polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 17
th, 2015 at 4:25pm:
wally1 wrote on Sep 17
th, 2015 at 10:35am:
Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 17
th, 2015 at 10:18am:
vote people in who will change the laws
We don't vote for our judges
Ban them then.
These bendigo residents should be charged with terrorism offences.
Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code defines a terrorist act as ‘an action or threat of action’ which is done or made with the intention of:
advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth, State or Territory or the government of a foreign country or intimidating the public or a section of the public.
Action will only be defined as a terrorist act if it:
causes serious physical harm or death;
seriously damages property;
endangers a person’s life;
creates a serious risk to public health or safety; or
seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system.
Action will not be a terrorist act if it is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action and is not intended to cause serious physical harm or death, endanger the lives of others or create a serious risk to the public health or safety.
So how is the incident at Bendigo NOT a terrorist act?
There was:
1. An action advancing both a political and religious cause;
2. Seeking to coerce or influence government officials and members of the public;
3.that clearly did and was intended to pose a risk to public safety
Forum
Pages: 1 
