Hicksy is back!
Yes, David Hicks, the bloke who ran off from his family and trained with an apocalyptic fascist terrorist group that called for the extermination of Jews and gays and who refused to let women be educated, is back.
And yet again, he is being propped up by the Left... the very 'wing' that under any Taliban government would be the first against the wall.
This time it's our spamming mates at Get Up! For about a year I received their constant barrage of emails. Some of them, sure, were right on the money in my mind, but a lot of their views I thought were just unwarranted and babyish first-year Marxism hysteria - oppose the US at all costs - Blair and Bush and Howard are 'evil' - and so on. I'm no Howard or Bush fan, but I sure as hell prefer having them in power to your average Talib.
So now 'Get Up' are backing Hicksy in his battle to have his restrictions lifted. I for one want Hicks to receive fair conditions. It took too long for his trial to take place, and now that he's back, he should be able to live his life like a normal person and get a job. BUT! BUT! To report in to the authorities regularly and ban him from owning weopons is, as far as I'm concerned, fair. He may not have been a terrorist killer, but we do know he was a supporter of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, extreme Muslim fanatacism and terrorism.
In Hicks' own words:
"Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?"
As far as I'm concerned, by training with these fucking nutjobs, and talking like this in the first place, he has forfeited his right to own weapons, and I for one believe that he should have to check in with the coppers 3 times a week.
And to 'Get Up' I say this: Instead of making videos looking after right-wing wannabe fascist martyrs, how about gettin' back to some leftwing basics, like, you know, the homeless, the unemployed, the persecuted minorities, the hungry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
84 comments:
I don't know. I think if he has faced trial and been punished, and he has, why shouldn't he be condition-free? Conditions might just be a way of continuing punishment/harrassment. It doesn't seem fair to me.
He's been judged on what he did and said. He's not a big player, he seems slightly stupid and ill-educated. I'd leave him be. He's probably learnt his lesson, but if not, you can't punish someone for something they might yet do, or be thinking about.
He's a trained killer Melba, who has expressed a desire for Jews to be killed.
I don't think banning him from owning weapons or requiring him to check in to the authorities is 'punishment'... it's precaution.
He was also a member of an organisation that would have you stoned and beaten up for having a blog.
The Taliban wouldn't even know what a blog was. But they wouldn't like me saying "fuck" and not wearing a hijab and going outside the house and working and driving a car etc.
But that's not the point.
How much of a risk is he, now?
That's the point.
Also let me make it clear that by me saying these things, it doesn't mean I agree with Hicks or what he said, or what he did.
"How much of a risk is he, now?"
Who knows? Hence the reporting in / no weapons thing.
Hang on a sec, Perseus.
Are you advocating that we turn in to a society that forces people to report to police just because they hold unpleasant or extremist beliefs?
Are you advocating that we turn into a society that punishes people for statements they made 7 years ago, if they are no longer making those statements?
Punish him for his crimes, certainly. Despise and revile them if he promotes anti-semiticism today. But don't promote placing sanctions on someone for their beliefs, past or current, or their 'potential' to be a threat.
Also, don't you think the argument "He sided with people X who are mean and nasty and more restrictive than us, therefore that gives us the right to remove legal rights and impose greater sanctions on him, provided we aren't as mean and nasty and restictive as X in doing so" really washes?
In Perseusland, yes.
*
The Taliban weren't some Monash Uni social club dude.
His 'punishment' after his trial was imprisonment followed by sanctions / conditions. That is his punishment for supporting the Taliban and training with Al Quaeda and for bearing arms against our countrymen... so he should stop complaining. Deal with it, Hicks.
I don't own any weapons and I still manage to enjoy life... he can do the fucking same. As for reporting in, whoa, that must take ALL of five minutes.
Most prisoners in our jail system have a parole system that involves counselling and checking in with parole officers... why can't he just shut the fuck up and do what other crims have to do?
Oh that's right, cos he was a 'Freedom Fighter' who took on those evil 'US Imperialists'. Fuck off.
In Perseusland, for extra punsihment, he'd be forced to live in Queensland as well!
Thank you Boogeyman for saying, far more eloquently and clearly, what I was clumsily trying to say.
...and no, I don't want people 'punished' for views they expressed 7 years ago, but he committed a crime and therefore, he must do the time, and that time involves conditions on his movements.
But I do want the authorities to assess someone's potential as a threat. Of course I want that. If someone is saying they are going to kill people, they should be monitored and even apprehended. He's not saying that right now, but he has said it before, and I think it is fair that he at least checks in with the authorities on a regular basis until such time that he is a) legally served his 'time' and b) is considered no longer a risk.
Quote PQ: He may not have been a terrorist killer, but we do know he was a supporter of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, extreme Muslim fanatacism and terrorism.
Ok, so if he wasn't a terrorist killer, what was he? A supporter? You don't punish a person for being a supporter of these things, as odious as they are. You punish them for the criminal actions they take in the name of those organisations.
As far as I'm concerned, by training with these fucking nutjobs, and talking like this in the first place, he has forfeited his right to own weapons, and I for one believe that he should have to check in with the coppers 3 times a week.
As I said before, punish people for their crimes, not merely their words or beliefs. In this entire article, you haven't said exactly what David Hicks did that warrants punitive police monitoring, apart from that he trained with and supported terrorists, and he said some pretty nasty stuff years ago.
As a parallel, the names of heaps of members of the ultra-right wing British National Party have been leaked to the media. These guys are nasty fuckers and about as close to fascists as you could get. In Perseusland, do you impose court orders on them to report to police regularly, because they are potential threats? Or do you wait for solid evidence that they are planning or have committed a crime?
Also, have you ever seen or read Minority Report?
"trained with and supported terrorists..."
That is a crime. Punsishment includes forfeiture from owning weapons.
"Or do you wait for solid evidence that they are planning or have committed a crime?"
Yes, that.
Minority Report
Tom Cruise's face meant I watched most of it through squinted eyes. But if you're suggesting that I'm suggesting we arrest people for murder based on their intent to murder (as in Minority Report) then no, that is not what I suggest. I do however support removing weapons from people who have expressed a desire to use said weapons in a killing.
"trained with and supported terrorists..."
That is a crime. Punsishment includes forfeiture from owning weapons.
Now that's a little more like it. An actual crime, as opposed to "he said this" or "he believed that". I'll point out, however, that the only crime for which he has been sentenced has been "providing material support for terrorism", not training with them.
Now, do you think that, for that actual crime of materially supporting terrorists, that 5 years in solitary confinement in an unpleasant prison like Guantanamo, allegedly undergoing torture, plus another 7 months in Yatala in SA, might just about cover that crime? The US prosecutors obviously think so, since they agreed to a 7 year sentence only.
Also, I think you have sidestepped the issue of the regular reporting to police. Personally I don't give a flying fuck if someone is banned from possessing firearms. But an open-ended requirement to regularly report to police, and be subject to a ongoing curfew, is a punitive measure out of proportion to a crime committed 7 years ago, especially when considering a) he has renounced Islam, b) he no longer espouses the beliefs you find so in need of punishment (even though we only punish actions and not beliefs, right?), and c) there's no evidence that he's in contact with, training with, or supporting, any terrorist organisations nowadays.
ps. My point about Minority Report was that people were punished for crimes they hadn't yet committed, on the prediction that they would, sometime in the future. Many of the current anti-terror laws, and the notions you promote in your article, are based on the same idea. Punish someone because we believe they might commit a crime, not because they did commit a crime.
I'm far more concerned with the evil that is Ricky Ponting.
Sorry, sorry, couldn't help myself.
Good post, Pers.
What a lively debate. Huzzah for TSFKA!
Sorry Boogey I'm with Perseus. If he is truly repentant then he won't have a problem with actually being fair dinkum about proving he isn't still a Taliban supporter. The guy is a nutjob. And I don't believe it's legal for his reporting requirement to be "open ended".
He fucked up, badly. And when you fuck up you have to face the consequences. If he doesn't like it then he can fuck off back to Afghanistan. For good.
What Boogey said. If we go on and on about the superiority of a democratic society, then we have to behave like one.
I think the weapon thing is fine but the reporting to Mr Plod is a waste of time and just plain silly. Don't tell me that his phone/internet isn't monitored by ASIO in any case
Certianly wari if you do the crime you should do the time.
What I am against is doing excessive time for a crime, especially one that didn't exist when he was arrested.
If he is truly repentant then he won't have a problem with actually being fair dinkum about proving he isn't still a Taliban supporter.
There's no issue with him wanting to prove he isn't a Taliban supporter. The issue is that regular reporting to police isn't going to achieve that.
He fucked up, badly. And when you fuck up you have to face the consequences. If he doesn't like it then he can fuck off back to Afghanistan. For good.
Five years in solitary confinement plus alleged torture not enough 'consequences' for you to face?
If we go on and on about the superiority of a democratic society, then we have to behave like one.
Democracy is majority rule. Last time I checked anyway. I have nothing to fear from these sort of rules and I suspect you don't either Louche, nor does Boogey. Only the David Hickses of the world do. And the majority of us deserve to be protected from them.
If the Taliban invaded tomorrow, who would Hicks fight for?
Five years in solitary confinement plus alleged torture not enough 'consequences' for you to face?
No fair minded person is in agreement with want went on at Guantanamo Bay. We have a system that is supposed to give people the right to a fair, speedy, trial. Justice delayed is justice denied, to quote the cliche.
I don't trust the guy, he sided with our enemies before and I reckon he will again. It's fair enough to want to know what the prick is up to.
Democracy is majority rule. Last time I checked anyway. I have nothing to fear from these sort of rules and I suspect you don't either Louche, nor does Boogey. Only the David Hickses of the world do. And the majority of us deserve to be protected from them.
Yes, but democracy in a two-party system is a clumsy, blunt tool. People might not like anti-terror laws, but they can and do vote in governments based on things like the economy while disapproving their other positions.
And I don't buy this "innocent people have nothing to fear from these laws" argument. There's a large grey area between law-abiding citizen and criminal, and such arguments are usually used to promote ever-more restrictive measures, while policing powers march across that line. It's not just clearly defined criminals like David Hicks that need to worry about such things.
I don't trust the guy, he sided with our enemies before and I reckon he will again. It's fair enough to want to know what the prick is up to.
You know what, wari? Every country has enemies. We flatter ourselves immensely if we believe our enemies are the most evil and despicable, and therefore anyone who sides with them must be denied the rights of law and humanity which we claim to cherish.
He's a trained killer Melba
Well he is South Australian.
Oooh, I go out and look what happens. Luckily my side was being carried forth nicely by Boogeyman. I probably don't need to say anything else other than:
"innocent people have nothing to fear from these laws"
?
1. Mamdouh Habib - possibly
2. Mohamed Haneef - definitely
I have an ex-husband who lives overseas, who while Muslim is not religious. I have possibly tripped alerts many times over on the phone, on texts and on email, and possibly am doing so now, as I type. He has transferred large amounts of money to Australia which I have moved around for him. Don't think I haven't thought about someone knocking on my door. And that it might take me 3 weeks, unable to tell anyone where I am and how I'm being treated, to explain to the officials that the money is not being used for anything nasty, other than lining the pockets of clothing and shoe companies, private schools and swimming teachers.
I don't feel so nervous now, things seem to have settled down. But it was a dark day when those anti-terror laws came into effect.
This is all so wrong, wrong, wrong.
Let's look at what is known and proven about David Hicks.
We know that he is guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that he is a fuckwit.
Beyond that, nothing! This man has been illegally detained, probably tortured,denied that the legal rights that we take for granted,
held for trial under a system deemed unconstitutional and illegal
by the highest courts of the country bringing the action
and roundly condemned by practitioners of
juris prudence around the world as immoral and unlawful.
I have yet to see any evidence that David Hicks committed any crime worthy of the punishment he has already received.
This man has been denied his natural right to a trial before his peers, to examine and defend the evidence against him and conduct a defence against these charges based on that evidence. He has been denied justice at every level,and duped into a plea bargain to secure his freedom.
In order to secure his freedom,
he entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge of "supporting tourism". Given the choice between indefinite detention in appalling
circumstances and copping a plea for reduced charge
that would have no legal standing in any court in any country
in the world, who would not sign the paper?
It just amazes me how quickly we seek to deny the rights we would demand from ourselves to others.
This man stands convicted of crimes for which he has never had the benefit of a trial by his peers under international laws of evidence, yet he stands convicted.
Give the guy a break.
I agree heartily with Mr E, except the bit about "supporting tourism". If that's a crime now, someone needs to lock up Lara "where the bloody hell are you" Bingle and Baz "why the bloody hell are you still here" Luhrman.
Oh fuck!
Having lived in Olinda for many years the boundry between Tourists and terrorists becomes blurred.
TERRORISM!
Welcome to Boogeyland, Mr. Hicks. I am the President, Mr. E Discharge, and I speak on behalf of all citizens of Boogeyland including the supreme leader himself, in saying, welcome. Here's a passport, so you can go wherever you want... oh and of course you're allowed to own weapons. All that time in the Al Quaeda training camp will serve you well in one of our many recreational shooting clubs. Oh no, you don;t have to report in to the authorities. We're sure you mean it when you tell us you renounced your Jew hatred and renounced your years of freedom fighting on behalf of apocalyptic Muslims, and surely that was just a coincidence that you renounced your beliefs whilst you were incarcarated by the Allied forces. How is Mr. bin Laden anyway? It must have been nice to meet the charming man on so many occassions. Well, good luck then."
*
For every woman tortured by The Taliban, for evey innocent man, woman and child slaughtered by the Taliban in the name of Allah, Hicks should at least forfeit his rights to own weapons just to ensure he doesn't go all jihad and shit again.
Wrong place at the wrong time, Mr. E? Give me a break. He travelled there, willingly, with the assistance of militant Islamic fascists.
He supported people firing weapons at Australian soldiers. FAIL!
*
His stay in Guantanamo was ludicrous, I concede, but fuck, is it really such a problem keeping tabs on the guy?
PQ,
I have always regarded you as a thoughtful man, and I'm having difficulty seeing your view in this, and your emotional stance/investment.However it is late and i find myself in the hands of the "great equivicator" as I suspect are you. Let's talk on the morro.
Perseus, have you mentioned your concerns to the AFP? They have indicated they will not be seeking an extension of the control order on David Hicks.
Clearly they don't think he is as big a risk as you do.
Perhaps you can ring them on behalf of all concerned citizens of this country and point out what idiots they are. They'll like that. Maybe start to notice you.
*
Enjoy your stay in Boogeyland. Be sure to note our observance of the rule of law, which will stand you in good stead should you be accused of some crime. You will find cultural practices such as "innocent until proven guilty" a little different from your own in Perseusland, but an odd comfort to those who do get accused of a crime.
Also, enjoy your time here in Boogeyland unencumbered by the concern that should a police officer take a dislike to you, that no dodgy 'anti-terror' laws exist for them to conveniently lock you up on unspecified charges.
Please also say hi to our good friend Dr Haneef, recuperating after an unpleasant sojourn in Perseusland. Apparently some of your citizens also thought he was a terrorist and supporter of some pretty fucked up organisations. Turns out they were wrong, but ahhh, what can you do, eh?
Seconded.
"I have always regarded you as a thoughtful man"
Are you kidding? I'm Captain Kneejerk!
*
Yeah I saw the article Boogey. And fair enough, then. I trust the authorities, and therefore, so be it. I wish Mr. Hicks well and hope he has a happy life.
I think even I lost much of the essence of my own post, which was as much about Get Up! making videos for former right-wing militants when I think there are more worthy causes to spend their contributor's money on.
*
Does Boogeyworld take the day off for The Melbourne Cup? If so, I might hang out here a bit.
Actually, I just realised that on your logic, a peodophile can become a kindergarten teacher, as long as he 'did his time'.
I don't think I will stay in Boogeyland. I'll take some photos of the Great Boogey Towers and head off back to Perseusland.
and they all lived happily ever after......
Actually, I just realised that on your logic, a peodophile can become a kindergarten teacher, as long as he 'did his time'.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to mark you down on that one.
Y'see, a pedophile is prosecuted under laws that existed before they committed their crime. Those laws state that their "time" includes never being allowed to work closely with children again.
The reason such sanctions for pedophiles exist is because it is professionally accepted that pedophilia is an incurable psychological disorder.
Last I checked, no one has defined "terrorist sympathiser" as an intractable psychological disorder. Which is not to say that, given the chance, our last glorious leader might not have done so had he won the last election.
Oh, and we don't take the day off for the Melbourne Cup here in Boogeyland because all horses are rendered down for glue and exported.
No, I'm Captain Kneejerk!
Surely you meant "Tourist Sympathiser" Boogey. Nite all!
Ah, this is why I love this blog so much. And I have a new-found admiration for Mr Boogeyman. My admiration for Perseus continues, reinstated completely at the moment of reading the words "Captain Kneejerk".
Good day all.
I can't claim to be particularly well read on the Hicks case, but I do have a question. Has any evidence been made public that he was in any way associated with any terrorist activity?
What I have read seems to suggest that he was a low level mercenary shit-kicker working for the Taliban. Now, the Taliban was a brutal and oppressive regime(TM), and Hicks may well be partially responsible for atrocities committed against the Afghani people. But I think that is a separate issue which should probably be dealt with in an Afghani court or some sort of international court or something.
The Taliban was a big group, and saying that they were all terrorist conspirators (which nobody here is actually doing), is a bit like trying to link army grunts with political corruption.
As I say though, there is much about this case that I don't actually know.
Has any evidence been made public that he was in any way associated with any terrorist activity?
Yes, lots. His letters to his family and his initial interview when arrested details it all.
Aha. Thanks for that Captain.
Y'see, a pedophile is prosecuted under laws that existed before they committed their crime.
Had he not have been scooped up by the Americans, Mr Hicks could have also, Boogey. The Crimes Act, 1914, especially Section 24AA thereof. This bit can charge Australian citizens either directly shooting at Australian soldiers or aiding enemy combatants shooting at Australian soldiers with Treachery, the new version of Treason.
At least the Crimes Act no longer calls for the death penalty for treachery, only life imprisonment as the maximum.
Of course, the shrill Left and the American's own miscarriage of justice have ensured that Mr Hicks wouldn't get a fair trial if the Attorney-General decided to send him once more round the houses on a Treachery charge.
LS
Sorry about going horribly off topic here, but the pedophile analogy has got me wondering.
In Perseusland and Boogeyland, what do you do with criminals who suffer from incurable psychological disorders that can make them dangerous to the wider community? Do the regular penalties apply in exactly the same way as they normally would? Do you allow for people to be locked up indefinitely on these grounds or put under some sort of lifelong surveillance program?
LS, I'm quite in agreement that he should have received a fair trial and punishment under the existing laws, rather than the way the process was conducted.
Also, I don't think it's so much the "shrill left" that would prevent the Attorney General trying for a second round, but the double jeopardy rules in law which, as I understand them, prevent him being tried and sentenced a second time for the same crimes.
Alex, in Boogeyland, when people have psychological disorders that are a danger to others, you deprive them of their liberties and rights only to the minimum extent required to protect others, and no more.
Alternatively, you deport them back to Perseusland where they can take up cushy parliament jobs.
Ooh, good question Alex...
LMAO great answer, Boogey!
WitchOneland we kill them.
I often feel this way too, but I'm also aware that my gut feelings probably don't equate to a well balanced justice system.
you deprive them of their liberties and rights only to the minimum extent required to protect others, and no more.
I'm probably just being pedantic about this, but the thought that nags at me is how you put that ideal into practice. I guess you have a doctor do an assessment and then give a grading on how likely they are to re-offend. Then you have to decide on a cutoff point at which they can be re-integrated back into the community. What's an acceptable level of risk? 10-15%? Do you chip them and track them via GPS? Does that actually lower the risk of re-offense? Do you pay for them to have a 24hr escort? Do you have special institutions for these people that are nicer than regular prison? Are there other options?
Do you pay for them to have a 24hr escort?
The great state of Boogeyland does not pay for prostitutes for recidivists, no matter how theraputic the shrinks think it might be.
Might keep them out of trouble.
Funnily enough, I had a prositutte jump in my car this morning when I had just parked on the street for work. Damn woman thought I was trying to pick her up, and hopped into the passenger seat before I could stop her.
After I told her, in no uncertain terms, that a) I wasn't interested in her services, b) I most certainly had never met her before, and c) could she please leave my car, she had the cheek to claim my nondescript and somewhat broken black umbrella was hers (and therefore I must be a previous client). In the end I told her to take the umbrella with her, and wished her many happy uses of it.
I laugh about it now, but at the time I did wonder how Hugh Grant might have handled such a situation.
Also, for any police officers reading this I'd like to point out that the old, broken $10 umbrella from Sydney's Paddy's markets was a gift, not payment for services.
In Perseusland we, umm, train people in, umm, law and stuff, and have judges and shit. I dunno. My role is ceremonial.
But I tell you this: Pedos get very long custodial sentences and when they get out they're reportin' in daily, and like fuck they're gettin' a job with or near kids.
And Hicks can't own weapons.
Oh, and if their 'incurable psychological disorder' is a) incurable, and b) dangerous, then yes, they are kept away forever, called the Peter Dupas law.
I'm spending my next holiday in Witchonestan where the pedos are killed. Though I wouldn't have capital punishment in Perseusland, quite happy for others to do so, especially if they're knocking off the pedos.
Yeah, suuuuure Boogey.
I had a prositutte jump in my car this morning when I had just parked on the street for work.
So, either you work out of your car or you have hookers working the street outside your place of business during business hours? Must be a nice part of town.
I work in Fortitude Valley, I park a few streets away in New Farm, she wasn't tarted up like a hooker, and this is the first time I've seen a prostitute around there anyway.
To be honest, when she first approached my car and opened my door, I thought she was a resident about to tell me not to park in front of her house, or that the car in front was hers, and not to park her in, or something.
"I parked my car, and a lady who I assumed was a concerned neighbour, entered my vehicle, and in exchange for her kindly words, I gave her an umbrella so that she may walk unhindered in the rain."
Boogeyman, echoing this bloke
Wow. That's the kind of opportunistic and aggressive business attitude you can't help but admire. I wonder how many other unsuspecting motorists she's jumped in with, and how many broken umbrellas and other assorted bits and pieces she's walked away with.
A whole new take on "car-jacking".
Australia has a 2nd Innings lead of 200, and Tony Greig makes his first of many references to Bowen mangos for the season.
Poor old wari is in transit for a day or so and misses almost the whole thing. Suunds like Perseus needed some support against the legions of "civil libertarians" out there.
Boogey, you never answered my hypothetical question. The Taliban invade tomorrow, who does David Hicks fight for? You know the answer, but support him still on some cerebral grounds. It's like saying paedophiles are still salvagable human beings despite what they've done, they've "paid their debt to society" type drivel. Maybe some of them are, but shouldn't we give our kids the benefit of the doubt rather than them? It's so easy to minimise what Hicks did, but basically he made hmself our enemy.
And thanks Sydney, we turn up here and it brings on a "cold snap". We froze our tits off today and are supposedly doing the zoo tomorrow. I can't wait.
The Taliban invade tomorrow, who does David Hicks fight for? You know the answer, but support him still on some cerebral grounds.
Did you ask that question, wari? If I didn't answer it, perhaps it was because it was so effing stupid.
How the fuck can I predict who David Hicks would fight for in your far-fetched hypothetical? Who knows if he thinks and believes the same things today that he did 8 years ago.
Are you suggesting that we should keep David Hicks under close watch because of the extremely unlikely event that a minor regime of a small landlocked country on the other side of the world might invade us??? Or that if they did, he'd go, "oh, I've learned nothing in 8 years, hello guys, I'm back!"
As I said earlier (and which I presume you ignored) the AFP no longer think he's a threat. So why do you, with all your armchair expertise on Mr Hicks, know better than the federal police, with their access to all available intelligence on him?
Perhaps they know what you can't seem to let go of - David Hicks is no longer a threat. There are bigger threats out there to consume their limited resources.
Lastly, this "Hicks = pedophile" bullshit is cheap and nasty, wari. This is the essence of your argument:
a) Hicks = pedophile
b) You support Hicks' release
c) OMG therefore you support pedophiles being released to prey upon our children!!!
It's such a stupid analogy you'll excuse me not wasting my time repeating my earlier disputation of it, when Perseus tried it on for size.
Surely ASIO, in cohorts with the CIA, will phone-tap Hicks until the day he dies. That they'll keep tabs on all his O/S travels I feel that all this is suffice.
I'm not sure who I am agreeing with, but he should not be given a gun licence. My Uncle* has guns galore thanks to his Olympic shooting abilities yet he must go though rigorous screening** very year to ensure he hasn't become mentally unstable or has gained a police record.
* Sorry for the rellie analogy Boogey, but he is the only Australian I know who legally owns a gun/guns.
**This may differ from State to State I suppose
What Homseick said.
And Boogeyman, you know very well that we aren't saying Hicks = Pedo.
We are responding to your comments...
"don't promote placing sanctions on someone for their beliefs, past or current, or their 'potential' to be a threat..."
and
an open-ended requirement to regularly report to police, and be subject to a ongoing curfew, is a punitive measure out of proportion to a crime committed 7 years ago
which, assuming that's the law in Boogeyland, may allow for pedophiles to work in kindergartens.
Point Wari and I are making is: If the AFP decided Hicks was still a risk and decided to keep his sanctions in place, then so be it. It is not for Get Up! to waste money on videos and promotion in support of Hicks' 'liberties' should Hicks still be considered dangerous.
As it is, the AFP reckons he's not so much a risk anymore. Fine. Whatever. Good, in fact. Good luck to Hicks.
But if he still reckoned Jews had to die in jihad, then fuck him... NO GUNS FOR HICKS.
And what Loose Shunter said as well. people have to get their heads around the fact that Hicks did commit a serious crime. Not a retrosepective one either... an actual one.
His punishment in G-Bay may have been over the top but that's another argument entirely.
No Perseus, Wari was saying quite clearly that he considers the Hicks situation equivalent to the situation faced with a pedophile jailed and then up for release.
A pedophile is assessed as having a psychological disorder that doesn't go away with imprisonment or treatment - they continue to believe that intimate relations with children are normal, and/or continue to lack the impulse control to prevent them acting on their desires. That makes them a continuing threat.
Hicks chose to fight with the Taliban based on beliefs he had at the time. No one is suggesting that those actions were based on a psychological disorder that continues to make him a threat.
By equating Hicks to a pedophile, you essentially say that all jailed criminals are non-rehabilitatable, and cannot be released into the wider community without constant monitoring or ongoing sanctions.
You might object to Get Up! wasting money helping Hicks push for further freedom, but the likelihood is that if they did not do so, the AFP probably would maintain the status quo and keep the control order in place, regardless of whether it was justified or not. By making a noise about it, it forced the AFP to actually make a decision whether he is a genuine risk or not and to justify it to the courts.
You also need to get your head around the notion that if the 'facts' of Hicks' crime, that you believe in so strongly, were so clear cut and heinous and supported by evidence, then there would have been no need for the Bush administration to conduct his trial and incarceration the dodgy way they did, or change his charges along the way, or make any bargains in return for a guilty plea.
What a healthy debate.
Boogey, you're taking my paedophile analogy far too literally and you probably know it. I'm talking about the concept of crime and punishment. I suppose it's people either pushing him as pure as driven snow and he's being treated "sooo unfairly", or the "he's just a misguided nutjob so leave him alone" line. Hicks is an arsehole and I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. Can we not forget, no matter how long ago it was, that he took up arms against us and our allies.
Completely dismissing my "who would he fight for" question as being too unlikely to even bother considering is a cop out.
In the meantime can we feel sorry for me? It was freezing again in Sydney today. The sun's out now and we're off to Paddy's Market.
I'll check in later. Don't be too mean to me Boogey, it's Hicks I've got the problem with and you're better at presenting a cogent argument than me. I wonder if he Googles himself? He may join us later.
If he can read that is.
Completely dismissing my "who would he fight for" question as being too unlikely to even bother considering is a cop out.
I dismissed it because you can't seriously propose control orders on someone based on abstract hypotheticals.
And you won't stimulate rational debate on crime and punishment by whipping out the "ooh, won't someone think of the children" line about pedophiles.
As per my earlier statements, you punish people for actions, not beliefs. Even someone who believes Jews are scum and has taken up arms against us in the past, provided he has completed all the punishment the court of law has dished out, deserves to be punished in the future on only those actions they take, not on what you suspect they might do. If David Hicks starts communicating with Al-Queda, or buying up large quantities of fertilizer, then propose a new control order.
If David Hicks starts communicating with Al-Queda, or buying up large quantities of fertilizer, then propose a new control order.
But how do we know if he is without keeping an eye on him?
Is this called a mandala?
Obviously part of me agrees with you. If we never accept that anyone who ever committed a crime is truly repentant, then we would need an infinite number of police or parole officers.
But I've got you on a techie. You still don't answer the question, "Who would he fight for?"
And as an aside, I'm still not sure whether the question mark should be inside or outside the quotation marks. Ramon (may he rest in peace) says inside, but another ELit major friend says outside.
The wind has died off but it's still overcast and cold. Feels like Melbourne. Emma says, "This is a really nice hotel room Daddy, but it's soooooo cold"
"Who would he fight for?"
Ah, but would he fight?
Unless you can answer that second question, and you can't, it's a pointless waste of time to even argue about this. What's the point of a hypothetical? So we can give a hypothetical answer that would support your argument? It doesn't work like that.
For all things grammar and punctuation, refer to Strunk and White, or Fowler, or Aus Govt Style Manual. Mine aren't here so I can't look it up, but I would say question mark inside quotation marks, unless you are somehow questioning what is inside the quotation marks.
But how do we know if he is without keeping an eye on him?
Wari, I can assure you that the AFP and ASEO can and do keep tabs on people they suspect of terrorist activities. I'm quite sure over the next few years they'll take an active interest in Mr Hicks' activities.
But that's not the same thing as imposing an individual curfew and requiring regular reporting to police. That's more in the realm of someone who is considered an imminent threat.
Besides, I doubt Al Queda will ever have much use for such a front-page star. They prefer their operatives to be more anonymous.
You still don't answer the question, "Who would he fight for?"
I didn't answer that because I can't. I can't predict the actions of another man. I can't always predict my own. Nor could you convict him on your predictions, so what's the point?
I Dunno. And right now I've got an unhappy 7 year old who wants to go to 10 pin bowling. When did the Kingpin thing start at Darling Harbour?
You win boogey, have a lovely night.
With his vehemence and his refusal to give a microcron of an inch, Boogey always wins eventually.
And you are not the same, Perseus?
You didn't convince me of your arguments and I'm quite sure I didn't convinced you of mine. No one won. Stop sulking.
My arguments collapsed like a card-tower!
But see, whereas Boogeyland runs on wisdom, fairness and law, Perseusland runs on instinct and kneejerkism, and therefore, people like Wari and I who think Hicks is a total CuntCunt for actively assisting the enemy, will never totally come around to your way of thinking wisely and roundedly... and thank god that we're not judges. The court system does much better without emotive types like me on the bench.
I'm not sooking at all. I've enjoyed the debate.
As did I. Even though I didn't agree with you, I'll still respect you in the morning.
As a parent, I get emotional about many crimes, particularly those that involve children, but I realise one can't have laws based on such feelings. And the flipside is that one day it could be my child that commits a crime, and if that ever occurred, I'd want them to accept their punishment, but also be treated with fairness.
Fair dinkum Boogey, acting reasonably if something happened to your kids?
You are definitely a better man than me. All rational behaviour would be out the window.
In terms of my own doing something wrong, I agree with Witchie (I'm back to just agreeing with everyone again), come down hard the first time. The main thing of course is to love them and if they love you back enough they won't want to do something that would upset you. Sounds trite I know but 3 kids down the track I'm firmly convinced that the real key is keeping them close and it's like osmosis. If you're a good person and you have a close relationship with them they'll turn out ok too. Most of the time. My children are almost perfect, like me.
I know you're all deeply concerned, but Sydney looks much better this morning. Any outdoor activity was off the cards yesterday. So it looks like we're off to the zoo for sure today.
I can't wait.
Witchie, that sounds like what my father did to me. My sister stole a packet of chewing gum when we lived in PNG, and of course she blamed it on me (she was the golden child who could do no wrong, but was actually an evil bitch). My dad took me down the back of the store and turned on the meat slicer. Then he took my hand and threatened to put it through the meat slicer, because that's what they do to thieves up there - chop their hands off (or at least, they threaten to). I really thought he was going to do it too, because my hand was only inches from the machine before he turned it off. Then he locked me in the cold room for 5 minutes and turned off all the lights.
It worked on me, even though I wasn't the one who stole the chewing gum. I've been a rule follower ever since. My sister, on the other hand...
Gees Puss, I wouldn’t be surprised if you become a fully fledged claustrophobic too.
Haha. I think I might have been for a little while! It was rather traumatic for a 6 year old.
Fair dinkum Boogey, acting reasonably if something happened to your kids?
I didn't say that. I said I get emotional when I hear of crimes that involve children, but I realise you can't make laws based on those emotions. In other words, judges and courts have to be fair to both the victim and the transgressor. But of course in such a situation if my children were the victims I'd be highly biased.
Also, if it so happened that a child of mine were a transgressor, I'd hope they were treated fairly by the courts, and not made into a public scapegoat for the anxieties and emotions of the general populace.
Nicely won argument, Boogey.
Witchone it shits me when parents march their kids down to the police station to scare them if they do some minor kid crime. Waste of police resources and I don't think lying to kids achieves anything in the long run.
Working off the cost of things doesn't sound like a bad idea, but you totally got duped on the rate of pay.
Confiscation of precious objects is always a good tactic too.
No-one would get locked up for stealing butter menthols. If that's the way you wish to parent, go ahead. It's not what I will be doing.
Does this mean I'm not President of Boogeyland anymore? Pity, I had such big plans. On the plus side, it would mean I can spend more time with Steve Brachs Family.
What will you do if your kids take up underage smoking, Witchone?
March them around to cancer wards?
Why do you think that would be a bad idea, louche?
I think the cancer ward is actually a good idea.
I just thought it would be an ironic form of punishment for a child who was treated to smoke in utero.
Yeh, stop harping on the utero stuff. My parents both smoked and I'm perfectly normal. (NB: this is meant to be humorous)
NB2: I feel like such a weiner dog for not ever having nicked anything :( I was a thick child. I don't think I ever thought of it.
I once lifa matchbox car from K-Mart. I was so wracked with guilt I went back to return it and got caught putting it back.
Post a Comment