Crime in Australia is under control . . .

[Agammamon]

. . . because we stop random passer-by and search them.

The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/25/1077676832601.html)

One thing I wonder about when local police come up with these ideas is, why do they always wait until the last minute before announcing what they're going to do? Do they feel community discussion is irrelevant? Or do they know that what they're planning is an outrage and so they try to hide it as long as possible? And don't these guys consult a lawyer before implementing this stuff?

[Ed]

It appears that the moment there is any danger down there a rule is made to "prevent" it. I am sure AUP is perfectly comfortable with this.

[Iconoclast]

From the article in The Age:

Liberty Victoria vice-president Jamie Gardiner said: "It is a fundamental principle that people's liberty not be interfered with when there is no good reason." He added that the operation ran a "grave risk" of being discriminatory and targeting young people and people from ethnic minorities.

From a less biased article on ABC online here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1053830.htm):

Liberty Victoria vice-president Jamie Gardiner says he is confident police will only conduct a search if there is reasonable suspicion that a person is committing or about to commit an offence.

"The role of the police is to uphold the law and in order to uphold the law you also have to obey the law and the law is quite clear that you can't go interfering with people's liberty without proper cause, so I'm confident that police will aim to do that properly."

Note that it's the same civil libetarian being quoted in both articles, yet one article's angle is that he's dead against the idea and in the other article he's sure the police will act appropriately

Note also that Agammamon's article implies that body searches will be carried out when the reality is that searches will be conducted only with metal detectors.

The laws regarding actual body searches in Australia are quite clear, an officer must have "reasonable suspicion that a person is committing or about to commit an offence".

The actual searches are no different to the random breath testing that has been conducted here for decades.

If anything, these two articles demonstrate how easy it is for a news agency to slant a story towards some specific angle.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Ed
It appears that the moment there is any danger down there a rule is made to "prevent" it.Yep, that's why Australia is considered one of the safest countries in the world. If you're going out tonight Ed, don't forget to take your gun.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Yep, that's why Australia is considered one of the safest countries in the world.

Too bad the whole country is collectively lobotomized. Australians must be the biggest fans of the patriot act.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tony
Too bad the whole country is collectively lobotomized.
If whole brain of mine I still had, Probably I'd think insult was that.

[edited to add:] Did you make that comment because Australia has very tough gun laws and practically no gun culture, or was there some other reason? I must say, living in the south of USA any referring to any other culture as "lobotomised" shows a certain ironic insularity.

Originally posted by Tony
Australians must be the biggest fans of the patriot act. We don't 'ave no steenking Patriot act. But wait a minute!..... USA has one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Yep, that's why Australia is considered one of the safest countries in the world. If you're going out tonight Ed, don't forget to take your gun.


I readily admit that public tranquility is a great good; but at the same time I cannot forget that all nations have been enslaved by being kept in good order.

Alexis de Tocqueville.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Alexis de Tocqueville.
If you're trying to imply that Australia is not a free country (or perhaps has less freedoms than USA), then frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

If you're trying to imply that Australia is not a free country (or perhaps has less freedoms than USA), then frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

And what are you implying with this:

If you're going out tonight Ed, don't forget to take your gun.

???

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

If you're trying to imply that Australia is not a free country (or perhaps has less freedoms than USA), then frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Fascist gun laws, censoring of video games, outlawing online porn...


Yeah, I'd say that Austrailia has less freedoms than the US.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Tony


Fascist gun laws, censoring of video games, outlawing online porn...

Yeah, I'd say that Austrailia has less freedoms than the US.

And yet they produce much nicer people and better beer, I wonder if they are connected. ;)

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And what are you implying with this ???
That many USAns feel they need access to a gun to protect themselves. My evidence? Just look back at the several dozen gun threads in this forum.

[Mr Manifesto]

Australians aren't being silent while the procedure is being inacted. Note the word 'outcry' in the headline. That means there are people who don't like it.

The Australian government has had to inact some laws which deprive her citizens of civil liberties to keep in step with the US's PATRIOT act.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tony
Fascist gun laws
Fascist gun laws eh? The government acted on the will of the vast majority of the people when our gun laws were introduced. How exactly could that be construed to be fascist.

Originally posted by Tony
censoring of video gamesYes some games have been censored for violence in the past. However -- unlike USA -- we don't have censorship of sex or nudity on public television. USA seems not to worry much about violence on TV, but censors the sex, Australia censors some gratituous violence but doesn't consider sex to be bad. Which do you think is the less illogical stance?

Originally posted by Tony
outlawing online porn...Well that just sucks doesn't it? The history of that law is long and convoluted, but it essentially comes down to a single independent MP (Brian Harradine) who held the balance of power in the Senate several years ago. In order for this senator to agree to pass our new GST laws the Liberal Government had to agree to ban Australian online porn sites. This is one of the reasons we try to keep religious nutters out of parliament, they listen to god instead of us. Of course, the law has had no effect since most Australian porn operators already had their servers based offshore.



[edited to remove a bit that wasn't mine]

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

That many USAns feel they need access to a gun to protect themselves. My evidence? Just look back at the several dozen gun threads in this forum.

Owning a gun is another freedom we are not willing to sacrifice. Yet somehow you think we have less freedoms.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Owning a gun is another freedom we are not willing to sacrifice.So I've heard.
Originally posted by Luke T.
Yet somehow you think we have less freedoms. I said no such thing Luke. What I said was "If you're trying to imply that Australia is not a free country (or perhaps has less freedoms than USA)...".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Fascist gun laws eh? The government acted on the will of the vast majority of the people when our gun laws were introduced. How exactly could that be construed to be fascist.


Maybe fascist was the wrong word. But just because the vast majority of people want the government to usurp the rights of individuals doesn't make it ok. It is still tyranny.

Yes some games have been censored for violence in the past. However -- unlike USA -- we don't have censorship of sex or nudity on public television. USA seems not to worry much about violence on TV, but censors the sex, Australia censors some gratituous violence but doesn't consider sex to be bad. Which do you think is the less illogical stance?

Illogic is illogic.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tony
Maybe fascist was the wrong word. But just because the vast majority of people want the government to usurp the rights of individuals doesn't make it ok. It is still tyranny.
No it's not. Our constitution (like most) NEVER considered the owning of a gun to be an inalienable right.

Arguing that gun control laws in Australia denies the rights of our citizens is akin to arguing that road rules denies the rights of our citizens.

Once again, the gun laws introduced were not fascism, they weren't tyranny, they were simply the will of the people, just like laws against drink driving, stiffer sentances for violent crime, the introduction of daylight saving, the forty hour week...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

No it's not. Our constitution (like most) NEVER considered the owning of a gun to be an inalienable right.

Arguing that gun control laws in Australia denies the rights of our citizens is akin to arguing that road rules denies the rights of our citizens.

Once again, the gun laws introduced were not fascism, they weren't tyranny, they were simply the will of the people, just like laws against drink driving, stiffer sentances for violent crime, the introduction of daylight saving, the forty hour week...

Whoa! I'm going to have to stop you there. Daylight savings is facism- ask any Queenslander.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Whoa! I'm going to have to stop you there. Daylight savings is facism- ask any Queenslander. Yep, I live in Queensland and the daylight saving issue is just embarassing. The last time we held a referrendum (ten years or so ago), there were all these letters to the editor in our local paper from people who were steadfastly opposed to daylight saving, yet the arguments they gave implied that they should be for it, and I'm not just talking about the "curtains will fade" people.

In one letter that I remember in particular, the author wrote something like "In summer the sun comes up so early already. We shouldn't have daylight saving because I want to keep that extra hour of cool in the mornings."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

No it's not. Our constitution (like most) NEVER considered the owning of a gun to be an inalienable right.


Irrelevant. The person still has the right; the government or the people just don't respect it.

Your argument is akin to saying slaves don't have human rights because the country where they live has a constitution that allows slavery.


To quote another JREF Austrailian...

"I go with Thoreau who, I'm told, said that people have the right to disobey unjust laws."

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Irrelevant. The person still has the right; the government or the people just don't respect it.

Your argument is akin to saying slaves don't have human rights because the country where they live has a constitution that allows slavery.

Tony, you're talking crap. Here (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show me which article gives a person "the right" to own a gun.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Tony, you're talking crap. Here (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show me which article gives a person "the right" to own a gun.

Again, that's irrelevant. My (and everyone else's) right's aren't dependent on a piece of paper.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Again, that's irrelevant. My (and everyone else's) right's aren't dependent on a piece of paper.

What is the basis for your belief, then? There must be some reason why you think people should be allowed to own guns under similar laws to the US -whether the people want those laws or not. You can't simply say, "This is a right that people have" with no basis for it. Otherwise I could just as easily say, "People have the right to have sex with goats on Sundays. This right isn't dependent on a piece of paper."

[Tony]

But if you must know, there are plenty of articles in the declaration of human rights that can be interpreted to allow ownership of guns...


Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Tony, you're talking crap. Here (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show me which article gives a person "the right" to own a gun.
You beat me to it MrM. Basic human rights cannot be negated by laws, at least in countries that recognize these rights. Once again Tony, the introduction of our gun laws were no different to the introduction of our drink driving laws.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What is the basis for your belief, then? There must be some reason why you think people should be allowed to own guns under similar laws to the US -whether the people want those laws or not. You can't simply say, "This is a right that people have" with no basis for it. Otherwise I could just as easily say, "People have the right to have sex with goats on Sundays. This right isn't dependent on a piece of paper."

Yes you could just as easily say that, and guess what, you'd be right.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Tony
My (and everyone else's) right's aren't dependent on a piece of paper. That makes not an ounce of sense.

If I have the right to own a gun but it isn't written down anywhere, how the hell can I possibly know that I have a right to own a gun. Does god tell me?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What is the basis for your belief, then?

The basis for my belief is the idea that harmless activities shouldn't be illegal.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
But if you must know, there are plenty of articles in the declaration of human rights that can be interpreted to allow ownership of guns...


Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 3 is to do with security, not guns. It means that you have the right not to live in fear. Take a look at the situation in Iraq or Haiti to get an idea of what I mean.

There is no 'arbitrary interference' with the Australian people, as per Article 12, because the people have asked for tighter gun laws.

No one has been arbitraily deprived of their property. Again, the Australian people have asked for these laws.

Try again.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
If I have the right to own a gun but it isn't written down anywhere, how the hell can I possibly know that I have a right to own a gun.

That sounds like a personal problem. I'd advise you to start thinking for yourself, but that's just me. Sorry for not having a piece of paper to tell you how to do that.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


The basis for my belief is the idea that harmless activities shouldn't be illegal.

We've been down this path before. Lax gun laws does not amount to a 'harmless activity'. Compare the gun deaths between your country and ours to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Guns aren't for cleaning the toilet or painting the shed: they are for destruction.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Article 3 is to do with security, not guns. It means that you have the right not to live in fear.


That's your interpretation, one that supports ownership of guns BTW.

No one has been arbitraily deprived of their property. Again, the Australian people have asked for these laws.

I've already addressed this point. If everyone wanted slavery or child prostitution would that make it ok?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

We've been down this path before. Lax gun laws does not amount to a 'harmless activity'.

Umm yes they do. My ownership of a machine gun harms no-one.

Compare the gun deaths between your country and ours to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Irrelevant. The whole "gun deaths" bit is a fabricated statistical category, made up of diverse actions with substantially different circumstances and causes, used for political gain.

they are for destruction.

That's your narrowminded and bigoted opinion.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


That's your interpretation, one that supports ownership of guns BTW.


How so?

I've already addressed this point. If everyone wanted slavery or child prostitution would that make it ok?

No, because it would be in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. That's why I provided that link for your attention.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

No, because it would be in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. That's why I provided that link for your attention.

I've already addressed that too. Rights aren't dependent on a piece of paper.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Umm yes they do. My ownership of a machine gun harms no-one.
Not yet, it doesn't. But it easily has the potential to do so, either by accident (which can come about as simply as when a child plays with it while you aren't looking), or if you have a brain-snap one day and decide to go postal.

We aren't allowed to own uranium as well (and I'm not talking about weapons-grade uranium). Sure, I could keep it in a safe container and say that it harms no-one. But, for some peculiar reason, that's not a risk the Australian people are willing to take.


That's your narrowminded and bigoted opinion.

If you can think of another use for a gun, try stating it instead of resorting to the Tony Ad-Hom^TM

[epepke]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


And yet they produce much nicer people and better beer, I wonder if they are connected. ;)

Prove it.

The beer part, I mean. In general, Australian beer may be better than Budmilloors, but there are quite a lot of good beers produced in the US. I'd say that only Britain, Belgium, and Germany outstrip the US in the goodness of beer these days.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by epepke


Prove it.

The beer part, I mean. In general, Australian beer may be better than Budmilloors, but there are quite a lot of good beers produced in the US. I'd say that only Britain, Belgium, and Germany outstrip the US in the goodness of beer these days.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Time to trot out the old joke:

Why is American beer like having sex in a canoe?

They're both f*cking close to water.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


I've already addressed that too. Rights aren't dependent on a piece of paper.

You haven't said what they are dependent upon.

[Skeptic]

That makes not an ounce of sense.

If I have the right to own a gun but it isn't written down anywhere, how the hell can I possibly know that I have a right to own a gun. Does god tell me?

You seem to have missed the whole point of a written constitution.

In all written constitutions--going back to the magna carta, and including the US constitution--the premise is NOT that the government gives the people rights, or that the rights that the people have are limited to those written in the constitution; that would imply the rights are some sort of "gift" the government decided to give the people, and that if something isn't mentioned there it isn't a right.

The idea is precisely the opposite: the constitution says that the government recognizes the rights people NATURALLY have, merely as humans in society, and AMONG those rights are those exlicitly listed in the constitution.

The US constitution, for example, specifically notes (9th and 10th amendment) that the mere fact that a right isn't mentioned in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right, and it specifically claims that all the "inalienable rights" are endowed on people 'by their creator" (e.g., by nature, to the deist founding fathers), not by the government, which is merely created to PROTECT those rights (among other things).

So, yes, the founding fathers of the US constitution WOULD say that "god told them" -- or nature told them, or wisdom told them -- that they have such-and-such a right, and that it isn't due to the govenrment that they have those rights. Yes, it is often a mess to determine whether or not something is a right in such a situation. But the alternative--"sorry, the government didn't explcitly say you have this right, so you don't"--is (as the founding fathers knew) a recipie for tyranny.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That makes not an ounce of sense.

If I have the right to own a gun but it isn't written down anywhere, how the hell can I possibly know that I have a right to own a gun. Does god tell me?

You seem to have missed the whole point of a written constitution.

In all written constitutions--going back to the magna carta, and including the US constitution--the premise is NOT that the government gives the people rights, or that the rights that the people have are limited to those written in the constitution; that would imply the rights are some sort of "gift" the government decided to give the people, and that if something isn't mentioned there it isn't a right.

The idea is precisely the opposite: the constitution says that the government recognizes the rights people NATURALLY have, merely as humans in society, and AMONG those rights are those exlicitly listed in the constitution.

The US constitution, for example, specifically notes (9th and 10th amendment) that the mere fact that a right isn't mentioned in the constitution does not mean it isn't a right, and it specifically claims that all the "inalienable rights" are endowed on people 'by their creator" (e.g., by nature, to the deist founding fathers), not by the government, which is merely created to PROTECT those rights (among other things).

So, yes, the founding fathers of the US constitution WOULD say that "god told them" -- or nature told them, or wisdom told them -- that they have such-and-such a right, and that it isn't due to the govenrment that they have those rights. Yes, it is often a mess to determine whether or not something is a right in such a situation. But the alternative--"sorry, the government didn't explcitly say you have this right, so you don't"--is (as the founding fathers knew) a recipie for tyranny.

But what we have here is:

There is nothing written saying that anyone in Australia can have a gun.
The Australian people have asked for laws to ensure that not just anyone can have a gun.
Yet, Tony seems to think this is tyrannical.

:confused:

[Skeptic]

There is nothing written saying that anyone in Australia can have a gun.

Not written doesn't mean it isn't a right. That's the whole point.

Otherwise, the government "forgetting" that voting is a right and not passing a law to that effect would nullify this right.

Otherwise, it would mean that every tyranny in the world is justified, as long as they didn't "put it in writing" that the people they lord over have a right to vote (or whatever).

The Australian people have asked for laws to ensure that not just anyone can have a gun.

Part of the issue of something being a right is that the "Australian people"--that is, the majority--cannot take this right away from those who want to own guns, even if they're in the minority.

If a right can be revoked by a vote, it isn't a right, it's at most a priviledge. We've already seen what happens when "the will of the people" nullifies those annoying rights of the minority.

The history of communism, for instance, is that of one long opression, always justified as "legal" by being the "will of the people".

Yet, Tony seems to think this is tyrannical.

Yup. It's a majority violating the rights of a minority.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Not yet, it doesn't.

So you concede that me owning a machine gun harms no-one. Good we are getting somewhere.

We aren't allowed to own uranium as well (and I'm not talking about weapons-grade uranium). Sure, I could keep it in a safe container and say that it harms no-one. But, for some peculiar reason, that's not a risk the Australian people are willing to take.

False analogy.

If you can think of another use for a gun, try stating it instead of resorting to the Tony Ad-Hom^TM

Why don't YOU think of another use for a gun instead of basking in ignorance.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony

False analogy.

No, the issue is about public safety.


Why don't YOU think of another use for a gun instead of basking in ignorance.
Because it's your argument, not mine.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

No, the issue is about public safety.


It's a false analogy to compare guns to uranium. Apples and oranges.

Because it's your argument, not mine.

No it's not. You were the one who said guns were for destruction. My only job is to inform you of your ignorance, not provide you with education.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


It's a false analogy to compare guns to uranium. Apples and oranges.



I was making an illustration about the issue of public safety. Since you seem (by your posts in this thread) to be unable to recoginse that guns carry a risk, I picked something a little more over-the-top. I suspect you realise this, and are deliberately stalling until you can think of a more watertight argument.

It would certainly explain why you can't describe another use for guns besides destruction.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I was making an illustration about the issue of public safety. Since you seem (by your posts in this thread) to be unable to recoginse that guns carry a risk

A gun in and of itself carries no risk. It is an inanimate object that requires a person to make it potentially dangerous. Uranium however is radioactive, I hope I don't need to educate on the danger of radioactivity.

It would certainly explain why you can't describe another use for guns besides destruction.

:dl:

Ignorance must be bliss.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


A gun in and of itself carries no risk. It is an inanimate object that requires a person to make it potentially dangerous. Uranium however is radioactive, I hope I don't need to educate on the danger of radioactivity.


Put 'nitroglycerin' in place of 'uranium', then.

[Agammamon]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't get back sooner, but this thread ISN"T ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!

It's about whether or not the police can search you if they feel like it.

We already know that Australians can't have guns. We already know that in a short while they'll be hard-pressed to find a plastic butter knife. The question before them now is how far they are willing to go, how much regimentation they will allow, in their search for safety.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Hey guys, sorry I didn't get back sooner, but this thread ISN"T ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!

It's about whether or not the police can search you if they feel like it.

We already know that Australians can't have guns. We already know that in a short while they'll be hard-pressed to find a plastic butter knife. The question before them now is how far they are willing to go, how much regimentation they will allow, in their search for safety.

You might have noticed that I've already addressed this point in an earlier post. If you'd like to get this thread back on-topic, you could always respond to that.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Time to trot out the old joke:

Why is American beer like having sex in a canoe?

They're both f*cking close to water.

That's interesting because I did not find any Australian beers on this winners list (http://www.beertown.org/events/wbc/winners_list/winners_2002.html).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's interesting because I did not find any Australian beers on this winners list (http://www.beertown.org/events/wbc/winners_list/winners_2002.html).

CLICK HERE FOR
IMPORTANT SHIPPING/CUSTOM INFORMATION

See who's entered
for 2004!
Click here for a list of participating breweries.
Call for Entries (registration forms)
Mail October 20–23, 2003

Early Registration Deadline
(enter by this date and save $20 per entry)
December 12, 2003

Final Registration Deadline
January 12, 2004

Entries Received
March 8-12, 2004
World Beer Cup Judging
April 13–14, 2004
San Diego, California, USA

Winners Presented
April 17, 2004
21st Annual Association of Brewers Craft Brewers Conference —
World Beer Cup Gala Awards Dinner
San Diego, California, USA

Estimated Numbers for 2004
1,300 beers judged from 400 breweries and 40 countries.


The World Beer Cup judging will take place April 13-14, in San Diego, California, USA at the Town and Country Resort. Winners will be announced on April 17, 2004 in conjunction with the 21st annual Association of Brewers Craft Brewers Conference in San Diego.


Getting Americans to judge the world's best beers is like getting a bunch of blind people to judge the world's best paintings.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto




Getting Americans to judge the world's best beers is like getting a bunch of blind people to judge the world's best paintings.

That's the problem with you, you always assume things. Just because it's held in the USA doesn't mean it will be judged only by USA judges.

From the link (http://www.realbeer.com/edu/wbc/index.php):

A professional panel of beer judges from around the world will evaluate the participating beers in 81 categories April 13-14, 2004 at the Town & Country Resort in San Diego, Calif. The Association of Brewers will present the World Beer Cup winners with awards April 17 at the Gala Awards Dinner and beer tasting in San Diego.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Hey guys, sorry I didn't get back sooner, but this thread ISN"T ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!

It's about whether or not the police can search you if they feel like it.

We already know that Australians can't have guns. We already know that in a short while they'll be hard-pressed to find a plastic butter knife. The question before them now is how far they are willing to go, how much regimentation they will allow, in their search for safety. Gee wizz, people! Get it right! Australians CAN have guns. And many of us do today. It's just that the LAWS for ownership and use are a lot tougher and policed harder than those in the USA.

It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes...

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You might have noticed that I've already addressed this point in an earlier post. If you'd like to get this thread back on-topic, you could always respond to that. Or Agammamon might like to respond to my second post where I showed selective quoting can easily change the slant of a story.

Or he might like to address the point I made that the police will NOT be conducting body searches, it will be a simple search with a metal detector just like what happens in airports around the world (and some schools in USA), and that the police must be able to show that there was reasonable grounds to suspect the person was about to or was in the process of committing a crime.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Hey guys, sorry I didn't get back sooner, but this thread ISN"T ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!

It's about whether or not the police can search you if they feel like it.Maybe this thread is about your complete lack of understanding of Australian law. Police cannot search a person "if they feel like it". If they don't have real cause to believe the person being searched is about to commit a crime then they'll find themselves fronting the CJC.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by epepke


Prove it.

The beer part, I mean. In general, Australian beer may be better than Budmilloors, but there are quite a lot of good beers produced in the US. I'd say that only Britain, Belgium, and Germany outstrip the US in the goodness of beer these days.

Clearly a poster who has not been to Czech Republic recently.

OK, I was being facetious abut the beer. My favourite (of a very limited list that I've tried) was California Steam Beer (IIRC). I would be willing, however, to undertake large-scale tests in both countries, if I could find a sponsor.;)

[Zep]

There are lots of good beers everywhere, so I propose a six-month world-tour pub-crawl for the JREF forum members to get some definitive testing results. Who's not participating?

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Or Agammamon might like to respond to my second post where I showed selective quoting can easily change the slant of a story.

Or he might like to address the point I made that the police will NOT be conducting body searches, it will be a simple search with a metal detector just like what happens in airports around the world (and some schools in USA), and that the police must be able to show that there was reasonable grounds to suspect the person was about to or was in the process of committing a crime.

I'm quite aware of the sensationalist lean of the article. For something so short it's almost impossible to present a balanced view. But I am responding to the allegation that the police will be setting up random check - in whatever form. reading it I didn't even realize that the article was talking about frisking vice personal searches.

Yes, you're quite right, setting up checkpoints and using metal detectors is so much better! So you're ok with it if they set one up outside the door to your workplace? The fact that in the US they also stop people randomly to check for drunk drivers/"ask" about crimes/just because doesn't mean it's right. There is a difference between what goes on between private individuals and things mandated by the government.
But perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the Australian constitution gives the police unlimited powers, but here we've run into the problem of police agencies trying to gain more control (in the interests of public safety) and, usually, they get slapped down.

If a cop has probable cause to believe someone has a proscribed weapon then he doesn't need to set up a search point. He arrests the suspect and searches them. They don't set up metal detectors except in areas where they don't have "intelligence-led" policing.

And as an American please let me apoligize for the state of my nation's beer. While Australian beer may not be the greatest, if I had to choose I would choose Oz.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
Clearly a poster who has not been to Czech Republic recently.

OK, I was being facetious abut the beer. My favourite (of a very limited list that I've tried) was California Steam Beer (IIRC).

You're probably thinking of Anchor Steam. It is quite good, and it's one of the first good beers that became widely available arount the US in the 1980s.

US beer == bad may have been true a quarter of a century ago, but what with microbreweries and even some large breweries such as Samuel Adams, it's far from true today.

I must admit, though, that it's pretty hard to find Australian beers in the US, except for XXXX and swill like that. (I won't even mention Fosters, as it's brewed under license in Canada anyway). Which is strange, because I can find Australian wines in any supermarket (and they are good). So if Australian beer is so good, why isn't it exported?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Agammamon


I'm quite aware of the sensationalist lean of the article. For something so short it's almost impossible to present a balanced view. But I am responding to the allegation that the police will be setting up random check - in whatever form. reading it I didn't even realize that the article was talking about frisking vice personal searches.

Yes, you're quite right, setting up checkpoints and using metal detectors is so much better! So you're ok with it if they set one up outside the door to your workplace? The fact that in the US they also stop people randomly to check for drunk drivers/"ask" about crimes/just because doesn't mean it's right. There is a difference between what goes on between private individuals and things mandated by the government.
But perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the Australian constitution gives the police unlimited powers, but here we've run into the problem of police agencies trying to gain more control (in the interests of public safety) and, usually, they get slapped down.

If a cop has probable cause to believe someone has a proscribed weapon then he doesn't need to set up a search point. He arrests the suspect and searches them. They don't set up metal detectors except in areas where they don't have "intelligence-led" policing.

And as an American please let me apoligize for the state of my nation's beer. While Australian beer may not be the greatest, if I had to choose I would choose Oz.

I'm beginning to wonder how serious these 'new laws' really are. I can't find it on the other news sites.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm beginning to wonder how serious these 'new laws' really are. I can't find it on the other news sites. Good point, I haven't seen it on the 6pm or late night news. However, I'm pretty sure no new laws have been introduced -- that would have made the news -- but that the police sargeant in that specific area of Melbourne has declared that his officers will more fully use the laws currently at their disposal.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by epepke
You're probably thinking of Anchor Steam. I was indeed, thank you. An excellent beer.US beer == bad may have been true a quarter of a century ago, but what with microbreweries and even some large breweries such as Samuel Adams, it's far from true today.So I've heard, sounds good.I must admit, though, that it's pretty hard to find Australian beers in the US, except for XXXX and swill like that. (I won't even mention Fosters, as it's brewed under license in Canada anyway). Which is strange, because I can find Australian wines in any supermarket (and they are good). So if Australian beer is so good, why isn't it exported? We mainly get Foster's, XXXX and Tooheys, and none are much to write home about, though all the Australians here claim the export stuff isn't as good as the stuff they keep for themselves.

[Zep]

Yep, although the joke is that it is called XXXX (actually pronounced "Four-X") because the Queenslanders who make it can't spell "beer". The joke is that Queenslanders are reputed to have a lower education than the rest of Australia, being mostly country hicks with.......WHY am I EXPLAINING this???

Actually, Australian Fosters and Canadian Labatts Blue are pretty much the same beer in almost all respects. The probable reason is that Carlton United Breweries own both operations, so the recipe book may well have been standardised across both countries. That is, economics.

AND there a plenty of local brands and styles of beer made here anyway, beside the ubiquitous brand-name lagers and pilsners. From Redback wheat beer to Coopers stout. The reputed "star" is Carlton's Crown Lager, although that is hotly disputed, and I don't like it much anyway myself. But I suspect if you asked for any brand or type, it could be exported to you no problems.

As I said above, the only really good solution is a six-month world-wide pub-crawl by JREF to really get some solid data on the subject. Who's up for it??

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Zep
Yep, although the joke is that it is called XXXX (actually pronounced "Four-X") because the Queenslanders who make it can't spell "beer". The joke is that Queenslanders are reputed to have a lower education than the rest of Australia, being mostly country hicks with.......WHY am I EXPLAINING this???

Actually, Australian Fosters and Canadian Labatts Blue are pretty much the same beer in almost all respects. The probable reason is that Carlton United Breweries own both operations, so the recipe book may well have been standardised across both countries. That is, economics.

AND there a plenty of local brands and styles of beer made here anyway, beside the ubiquitous brand-name lagers and pilsners. From Redback wheat beer to Coopers stout. The reputed "star" is Carlton's Crown Lager, although that is hotly disputed, and I don't like it much anyway myself. But I suspect if you asked for any brand or type, it could be exported to you no problems.

As I said above, the only really good solution is a six-month world-wide pub-crawl by JREF to really get some solid data on the subject. Who's up for it??

You forgot James Boag, Cascade Pale (f*ck the other Cascades) and James Squire.

None of this is allowed to go overseas to the unappreciative American palate. Let them drink their rye whiskey. Oh, sorry, forgot Yanks can't spell, that should be 'whisky'. :D

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You forgot James Boag, Cascade Pale (f*ck the other Cascades) and James Squire.

None of this is allowed to go overseas to the unappreciative American palate. Let them drink their rye whiskey. Oh, sorry, forgot Yanks can't spell, that should be 'whisky'. :D Shhhh! I did NOT forget the Boags or Cascade ( Mmmmmm...Cascade! ). I just didn't want to let the Yanks know that it existed, i.e. let the cat out of the bag.

Oh BUGGER! Now they know...