Entries tagged with democracy [Learn from the mistakes of others]

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

FedGov.AU is resisting concerns that it's processes are undemocratic, rejecting advice from it's own review that it's laws and processes are not transparent, too complex, too vague, and basically unfair. Nothing new then really.

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

The ACT is supposedly a self-governing territory - but this FedGov is quite happy to impose it's own will on the ACT and the NT. Apparently allowing homosexuals to have civil unions "undermines" heterosexual marriage.

Frankly, heterosexuals are doing that quite fine for themselves. No law, be it FedGov Family law or otherwise can make people take anything seriously. Let alone resile form fucking each over after they've (usually) stopped fucking each other.

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET

The UK has now taken over from the Australian Government in efforts to press for the release of Australian David Hicks. Since our FedGov doesn't believe Australian Citizenship means anything more than the joy of being taxed in Aussie dollars - if you're lucky enough to still have a job that pays enough to be taxed - Mr Hicks et al have turned to the UK for assistance.

Basically, our FedGov has been clear - it supports Family Values - so long as that means parents are out working ASAP, doing whatever their employers desire, for whatever the employer is prepared to part with, and under whatever terms they're offered. "Flexibility" in the workplace is code for "You'll do as your told, and like it". They want women to be breeding - so long as they're married to a male. And if they're not, they're damned irresponsible.

FedGov has a 1950s vision of social life, an 1850s vision of employment conditions, and a AU$7.50 vision for the minimum wage.

Mood::

gloomy

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

FedGov.AU is resisting concerns that it's processes are undemocratic, rejecting advice from it's own review that it's laws and processes are not transparent, too complex, too vague, and basically unfair. Nothing new then really.

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

The ACT is supposedly a self-governing territory - but this FedGov is quite happy to impose it's own will on the ACT and the NT. Apparently allowing homosexuals to have civil unions "undermines" heterosexual marriage.

Frankly, heterosexuals are doing that quite fine for themselves. No law, be it FedGov Family law or otherwise can make people take anything seriously. Let alone resile form fucking each over after they've (usually) stopped fucking each other.

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET

The UK has now taken over from the Australian Government in efforts to press for the release of Australian David Hicks. Since our FedGov doesn't believe Australian Citizenship means anything more than the joy of being taxed in Aussie dollars - if you're lucky enough to still have a job that pays enough to be taxed - Mr Hicks et al have turned to the UK for assistance.

Basically, our FedGov has been clear - it supports Family Values - so long as that means parents are out working ASAP, doing whatever their employers desire, for whatever the employer is prepared to part with, and under whatever terms they're offered. "Flexibility" in the workplace is code for "You'll do as your told, and like it". They want women to be breeding - so long as they're married to a male. And if they're not, they're damned irresponsible.

FedGov has a 1950s vision of social life, an 1850s vision of employment conditions, and a AU$7.50 vision for the minimum wage.

Mood::

gloomy

There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Friday, April 21, 2006
CIA fires employee for leaking classified information
Jeannie Shawl at 4:22 PM ET

[JURIST] A US Central Intelligence Agency [official website] employee has been fired for leaking classified information and having unauthorized discussions with the media, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said Friday. Though Gimigliano declined to elaborate, a law enforcement officer has said that the leak led to last November's report in the Washington Post detailing allegations that the CIA has operated secret prisons in Europe [JURIST report] for alleged al Qaeda detainees. The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a criminal investigation is also underway, but that has not yet been confirmed by the US Justice Department.

When the report of secret prisons came out in the press, members of Congress quickly called for an investigation into the source of the leak [JURIST report], and the Justice Department said that it would consider opening a criminal investigation [JURIST report] at the behest of the CIA.

AP has more.

The CIA don't like whistle-blowers. They just fuck up the party.

We can't have any transparency, let alone accountability, in a democracy like the USA. That'd be giving aid to the 'enemy'™ ... not the the Democrats have shown any signs of being capable of doing anything - let alone undermine the Republicans through some active initative of their own. Much like our Labor Party, who may finally get a stab at something - but only because the ruling Conservatives have imploded.

Mood::

indescribable

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Friday, April 21, 2006
CIA fires employee for leaking classified information
Jeannie Shawl at 4:22 PM ET

[JURIST] A US Central Intelligence Agency [official website] employee has been fired for leaking classified information and having unauthorized discussions with the media, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said Friday. Though Gimigliano declined to elaborate, a law enforcement officer has said that the leak led to last November's report in the Washington Post detailing allegations that the CIA has operated secret prisons in Europe [JURIST report] for alleged al Qaeda detainees. The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a criminal investigation is also underway, but that has not yet been confirmed by the US Justice Department.

When the report of secret prisons came out in the press, members of Congress quickly called for an investigation into the source of the leak [JURIST report], and the Justice Department said that it would consider opening a criminal investigation [JURIST report] at the behest of the CIA.

AP has more.

The CIA don't like whistle-blowers. They just fuck up the party.

We can't have any transparency, let alone accountability, in a democracy like the USA. That'd be giving aid to the 'enemy'™ ... not the the Democrats have shown any signs of being capable of doing anything - let alone undermine the Republicans through some active initative of their own. Much like our Labor Party, who may finally get a stab at something - but only because the ruling Conservatives have imploded.

Mood::

indescribable

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Monday, February 27, 2006
UK bill amounts to abolishing Parliament, warn Cambridge law professors
Alexandria Samuel at 11:00 AM ET

[JURIST] Six law professors at Cambridge University have warned that an innocuous-sounding bill now going through Parliament would give UK government ministers the power to abolish jury trials, place citizens under house arrest, and rewrite the law on nationality and immigration, all without Parliamentary consent. In a letter [text] published Sunday in the Times of London, the scholars urged MPs to take another at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill [text], which has already received a second hearing and could be adopted as early as next month, and "recognize the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late." In the name of enabling ministers to cut regulations for business, the bill provides in clause 1 that:
A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes: a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes
Supporters of the bill maintain that the power given to ministers is slight, and note limitations such as a restriction on new crimes invented by ministers, and the prohibition against the creation of new taxes. But in a separate op-ed [text] in The Times, David Howarth, a Reader in Law at Cambridge and also the Liberal Democrat MP for the area, took another view, noting that "All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voila , the law is changed.":
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for "controversial" matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to "uncontroversial" issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.

As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm". This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now.
The legislative proposal comes at a time when British jurists of various political stripes are becoming increasingly concerned [JURIST report] with undue extensions of power by the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, now in its third term.

The Epoch Times has more.

Mood::

surprised

Music:: parasite eve 2

There are 3 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Monday, February 27, 2006
UK bill amounts to abolishing Parliament, warn Cambridge law professors
Alexandria Samuel at 11:00 AM ET

[JURIST] Six law professors at Cambridge University have warned that an innocuous-sounding bill now going through Parliament would give UK government ministers the power to abolish jury trials, place citizens under house arrest, and rewrite the law on nationality and immigration, all without Parliamentary consent. In a letter [text] published Sunday in the Times of London, the scholars urged MPs to take another at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill [text], which has already received a second hearing and could be adopted as early as next month, and "recognize the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late." In the name of enabling ministers to cut regulations for business, the bill provides in clause 1 that:
A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes: a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes
Supporters of the bill maintain that the power given to ministers is slight, and note limitations such as a restriction on new crimes invented by ministers, and the prohibition against the creation of new taxes. But in a separate op-ed [text] in The Times, David Howarth, a Reader in Law at Cambridge and also the Liberal Democrat MP for the area, took another view, noting that "All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voila , the law is changed.":
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for "controversial" matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to "uncontroversial" issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.

As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm". This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now.
The legislative proposal comes at a time when British jurists of various political stripes are becoming increasingly concerned [JURIST report] with undue extensions of power by the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, now in its third term.

The Epoch Times has more.

Mood::

surprised

Music:: parasite eve 2

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

( beware: ranty ranting rantingness enclosed )

Mood::

indescribable

Music:: dido - life for rent

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

( beware: ranty ranting rantingness enclosed )

Music:: dido - life for rent

Mood::

indescribable

There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.

mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.

as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.

Mood::

cynical

There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)

here in australia, we do not have a bill or rights. or any comprehensive statement of individual and/or collective rights. our constitution provides very few guarantees for us, the people. unlike the usa or canada. indeed a great many industrialised democracies. practically all of our legal rights are set out in subordinate legislation. and further complicate dby the federal-state-territory distribution of powers and responsibilities.

the many arguments for and against a bill of rights in australia have been neatly summarised elsewhere by one of our high court justices, justice michael kirby (an internationally respected human rights jurist).

into this mess, we have the notion of the universal id card as a panacea for all manner of ills and wrongs. some of which arise because we lack a definitive statement of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individuals in our society.

mr howard, 'our' prime minister briefly supported a call from a state premier to introduce a national id card.

the age has since reported that the (federal) govt rules out national id card scheme.

as a bit of background, when a previous government suggested intorducing such a system, among it's loudest detracters was mr howard.

it's a very curious thing to see how easily even politicians are affected by their own efforts to induce short-term memory in the population.

Mood::

cynical

There are 3 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4 1	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Learn from the mistakes of others

Aussie Human Rights Debarcles

Aussie Human Rights Debarcles

CIA: We classified it so the fuckers wouldn't find out!

CIA: We classified it so the fuckers wouldn't find out!

UK bill amounts to abolishing Parliament, warn Cambridge law professors

UK bill amounts to abolishing Parliament, warn Cambridge law professors

memory

memory

to bor or not to bor, is there a question?

to bor or not to bor, is there a question?

May