issuevoter wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 8:26am:

Wait until they want indefinite detention for their own citizens..... not joking... we are on the way there already...

Oops - sorry - I thought you were talking about refugees...

There have been several disturbing moves in legislation in recent years, starting in the early 1990's with the 'domestic violence' issue, with its automatic finding of guilt and its criminalisation of people on complaint....... at that time I associated that move with the POTA laws (Prevention of Terrorism Act) in Britain, which stipulated that a person's contacts and movement could be circumscribed and limited, even though they had not been convicted of any genuine offence.  Furthermore, a breach of such restrictions lead to a criminal conviction - this is precisely the style of legalised abuse of law set in place here by our respective governments (I will take this opportunity to thank our learned member, Longie, for opening up argument on these issues earlier), to cater to the victim industry surrounding inter-personal relationship complaints.

Another part of such legislation was that a person suspected of an act of terrorism could be held longer than the statutory 24 hours without charge... up to 72 I think it was.

We have also seen that in some cases a government will apply a regulatory extension of detention on a person who has completed sentence for a convicted offence.. such as paedophiles and rapists etc... none of whom garner much in the way of public sympathy.  This is a deliberate undermining by regulation of the rights of the courts - who despite their blatant hypocrisy, wrongful leaning against accused persons, and blithe acceptance of nonsense as evidence, remain our only barrier to an overwhelming dictatorship of government and its arms of law enforcement.

There are similarities here to the 'commission' into domestic violence, which took in masses of anecdotal evidence from remote Aboriginal communities rife with abuse and alcoholism etc, and then extrapolated the findings of that 'study' to the entire community, thus automatically creating of any person alleged to have committed some wrong a person subject to legal intervention, regardless of facts and evidence, and thus creating an environment of 'conviction on accusation'.

The problem with this, even though nobody has sympathy for rapists, abusers and paedophiles etc, is that such actions must always be seen as the thin edge of the wedge in a calculated attack on Civil and Legal Rights here and now... and in reality has been for nearly twenty five years here in Australia.

Now where's Longie to tell me I'm wrong? 

point to a single politically-biased High Court decision and you can then make a claim. Up until then, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of the High court, most of whose members were appointed by both parties many many years ago.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:32am:



All human decisions have biases behind them ... to pretend humans are mechanical automatons, doesn't assist your position.

____ wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 8:30am:



Bigot!!!

____ wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 9:46am:



So why did Cheif Justice Michael Kirby - and openly gay man - vote down the gay marriage attempt?  simple. he was voing on the constitution, not his own opinions or bias.  Most people have the ability to do the right thing. Just coz you cant....

____ wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 11:35am:



the question was BIAS in the judicaryand particularly, the High Court. I provided a perfect example of why such bias does not exist.

Naturally, you could not accept it

idiot.