Direct action against the state
A challenge to all the plastic fascists
by pr Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 02:47 AM
This is a direct action against the ALP/ Lib/Gnat/ FF/Dem/GP/SA, etc statists. All of them. The government - the state - the Aussi Taliban. FUCK YOU!
I HEREBY, with full knowledge of the laws and penalties contained in Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005, urge all readers of this column to arm themselves with the nearest blunt instrument, storm Parliament House and overthrow the Australian government by force.
( For easier updating I'm mainly using my live journal so try...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pro2/
Do I seriously advocate violence, having become so angry that I have lost all sense of proportion, or am I using these words as a device to point out, "in good faith", an error or defect in the government of the commonwealth?
The answer to that question will determine whether you have to continue to put up with my column this year, or whether you don't hear from me again until I get out of prison in 2012.
The Anti-Terrorism Bill passed through both houses of Parliament late last year, so treason and sedition laws, together with seven-year prison terms, are now part of the law of the land in this country.
When ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope made the first cut of this Bill public via his website, against the express wishes of the Prime Minister, I held his actions up as an outstanding example of e-democracy, illustrating how the web has given an enormous boost to democratic processes by enabling immediate and widespread public access to information critical to the public interest.
Had Stanhope not done it, the general public would have been locked out of the debate, civil liberties groups and law associations would not have been able to prepare submissions, and the Bill probably would not have been amended.
Australians probably didn't get much democracy for their money in the end, given the minimal parliamentary debate, lack of ticker on the part of Labor and the fact that so many proposed amendments were simply dismissed out of hand, but they got something.
The original version, for example, included "bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt" under seditious intention, so at least die-hard republicans can now celebrate their continuing right to mock the Queen.
The sedition laws are going to affect plenty of people who operate in cyberspace.
Young antiwar bloggers who habitually post emotive diatribes against the government might need some judicial counselling on language and style. Website administrators will need to think harder about content they host, or mirror, from anti-government sources.
No doubt Australian internet service providers will at some point be asked to participate in the enforcement process, as has already happened with pornographic content.
A conscious effort from all of these people, plus a dose of moral fortitude, may be necessary to prevent provocative, healthy dissent from being neutered in coming years.
I've trawled through the 137 pages of clauses and subclauses of the final Bill and there is still too much latitude for misuse, misinterpretation and mistakes.
While an improvement over version 1.0, the document remains a class A exhibit for ignorance, and that special type of amnesia that makes politicians block out historical precedents.
The mantra of "give us these powers and trust us to use them wisely" just doesn't cut it.
What's wrong with writing good laws now? If Mr Ruddock ever bothered to read this column, I expect he would dismiss the opening sentence as self-righteous, irrelevant piffle from a third-rate computer scientist, and he would probably be right on all counts.
But who will be doing the interpreting in three years, in what climate of fear and in what political circumstances?
I have to go now, because some men in dark suits are knocking at the door.
Bruce McCabe is an independent technology analyst and managing director of S2 Intelligence. END EXTRACT
On indulgence I request this article be reposted as a direct action challenge to the stupid pack of racist statist Galah's in Canberra to either put up or shut up. Bruce and I are calling yr bluff arseholes. Either you are the type of fascist fucks who are up to snuff or ...we call yr bluff right here - right now.
We know you chickenshits don't have the balls to go all the way so eat shit fuck off and die all you Liberal, gNat's, Family First arsefuckers and all yr hanging dags and running vomit eating dogs. Especially those vomit eating dogs like Mick Keelty.
You are GUTLESS!
We called you out and you piked you yellow stinking maggots!
FUCK YOU and all who sail in you. And fuck the brownosing corpse media - your all dead meat talking. Don't you know we're talkin bout a revolution.
And we are long past whispering.
by pr Wednesday January 11, 2006 at 02:47 AM
This is a direct action against the ALP/ Lib/Gnat/ FF/Dem/GP/SA, etc statists. All of them. The government - the state - the Aussi Taliban. FUCK YOU!
I HEREBY, with full knowledge of the laws and penalties contained in Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005, urge all readers of this column to arm themselves with the nearest blunt instrument, storm Parliament House and overthrow the Australian government by force.
( For easier updating I'm mainly using my live journal so try...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pro2/
Do I seriously advocate violence, having become so angry that I have lost all sense of proportion, or am I using these words as a device to point out, "in good faith", an error or defect in the government of the commonwealth?
The answer to that question will determine whether you have to continue to put up with my column this year, or whether you don't hear from me again until I get out of prison in 2012.
The Anti-Terrorism Bill passed through both houses of Parliament late last year, so treason and sedition laws, together with seven-year prison terms, are now part of the law of the land in this country.
When ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope made the first cut of this Bill public via his website, against the express wishes of the Prime Minister, I held his actions up as an outstanding example of e-democracy, illustrating how the web has given an enormous boost to democratic processes by enabling immediate and widespread public access to information critical to the public interest.
Had Stanhope not done it, the general public would have been locked out of the debate, civil liberties groups and law associations would not have been able to prepare submissions, and the Bill probably would not have been amended.
Australians probably didn't get much democracy for their money in the end, given the minimal parliamentary debate, lack of ticker on the part of Labor and the fact that so many proposed amendments were simply dismissed out of hand, but they got something.
The original version, for example, included "bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt" under seditious intention, so at least die-hard republicans can now celebrate their continuing right to mock the Queen.
The sedition laws are going to affect plenty of people who operate in cyberspace.
Young antiwar bloggers who habitually post emotive diatribes against the government might need some judicial counselling on language and style. Website administrators will need to think harder about content they host, or mirror, from anti-government sources.
No doubt Australian internet service providers will at some point be asked to participate in the enforcement process, as has already happened with pornographic content.
A conscious effort from all of these people, plus a dose of moral fortitude, may be necessary to prevent provocative, healthy dissent from being neutered in coming years.
I've trawled through the 137 pages of clauses and subclauses of the final Bill and there is still too much latitude for misuse, misinterpretation and mistakes.
While an improvement over version 1.0, the document remains a class A exhibit for ignorance, and that special type of amnesia that makes politicians block out historical precedents.
The mantra of "give us these powers and trust us to use them wisely" just doesn't cut it.
What's wrong with writing good laws now? If Mr Ruddock ever bothered to read this column, I expect he would dismiss the opening sentence as self-righteous, irrelevant piffle from a third-rate computer scientist, and he would probably be right on all counts.
But who will be doing the interpreting in three years, in what climate of fear and in what political circumstances?
I have to go now, because some men in dark suits are knocking at the door.
Bruce McCabe is an independent technology analyst and managing director of S2 Intelligence. END EXTRACT
On indulgence I request this article be reposted as a direct action challenge to the stupid pack of racist statist Galah's in Canberra to either put up or shut up. Bruce and I are calling yr bluff arseholes. Either you are the type of fascist fucks who are up to snuff or ...we call yr bluff right here - right now.
We know you chickenshits don't have the balls to go all the way so eat shit fuck off and die all you Liberal, gNat's, Family First arsefuckers and all yr hanging dags and running vomit eating dogs. Especially those vomit eating dogs like Mick Keelty.
You are GUTLESS!
We called you out and you piked you yellow stinking maggots!
FUCK YOU and all who sail in you. And fuck the brownosing corpse media - your all dead meat talking. Don't you know we're talkin bout a revolution.
And we are long past whispering.
posted by professor rat at 8:51 AM
<< Home