Hilary or Donald

[good4whatAlesU]

You have the 'right' to remain silent. You have the 'right' to legal counsel.

We have a constitution, we don't (arguably) require a bill of rights.

"Civil" - relating to ordinary citizens.
"Liberty" - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions ... (etc).

People can choose (take up, forgo, waive) anything they like, so long as it's available to them within the law.

 

[JDW81]

Catch up.

I do apologise, Manticle. I've been working nights and clearly wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been.

I'll be more thorough next time.

JD

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Drawing a long bow between the KKK and Muslim women .... I mean the KKK are actual terrorsists

Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.
And as for women's dress code I see your happy to go along with the Islamic fundamentalists and keep them covered up, are you also happy to go along with everything else they preach about how women should be treated, I now understand why your ex wife threw the telly at you.

 

[manticle]

You have the 'right' to remain silent. You have the 'right' to legal counsel.

We have a constitution, we don't (arguably) require a bill of rights.

"Civil" - relating to ordinary citizens.
"Liberty" - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions ... (etc). [/size]

People can choose (take up, forgo, waive) anything they like, so long as it's available to them within the law.

Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.

 

[manticle]

Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.
And as for women's dress code I see your happy to go along with the Islamic fundamentalists and keep them covered up, are you also happy to go along with everything else they preach about how women should be treated, I now understand why your wife threw the telly at you.

Your bows are getting even longer.

The bill was never about respect for women but keep blocking your ears. Point's been laboured enough.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.

In the same way that the IRA are not either....

From Wikipeadia

In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[80] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[81]

 

[Dave70]

Now tell me this is the free society you all seem to imagine we live in.

Perception is reality. Like Mr Humphreys said, 'I'm free!, I''m free!'. Much of the perceived infringements on out 'rights' is the stuff of tin foil hattery. When was the last time you actually heard of someone being finned for offering a reward for 'no questions asked return of stolen property' in Tasmania or South Australia? (Technically punishable by a $500 fine in both states).

A pub is a place for people 18 years and over, like its says on the door - a church is not. Neither is my daughters pre school, or my sons soccer game. If you exercise your 'right' to scream obscenity at either of the latter, being forcibly removed is the appropriate response.
You're pushing at an open door with me when you imply we're over governed and over lawed, but there's nothing physically preventing you from doing as you please.
Todays public square is infinitely more far reaching than a crank with a bullhorn. Last time I checked the internet (at least in the west) was free of censorship. You can start a blog that will reach millions today denying the Holocaust all you want without fear of harassment.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.

True, in some NSW laws they can use "your right to say nothing" against you. Basically if you say nothing they can go to court and say they refused to answer questiions

 

[Dave70]

True, in some NSW laws they can use "your right to say nothing" against you. Basically if you say nothing they can go to court and say they refused to answer questiions

You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases.
Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.

Correct but it is offered nonetheless as a civil liberty. You can waive that liberty or take it up, as is your choice.

I believe it is time for Australia to cut the apron strings, put on our big boy pants and form our own republic.

 

[manticle]

You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases.
Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.

Yes but as far as I understand, exercising your right to silence/refusing to answer questions can be taken into account during trial in NSW (only) by jurors. In other states/territories it is not disclosed to jurors.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases.
Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.

Yep

But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Correct but it is offered nonetheless as a civil liberty. You can waive that liberty or take it up, as is your choice.

I believe it is time for Australia to cut the apron strings, put on our big boy pants and form our own republic.

The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

• the right to freedom of religion and;
• the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)

 

[Dave70]

Yep

But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it

The 'where is the bomb' scenario is an interesting one. As is the real world case of the 'where is the car with the child in it'. Should the cops be able to smack you around (effective torturing you) to get answers when the clock is ticking? Yes, would be my answer, at least in this instance.

Scroll down to case study 3:1 - The Beating.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MorJusForOneOffActTorEme

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

The 'where is the bomb' scenario is an interesting one. As is the real world case of the 'where is the car with the child in it'. Should the cops be able to smack you around (effective torturing you) to get answers when the clock is ticking? Yes, would be my answer, at least in this instance.

Scroll down to case study 3:1 - The Beating.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MorJusForOneOffActTorEme

Worked well for the QLD police force for years...Yellow Pages anyone...

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Yep

But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it

And what if you are asked to point which way the bomber went? .. and you don't (or can't) because your sight was restricted by the clothing you choose to be wearing and you can't show your hands. Can you go down for it? .. I would say no, unless it can be demonstrated you are deliberately averting the course of justice (which could conceivably happen - but would be very difficult to prove).

 

[Dave70]

Worked well for the QLD police force for years...Yellow Pages anyone...

I heard the app is far less persuasive.

 

[pcmfisher]

The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;

1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.

Outside of that, persons can waive (forgo) utilisation of their available civil liberties if they like by choice. That's up to them.

Excuse me ma'am. You do know that you do not have to wear your burqua in Australia.

Yes I know, but i choose to waive my civil liberties and wear it anyway.

That's lucky, because if you said your husband made you wear it, you would have to remove it.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Excuse me ma'am. You do know that you do not have to wear your burqua in Australia.

Yes I know, but i choose to waive my civil liberties and wear it anyway.

That's lucky, because if you said your husband made you wear it, you would have to remove it.

Edit: "You could choose to remove it at your own discretion, that's up to you"

 

[manticle]

And what if you are asked to point which way the bomber went? .. and you don't (or can't) because your sight was restricted by the clothing you choose to be wearing and you can't show your hands. Can you go down for it? .. I would say no, unless it can be demonstrated you are deliberately averting the course of justice (which could conceivably happen - but would be very difficult to prove).

At least if their hands are bound by cloth, they won't be able to reach as far as you are evidently trying.