| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | I don't think the game's called until someone actually digs up some meaningful statistics. Neither of us have done that, so the game's been cancelled due to a rain of gut feelings. 
I agree with your last point - better ten years than forever - but I would question the need to have any automatic exclusions for convicted crims. I dunno, I want to see a case for it. Logically, if they're safe to walk the streets at home, why should a foreign country be any different? |
You mean like the guy that came from somewhere and raped a few Australian woman? A refugee with a criminal history if I remember rightly?
Yep he's served his time over there, go some where else where no one recognizes you and have some more fun hey?
I'm guessing your not fond of the Facebook pages that outs the convicted pedophiles that move into communities with lots of lovely kiddies ripe for the picking?
And no, I don't believe everyone deserves a second chance, some people just give up that right by their own actions.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There are people without criminal records who come here and commit rapes. There are also (considerably more) people who are born here and commit rapes, with or without a criminal record. What's your point?
The fact that someone has a criminal record does not indicate that they will commit further criminal acts, just as there is no guarantee that someone without a criminal record won't.
That is not to say that I necessarily oppose a government taking a look at a visa applicant's history and making a decision on the grounds of community safety. Perhaps that provision is needed. But obviously nobody seriously thought that Brown was a threat to anyone here. This was about making a point, and I think it was a bad one.
(Oh, and of course I oppose those pages. Did you need to ask? )
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How the hell does that little turd Beiber get in the country? Oh that's right, he is white. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | There are people without criminal records who come here and commit rapes. There are also (considerably more) people who are born here and commit rapes, with or without a criminal record. What's your point?
The fact that someone has a criminal record does not indicate that they will commit further criminal acts, just as there is no guarantee that someone without a criminal record won't.
That is not to say that I necessarily oppose a government taking a look at a visa applicant's history and making a decision on the grounds of community safety. Perhaps that provision is needed. But obviously nobody seriously thought that Brown was a threat to anyone here. This was about making a point, and I think it was a bad one.
(Oh, and of course I oppose those pages. Did you need to ask? ) |
and yet you object to asylum seekers going through that exact process?
it takes time and money
basing a persons probability to commit criminal acts on their past history is a good place to start. or do you wipe the slate clean every day? everyone gets a new chance? it aint ground hog day
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | yet you object to asylum seekers going through that exact process?
it takes time and money |
I don't at all actually. I see no reason to oppose a process of examining refugees' claims and making a decision on whether to accept them or not, and I'm not even categorically opposed to it happening within specially designated facilities provided the process is quick and efficient. I do think it would be a lot better if this were done within the community, however.
Obviously little of that is relevant for foreigners applying for short-term work visas. But again, I'm happy for governments to be permitted to say no in extreme circumstances.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So he should. This wackjob is no different to the holocaust deniers. Do we really want to see repeats of workers and patients being harassed and in one case a security guard with a young family murdered.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | There are people without criminal records who come here and commit rapes. There are also (considerably more) people who are born here and commit rapes, with or without a criminal record. What's your point? |
Once they get caught and convicted they get a criminal record.
| Quote: |
The fact that someone has a criminal record does not indicate that they will commit further criminal acts, just as there is no guarantee that someone without a criminal record won't.
That is not to say that I necessarily oppose a government taking a look at a visa applicant's history and making a decision on the grounds of community safety. Perhaps that provision is needed. But obviously nobody seriously thought that Brown was a threat to anyone here. This was about making a point, and I think it was a bad one.
(Oh, and of course I oppose those pages. Did you need to ask? ) |
Although past behaviour is the best predictor of how someone will behave in the future.
The fact that someone has served their time doesn't make them rehabilitated, particularly considering they generally have no opportunity to reoffend inside.
So countries generally want to see that someone has been able to not reoffend after some time back in the community before they let them into their country.
Nothing wrong with that.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not sure what I think of this one. Inciting people to violence is against the law, and for good reason, but is calling for capital punishment really the same thing? It's a tough one to weigh up, keeping in mind that it's not always about what's said so much as what it might lead people to do. But if there's any doubt, I'd always rather err on the side of free speech.
Would it have been so hard for him to be told what he could and could not say? Or, again, is this less about risk management than public image?
I doubt we'll hear much logical discussion of this, though; most people can only see the issue at hand and will have made up their minds already.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Would it have been so hard for him to be told what he could and could not say? Or, again, is this less about risk management than public image? . |
That makes no sense to me 
Is that not censorship? And if there is enough to concern to censor what he or anyone else may say whilst in this country then why grant them a visa to come and speak?
I find his position obnoxious BUT it ain't like you can't find read/ listen to his thoughts on the interwebby thing - so you either let him come and speak or you don't!
Brown is a different kettle of fish - he has a conviction ? 5 years ago for a serious assault on his partner - but it seems he hasn't " reformed" he has recent violations of his probation that are violent/ assault based - he fails any semblence of the good character test - he should be banned because of his apparent anger management issues and predisposition to violence - not just because he has domestic violence conviction which is " flavour of the month" -
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ronrat wrote: |
So he should. This wackjob is no different to the holocaust deniers. Do we really want to see repeats of workers and patients being harassed and in one case a security guard with a young family murdered. |
Sure, can't have people who display wrongthink here to maybe convince someone through the evils of talking that their views might have some legitimacy. If your point of view is so weak that you have to ban your opponents from even discussing their point of view then maybe you need to take a good hard look at yourself.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/australia-blocks-travel-pro-lifer-helped-produce-baby-parts-videos/
More info there, he was the guy who showed the evil shit that planned parenthood have been doing in the USA (selling baby parts from the aborted).
We've BANNED someone from coming here to talk because we don't like their viewpoint. **** that. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | David wrote: | | Would it have been so hard for him to be told what he could and could not say? Or, again, is this less about risk management than public image? . |
That makes no sense to me
Is that not censorship? And if there is enough to concern to censor what he or anyone else may say whilst in this country then why grant them a visa to come and speak? |
The way I see it, we have certain laws here regarding what you can and cannot say you cannot incite other people to commit violent acts, for instance. That applies to locals and foreigners alike; both can face criminal charges if it's found that they've broken the law in this way. But if you've said something dodgy in the past, does that mean that you should no longer be given the chance to speak your mind in public in a more nuanced and lawful manner?
I don't know. Again, if we can allow locals with questionable views to say their piece here, I don't see why we have to stop people from overseas wishing to do the same. I get Stui's point above re: exercising a higher standard so as to stay on the safe side, but this just seems like a bit of a cynical PR move to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | The way I see it, we have certain laws here regarding what you can and cannot say you cannot incite other people to commit violent acts, for instance. That applies to locals and foreigners alike; both can face criminal charges if it's found that they've broken the law in this way. But if you've said something dodgy in the past, does that mean that you should no longer be given the chance to speak your mind in public in a more nuanced and lawful manner? |
We also have certain laws that require you to have a visa to enter this country - obviously this tool doesn't think laws apply to him at all seeing he boarded a plane to Australia knowing full well that his visa had been cancelled!
Good call to ban him - if he thinks he is above our country's immigration laws fair chance he wasn't going to take much notice of what you can and cant say.
Was ambivalent about him coming or not - BUT now I am thrilled they cancelled his visa - put the bible bashing arrogant yokel on the first plane home to join his fellow fruit loops!!
Oh and that's gonna cost the airline that let him board a pretty penny that's for sure.
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It is certainly a strange move on his part. He wants to be a martyr and to his fellow travellers, he already is but I can only see him losing whatever external sympathy he might have had through this stunt.
Still, nobody ever said these people were great tactical thinkers.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | It is certainly a strange move on his part. He wants to be a martyr and to his fellow travellers, he already is but I can only see him losing whatever external sympathy he might have had through this stunt.
Still, nobody ever said these people were great tactical thinkers. |
Now he has broken the law by coming to the country illegally. Why isn't he on Manus Island or Nauru? That would be more consistent with your argument about race / colour / ethnicity.
He apparently advocates killing of people involved in the termination of pregnancies including Doctors & Nurses etc. A prominent american supporter has served time for making plans to bomb a fertility clinic.
While I don't think banning him is the right thing to do, now he has disrespected Australian law he should be punished accordingly: for me his behaviour with respect to disobeying Australian law & entering Australia illegally should be punished - his views on 'Termination of pregnancy' (TOP) as it's known in the nursing & medical professions is now irrelevant due to his behaviour.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
