jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (17 posts)

Is Australia a police state?

  1. innersmiff profile image73
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Police state definition: a police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.

    A breakdown of incursions into civil liberties by the AFP
    http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/ar … lice-state
    But that’s okay, because Australia is a ‘democracy’.

    Innocent Indonesian teenagers detained for a year without charge
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ … 1mc7p.html
    But that’s okay, because Australia is a ‘democracy’.

    Australians’ web and telecom data to be stored for 2 years
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno … 24yun.html
    But that’s okay, because Australia is a ‘democracy’.

    Businesses being fined for telling their customers that raising prices are due to carbon taxes [freedom of speech anyone?]
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na … 6440285879
    But that’s okay, because Australia is a ‘democracy’.

    Potentially thousands of plants likely to be prohibited by bill
    http://www.gardenfreedom.com/the-proposed-legislation/
    But that’s okay, because Australia is a ‘democracy’.


    Want more?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Far from a freedom of speech issue! This article relates to a business that lied to current and potential customers to promote new subscriptions. “The fitness club said that by taking up the offer, members could avoid a fee increase of 9 to 15 per cent because of the carbon price. GFC Berwick is the first business to pay an infringement fine for making a false claim about the carbon tax.” Does libertarianism tolerate businesses intentionally lying to the public as a form of free speech?
      A desperate stretch to support an already weak argument. This article contains three individual anecdotes that in no way represent national policy.
      Is this the way Libertarians define a “police state?” The Civil Liberties Australia web site claims Australia is becoming a police state base upon nothing more than budget increases over the last decade!
      “CLA:
      This is an increase of more than 400% in funding, and 240% in numbers. By any measure, compared to the year 2001, Australia appears well on the way to becoming a police state.” Accusations of a “police state” before the legislation is even passed.  “PROPOSED laws that would allow the web and telecommunications data of all Australians to be stored for two years have been dubbed ''characteristic of a police state'' by Victoria's Privacy Commissioner.”  Exaggeration is the first sign of a desperate argument. This bill is an extension to an anti-Cannabis measure that identifies plants containing elements commonly used by substance abusers. Will it affect your typical garden-variety home gardeners? Not likely! “This document is 41 pages long of which only about 4 pages deal with plant related matters.” So much for “Potentially thousands of plants likely to be prohibited.”

      1. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Does libertarianism tolerate businesses intentionally lying to the public as a form of free speech?"

        This is very easily market-regulated: businesses that have been proven to repeatedly lie to their customers tend not to do very well. Yes, freedom of speech is exactly what it says on the tin. But who is to say that they were lying anyway? The carbon tax is a particularly crippling measure, and this 'honesty in advertising' law can very easily cover honest businesses who are forced to raise prices because of the tax. Where is the proof that they are lying? And who is to stop the law being abused? Why does the government presume to have the monopoly on truth?

        And let’s talk about this carbon tax in context with lying. I seem to remember Gillard promising in her campaign that there would be no carbon tax if she were elected. Where is the punishment for her lying, eh? What hypocrisy.

        The AFP stands for the Australian Federal Police, and a budget increase of 400% naturally means that there's a lot more police involvement in public affairs. Sorry to have to break it down to you, but this is part of the definition of the police state as stated at the top, no libertarian analysis required. I’m quite intrigued too: do you somehow think an extreme increase in police power is a good thing? And you've forgotten to address everything else mentioned here.

        Anecdotal evidence of a police state is still evidence of a police state. Are you going to at least denounce this or are you going to keep defending this evil government?

        The internet monitoring is a proposed law, I would in fact argue that the proposition and consideration of it is enough to be at least wary about. Already, the totalitarian tiptoe continues with the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, that "require[s] carriers and carriage service providers to preserve stored communications when requested by certain domestic agencies or when requested by the Australian Federal Police on behalf of certain foreign countries." I would like to point out to those who have a fetish for democracy the last part of that phrase "...on behalf of certain foreign countries", which proves that the police state is not concerned with sovereignty or any 'will of the people'. Presumably, this means the United States security agencies can search pretty much any Australian's data at their leasure.
        http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus … ?bId=r4575

        “This bill is an extension to an anti-Cannabis measure that identifies plants containing elements commonly used by substance abusers.”

        Firstly, the anti-cannabis measure by itself is evidence of a police state, as government intrusion into the types of substances that people choose to consume on their own private property is a violation of liberty by itself. Thousands of non-violent offenders in Australia and other countries in the west are sitting in prison because of this tyranny. Yes, and these elements are contained in numerous plants, so could very well include hundreds of garden plants.

        I can keep going all year if you want me to.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Innersmiff. How are you this evening?

          I thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply. I appreciate the time and effort you invested. There is no need to belabor your position.

          First, I would like to acknowledge that I understand and respect your preference to live under anarchy rather than reasonable social order established by the broad consensus of the governed. However, I must also point out that an over whelming majority of citizens do not wish to live in the world you advocate. This is a choice they make based on life experiences plus good judgement and hardy the result of ignorance as your posts so arrogantly claim. In the US, for example, a large majority of citizens have rejected the libertarian notion that businesses have the right to enforce separate lunch counters and water fountains. With that I wholeheartedly agree!

          I asked you, "Does libertarianism tolerate businesses intentionally lying to the public as a form of free speech?" and you replied… Obviously, you condone the lying and rely on market-regulation. It is all right to lie because one day, some day in the future, you might, maybe, possibly loose a few customers, if you are caught. I should remind you here that freedom of speech does not relieve the speaker of responsibility for what was said. Raising prices due to rising costs, taxes included, is not the issue in your article. Using the carbon tax as a ploy to mislead current and potential clients is the issue. Your straw man reply, as usual, is a series of unanswered questions instead of statements of fact. One of them is “Where is the proof that they are lying?” Within the Australian News article titled “Gym fined over carbon tax lies” is this admission, “The chief executive of the company which manages the franchise wrote to all affected members on behalf of GFC Berwick offering them the opportunity to withdraw from the contract extensions at no cost.” {1} The franchise managers must have known the renewal claims were untrue when they offered to void the new contracts.

          Your remarks about PM Gillard’s promises are another straw man for another thread.
          Thank you for confirming your belief that budget increases over a decade are proof of a “police state.” You chose to ignore changes in crime rates, growth of population, expansion of jurisdictions, development of new technologies, and every other factor, for that matter, that would naturally explain budgetary increases. “400% naturally means that there's a lot more police involvement in public affairs” equals “police state” in your mind. I find that conclusion lacks some rational balance.

          Your logic is evident and inexplicable. Given that providers may provide data to domestic agencies and the AFP, you reach the extraordinary conclusion “the United States security agencies can search pretty much any Australian's data at their " leisure. My friend, “at their leisure” is an illogical leap of faulty reasoning unsupported by any facts you have presented here.Anti-cannabis measures, innersmiff, do not indicate a police state. Any regulation you personally disagree with seems indicative of a “police state.” Pot users do not confine their consumption to private property. They smoke in the presence of others, drive cars, and operate dangerous machinery while still under the long-range influence of the drug. This becomes a gray social issue that would be more tolerated but for the fact that pot has been connected to more serious drug abuse.  “Cannabis is psychologically addictive and may become physically addictive with regular use.” {2} BTW, those “thousands of non-violent offenders…in prison because of this tyranny” are NOT in prison because of tyranny. They consciously and intentionally violated the law and that is why they were prosecuted. Citizens are free to violate any law they choose but they must also be responsible and accept the consequences.

          In the final analysis, innersmiff, I do not question your reasons for preferring anarchy to democracy. My only goal is to explain why so many intelligent and independent citizens disagree with your conclusions. This doesn’t make you right or wrong, just one of a small minority that is no more savvy, no more intelligent, and no more infallible than the rest of us.
          Q.
          {1} http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na…6440285879
          {2} http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/index.htm

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Quil basically said it all for me, I would like to add that I am a big fan of the honesty in advertising law, if a business intentionally and knowingly lies to the public for profit then a fine is not only reasonable it's very positive, most people are sick of being lied to by businesses and corporations and have a right to real information.

      Very weak innersmiff.

      1. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm very sick of it too, but I'm also a pacifist, so regulation of it is out of the question for me.

  2. WryLilt profile image86
    WryLiltposted 4 years ago

    I like Australia. I'll let Marisa Wright come and do the arguing.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not going to waste my time on someone who has already made up their mind, Wry.  It would be a waste of energy.

      1. WryLilt profile image86
        WryLiltposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        1. ytbot1x profile image61
          ytbot1xposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey! How's going on in your Wizzley account. Just saw you there bro!

          1. WryLilt profile image86
            WryLiltposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is this Mr. Sockpuppet again?

            1. ytbot1x profile image61
              ytbot1xposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. WryLilt profile image86
                WryLiltposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Welcome back. I'll just be reporting you again now. smile

                1. ytbot1x profile image61
                  ytbot1xposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Have fun getting noticed, sockie lol

      2. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Stop arguing then and look at the evidence before your ignorance affects the civil liberties of not only yourself, but everyone else in your country.

    2. innersmiff profile image73
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like Australia too, what's your point? That somehow the Australian government is Australia?

  3. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Which of our democracies are real ones where you can disagree without receiving water sprays, rubber bullets...?

  4. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Well, as Democracy is basically mob rule I guess we want to decide should Australia be  a Police State....which I really doubt it is....or mob rule. When you are thinking about that mob rule envision the Occupy
    movement. That's what some here believe is Democracy.

 
working