____
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: 
|
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 4:26pm: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 3:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 2:27pm: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 2:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 1:46pm: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 11:35am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 11:08am: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 9:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 9:32am: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 9:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 8:49am: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 8:19am: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 5:26am: ____ wrote on Jul 25 th, 2016 at 12:08am: Government moves towards indefinite detention for some terrorists in push for new anti-terror laws Australia is taking a step towards indefinite detention for some convicted terrorists, with the Federal Government pushing for legislation in every state so terrorists could be kept in jail after their sentences expire if a court says they would reoffend. ... Keeping terrorists in jail after their sentence expires raises legal concerns about procedural fairness and double punishment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-25/government-push-for-new-anti-terror-laws/7... Typical socialist you can always find a reason to release a filthy criminals out into the streets to carry on as usual; does't matter if they are terrorists, rapists or paedophiles they all get released. This is why the death penalty is the preferred method of punishment. But never fear the scumbag lawyers and magistrates will have your terrorist mates back on the streets killing whitey before you can say thanks, ya PoS.  So the purpose of jailing isn't rehabilitation, it's revenge. And the slippery slope continues. It's now indefinite detention for rapists also. What about motor bike club members ... what about aboriginals ... surely they all will reoffend ? As usual, you re ignorant and ill-informed. Indefinite detention must pass through cabinet and be subject to judicial oversight. The same cabinet that wants to out manoeuvre the far right minor parties and use this as a tool to whack over Labor's head, soon to be claiming they are weak on terror. The same tactic they used on Labor concerning refugees who come by boats. And as for judicial oversight, you mean the high court judges chosen by the government? 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. All human decisions have biases behind them ... to pretend humans are mechanical automatons, doesn't assist your position. 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.... Cherry picking season aye. Biases underpin all human decisions. To imply sexuality as the dominate influence in queer people's decisions, represents your own bias. 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. Incorrect. When you cherry picked, you chose only one bias to judge the decision on, while ignored all the other potential biases that influenced the decision. Your score F for F.wit. quite the contrary idiot-features. You complain long and loud about every decision you think is wrong despite not having the brainpower to know why it was right and you were wrong. The Gay Marriage appeal was rejected because the law absolutely forbade it. It was a legal decision - which is exactly what we want from a high court. You've been in prison, how would you know anything about what I may or may not have said. Unless you are still a compulsive liar ... or your defacto Maria told you so ... and if so, her view is biassed. You got beaten by the perfect example. Now if you have even a SINGLE example that shows High Court bias in judgements then show it. but you wont of course. you never do. You just slink away to the next tawrdy post. What you are arguing about is a side issue and doesn't deserve the time already spent on it. There will be plenty of better opportunities to show you up ... as long as you don't re-offend too soon.
|
Forum
Pages: 
