of inquiry into police corruption in Queensland.
Extract only. Full text at www.justfuckingoogleit.com
Terror laws attack freedom: judge
By Kellee Nolan for news squad
November 04, 2005
A FORMER chief justice has launched a scathing assault on the new anti-terrorism laws, describing them as the greatest ever attack on individual liberties and freedom by an Australian government.
Speaking at a University of Melbourne post-graduate criminology student conference today, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said the laws ignored the principles of a fair trial.
"What we are discussing today is a very good example of very bad law and one of the reasons why this is so, is because these laws have no relationship with justice but rather with a perceived fear of the unknown that has been used to frighten the populace into thinking that they are necessary," Professor Nicholson said.
He said the legislation, which was given royal assent last night, appeared to raise a real prospect that a judge or judges would refuse to hear applications under it.
"The drafters must have had something like this in mind in relation to the original draft when they provided that applications for a control order could be made to a judge in his/her personal capacity."
The bill also introduced the use of retired judges, but this would merely give "an illusion of judicial involvement", he said.
"I for one would not have any part of such a process and I have no doubt that many others would feel the same way."
He described the legislation as "the greatest attack upon individual liberties and freedom ever perpetrated by an Australian government".
Now a Melbourne University honorary professor of law, he retired last year after 16 years as Chief Justice of the family court and before that served six years as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
He accused the Federal Government of running an unnecessary "fear campaign".
"The Government has stepped up its fear campaign and the opposition and premiers have spinelessly not only caved in, but have engaged in the exercise of cheering from the sidelines," he said.
He described the legislation as a very good example of very bad law based on a perceived fear of the unknown that had been used to scare people into believing it was necessary.
"In such circumstances, the fact that the laws are unnecessary or that it has not been demonstrated that they are necessary, seems to have been completely ignored by their proponents."
Prof Nicholson said the new laws had no human rights safeguard other than the Constitution, which he said was a "somewhat weak and doubtful reed upon which we can rely in seeking to protect our freedoms."
"Unlike other western democracies, we have no Bill of Rights and therefore no check upon extreme legislation of this type other than what can be found in the Constitution," he said.
"Unlike European countries including the UK, we are not party to any binding international instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and its five protocols, which enable European citizens to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if domestic legislation or law is thought to be in breach of that convention."
He said this was important when drawing comparisons between Australia's proposed legislation and anti-terrorism laws in other countries. END
' We're screwed ' pr
Deported peace activist blameless
AN AMERICAN peace activist deported from Australia on the grounds he was a threat to national security was not involved in any dangerous or violent protests in Australia, ASIO revealed yesterday.
Scott Parkin, 36, from Houston, Texas, returned to the US in September after his visitor's visa was cancelled on the grounds he posed a national security risk. He was kept in solitary confinement by Australian Federal Police in Melbourne following an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
ASIO chief Paul O'Sullivan denied his agency was pressured by the US into making the adverse assessment. Asked if Mr Parkin had been violent in Australia, Mr O'Sullivan said he had not.
Having aggressively invaded another country that presented no threat to us and, in doing so, increased our exposure to terrorism, politicians now promote fear of terrorists in an attempt to justify unjust laws. The same tactic has been used previously; for example, to justify the internment of refugees, including children. Like apathy, fear is an enemy of democracy.
For the sake of our children and their children, Australia must become a true democracy rather than merely the site of a contest for power between a few political parties. Public pressure can achieve the reform needed to make our system of government less vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by politicians for personal and party benefit. Author Norman Mailer observed: "Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries [that] have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labour of maintaining it." As politicians are unwilling to take that task, others must.
Tony Fitzgerald, a former Federal Court judge, headed the far-reaching 1987-88 commission of inquiry into police corruption in Queensland.
Extract only. Full text at www.justfuckingoogleit.com
Terror laws attack freedom: judge
By Kellee Nolan for news squad
November 04, 2005
A FORMER chief justice has launched a scathing assault on the new anti-terrorism laws, describing them as the greatest ever attack on individual liberties and freedom by an Australian government.
Speaking at a University of Melbourne post-graduate criminology student conference today, former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said the laws ignored the principles of a fair trial.
"What we are discussing today is a very good example of very bad law and one of the reasons why this is so, is because these laws have no relationship with justice but rather with a perceived fear of the unknown that has been used to frighten the populace into thinking that they are necessary," Professor Nicholson said.
He said the legislation, which was given royal assent last night, appeared to raise a real prospect that a judge or judges would refuse to hear applications under it.
"The drafters must have had something like this in mind in relation to the original draft when they provided that applications for a control order could be made to a judge in his/her personal capacity."
The bill also introduced the use of retired judges, but this would merely give "an illusion of judicial involvement", he said.
"I for one would not have any part of such a process and I have no doubt that many others would feel the same way."
He described the legislation as "the greatest attack upon individual liberties and freedom ever perpetrated by an Australian government".
Now a Melbourne University honorary professor of law, he retired last year after 16 years as Chief Justice of the family court and before that served six years as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
He accused the Federal Government of running an unnecessary "fear campaign".
"The Government has stepped up its fear campaign and the opposition and premiers have spinelessly not only caved in, but have engaged in the exercise of cheering from the sidelines," he said.
He described the legislation as a very good example of very bad law based on a perceived fear of the unknown that had been used to scare people into believing it was necessary.
"In such circumstances, the fact that the laws are unnecessary or that it has not been demonstrated that they are necessary, seems to have been completely ignored by their proponents."
Prof Nicholson said the new laws had no human rights safeguard other than the Constitution, which he said was a "somewhat weak and doubtful reed upon which we can rely in seeking to protect our freedoms."
"Unlike other western democracies, we have no Bill of Rights and therefore no check upon extreme legislation of this type other than what can be found in the Constitution," he said.
"Unlike European countries including the UK, we are not party to any binding international instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and its five protocols, which enable European citizens to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if domestic legislation or law is thought to be in breach of that convention."
He said this was important when drawing comparisons between Australia's proposed legislation and anti-terrorism laws in other countries. END
' We're screwed ' pr
posted by professor rat at 10:46 AM
<< Home