The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

So JH will be at the cricket on the same day that Van Tuong Nguyen hangs? :

"I have a job that involves many responsibilities. It wasn't my decision that the execution take place on Friday," Mr Howard said on ABC radio.

What can you say to that? I don't know, really I don't ......

Meanwhile, back in Canberra, small IR concessions. There, see, the PM is really quite a reasonable chap, after all! :

Howard protects Xmas Day holiday
Steve Lewis and Samantha Maiden
November 28, 2005?the Australian

EMPLOYEES who refuse to work on key public holidays such as Christmas Day and Anzac Day will be protected from the sack under changes to the Howard Government's industrial relations reforms.

After sustained pressure from unions and Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, the Government has agreed to include new safeguards in the legislation.

The family-friendly concession comes as the Government begins a push to secure parliamentary backing for its industrial relations package in the next fortnight, before the Christmas recess.

However, the Government is still resisting calls to ensure workers who are rostered to work on Christmas Day or at Easter are guaranteed penalty rates; business groups strongly oppose any backdown on this issue. ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17383824%255E601,00.html

This grandstanding & breast beating by Barnaby J. is starting to really irritate me! So much grand standing to push only small concessions. And only those that matter to him. (Apparently he's a devout Christian, so Christmas Day, Easter, etc, are sacred to him.) So now you can't get sacked on Christmas Day for not working! I'm more concerned about the penalty payments many, many workers could lose very single weekend of the year. Now that's a much bigger deal in my book!

I admit to being totally cynical about Barnaby. Just another cog in the machine now.

And the IR legislation. I think many somewhat naieve Australians have seen a side of JH they weren't aware existed and they've seen the lie given to the reassurance that there would be no trampling of the Parliament by this government. The arrogance, the disdain for Parliament and its processes, is amazing. Both the Libs and the Nats deserve to be reduced to a rump after this coming election, an election which can't get here soon enough.

Now here's an interesting turn of events! What will JH & Ruddock make of this?:

Last Update: Monday, November 28, 2005. 5:39pm (AEDT)

Scrap sedition laws, senators urge

A Senate report into the Federal Government's anti-terrorism bill has recommended sweeping changes to the legislation, including the scrapping of sedition offences and extra protection for minors.

Coalition and Labor senators on the committee joined forces to recommend 52 changes.

The senators want the sedition provisions in the legislation scrapped until a public inquiry is held. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1518508.htm

Ruddock is going to ignore them apparently.

Well, what that's a surprise!

And what great moment it will be when those brave Liberal senators stick to their guns & vote against the legislation in defiance of Ruddock!








(Dream on, msolga, dream on! )

im sorry that i dont understand more about the process;
what is meant by "to secure parlimentary backing?"

dadpad I think it means to get all the Nationals onside and also to get Steve Fielding from Family First onside. They have to be rounded up so that the Govt has the numbers in the Senate. If Fielding went with the Opposition and others it would be 37 and if Boswell and Joyce opposed the bill then it would be 39 opposing and 37 for the bill. The Govt isn't going to risk losing this so they need to ensure that the Lib CP (NT) are onside, the Nats are onside and that Family First (Fielding) is onside. Then they are guaranteed the numbers.

Anyway that's my reading of it.

Senate numbers

Guess what: if you're a govt dept dealing with an issue in Barnaby's local area - make damn sure that you don't upset anyone who might complain to Barnaby before the IR vote.

Oh for a frank and fearless bureaucracy...

And and unpoliticised bureaucracy. Not that I blame JH's mob for that, it started happening years ago, but they've certainly capitalised on it.

As I understand it, if one hasn't posted for a while on a forum there is an implied concession. I have NOT CONCEDED A THING in relation to my post about Ngyuen nor the replies (except that dadpad and I have the same lines of thinking) - but do not have the time to give constructive replies as yet. Next week and I look forward to the debate.

Well I can only speak for me pragmatic but - I agree. I don't see the process of posting discussions as being somehow a war of attrition, last poster standing wins, sort of thing. I have to add that I've never seen anyone claim a "victory" here.

Anyway I will look forward to resuming the debate as well - it's interesting.

I say I say I say.

Apart from Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle, those posters who have replied to my first post about the Ngyuen issue (apart from dadpad) appear to hold some of the most extreme left-wing views I have ever read. I now put forward the following replies in the order of the replies to my first post.

1) Goodfielder: that this issue is one of politics not law. As I see it however, the whole conflict was over the right and correctness of the Singapore government's action and imposition of the death penalty, a decision based on Ngyuen's breach of Singapore law. I can't see where politics came in. I repeat here exactly what I said in my first post - the Singpore government established legal jurisdiction with the right to impose the attached punishment. No political issue arose. A legal issue, a moral issue if you may, but not a political issue.

2) Hingehead: that I was implying Australia should "shut up" about the issues you put forward. Certainly not. As you said - and I agree with you, opinions can be expressed. But there was a distinction between expression of opinions and what Australia was doing in relation to this issue: significant interference with another independent country's legal system, a country which had no connection to Australia except that it happened to be sentencing an Australian citizen which legal jurisdiction was established. The legal professions, academics and politicians were not merely expressing opinions about Singapore's decision, they were actively attempting to disturb and overturn the decision. This is beyond expressing opinions and that is what I criticise.

As for your two following examples - the stoning to death and the cutting of hands, yes I do support such punishments. I am a positivist - a country's law should be seperated from ideas of morality. As long as the conditions of passing this law to be of legal effect are satisfied, the law is right and if breached, the punishment is right, whether morally excessive or unfit. Yes this does mean that even the laws made in Germany during the Hitler regime is law and this is an internationally held view, an implied acknowledgement of positivism.

And if you're going to talk morals, well adultry, stealing and drug trafficking aren't exactly moral acts.

3) Msolga your post acknowledging that Nguyen's actions were wrong confused me, especially the next sentence - "But to die for it? No." Before I argue against this, I want to ask you - why not? Can you expand on your "No" response please?

4) In response to the comment "…you are punishing him for deaths of people who haven't died" - is that material whether people have died or not? Again back to the basics, he is being punished for an action he admitted to and which the Singapore government have classified as a crime. That suffices for the government to impose the punishment they see fit. I don't see how this can be argued against any further.

5) Hingehead in response to your post about whether Australia would have responded if Ngyuen wasn't a citizen I don't see the relevance to the question in issue - whether the Singapore government is "right" to impose the death penalty. However I am sure that the Singapore government will appreciate and agree with your comment "why should I react any different because it happened somewhere else?" As President Lee Hseign Loong said, "We hang our own, why should we treat foreigners any differently?" Why indeed?

In response to your comment that the death penalty has not been successful in reducing drug crimes in South-east Asia and possible cooperation within government ranks, I submit these issues are immaterial to whether the Singapore government has the right to impose the death penalty. What results in the punishment is the breaching of the law, not whether the punishment is successful or whether there is actually government encouragement. On your first point, in Australia, jailing offenders do not reduce reoffending and some criminals purposely reoffend, so much did they enjoy their period in jail. Should we therefore abandon the jail system? Failure in the system of punishment does not justify abandonment unless a proven better system can be imposed. I am sorry to say however, that if any system of punishment seems to be failing, it is the jail system in Australia.


6) Goodfielder in response to your two objections to the death penalty, I will address your second point - because of the ritualised cruelty. Quite simply, punishment is never pleasant and is always cruel in some nature. This is not a sufficient justification for abandonment of death penalty, more of a emotional objection as you pointed out.

In response to your first objection - the fear that an innocent person will be found guilty and therefore, as you are implying an innocnt person will be killed - this is also not a sufficient justification. If an innocent person is found guilty, they will suffer whatever punishment that particular society imposes, whether it be the death penalty, serving life in prison or be subjected to public and private humilation. In some cases, the latter two may be worse than being put to death. The Chamberlains were innocent but found guilty and although not put to death, they were subject to public humiliation, disbelief, embarrassment and eventually a suffered a divorce. To this day, many still believe they are guilty even though their names have been cleared. If people fear that an innocent person will be found guilty, I think the question does not lie on what punishment should be imposed, but rather - is there something wrong with that jurisdiction's legal and justice system?


Culture questions:
One final comment I direct to all posters is derived directly from dadpad's comment which I agree with completely - that laws are a response to environment and culture. Again and again I read the other poster's dismissal of the "culture excuse" and their putting forward certain examples of other cultural practices.

Firstly I will address the examples and argue that those examples put forward can be distinguished from the a cultural practice of the death penalty:

- Hingehead says female castration/getimal mutilation. Personally I find this practice absolutely unacceptable, like I find the cultural belief that an AIDS infected male will be cured if they sleep with a virgin repulsive. My disagreement however, is not founded on morality, but on the basis of physical health and well being - such practices are against hygeine of the victim and practiced through no fault of their own. It is forced upon them. Death penalty impositions can be distinguished: it is merely a punishment which resulted from the accused's own wrongdoings. Female castration doesn't even come close as an analogy in this context.

- As for your example of stoning to death and cutting of the hand, I have addressed that argument above. I gather you are against these laws. Why?

In response to Goodfeilder's comment that whereever state execution occurs, the place and culture is immaterial - how is it immaterial? Law is made by society according to what the government of that society sees as fit for that society in the certain circumstances and according to that society's beliefs. Right now the Singapore government sees state execution as a fit punishment for drug crimes. Drug smuggling is not a laughing matter, serious consequnces as a result of drugs arise, ranging from personal and family and, if they get serious enough, could topple a whole country. China's defeat in the opium wars was certainly not due to the fact that they had healthy young men ready for battle, but rather serious opium addiction - "all men had two guns in their hands, one was the army gun, the other was the opium gun." [Similar to today's drug bong pipes] was a very popular saying.

Likewise, the majority of Australian's believe that capital punishment is no longer appropriate and thus the legislature has passed a law to that effect. If Howard were to change the criminal code so that capital punishment was re-introduced, protestors would immediately put forward, among many justifications, arguments in relation to Australian/western culture and beliefs, would they not? Goodfeilder your objection to death penalty is due to your belief in the culture of non-ritualised-cruelty. Hinghead your objection involves your belief that "surely there are more humane ways of ending a person's life." Msolga believes that "putting someone to death is an inappropriate and archaic form of punishment…" . There, point proven. If you have the right to put forward your belief's and culture, why not the Singapore government, the Nigerian government and those operating under Sharian law?

Finally some personal views on this issue, mainly on the public's reaction. The behaviour of the Green's senator Kerry Nettle when she put forward the police document of the interview between Nyguen and the police in the hope of obtaining extradition absolutley ridicolous, laughable and insulting. Likewise so the actions of the barrister Brian Walters SC when he attempted to take legal action against Nyguen in the Melbourne Magistrate's court also to obtain extradiction. Congratulations to the justice minister Chris Ellison for refusing the extradiction on grounds of lack of warrant. Both Nettle and Walters should be ashamed of their actions - they had utter disrespect for and failed to acknowledge another country's legal system and decisions.

Whoever suggested and supported the idea of a minutes silence should immediately apologise to the RSL (yes Peter Beattie included) - it was a direct insult to the memory of true Australian heros who fought for Australia. There is no justification for a criminal to also enjoy such rememberance. Congratulations also to the National/Liberal party who walked out of state parliament during the minute's silence.

Finally in response to Hingehead's empathy with Nguyen's mother, if I am ever feeling sorry for that woman, I am only sorry that she had children but failed to raise them to be law abiding respectful citizens and I am sorry that other people in this world who would have made excellent and responsible parents have not the opportunity to be parents.

Really in the end, dadpad's phrase remains - do the crime do the time.

I was extreemly disturbed by what appeared to me to be broadcast updates from singapore by John Faine on ABC radio on the morning of the execution.

Oh? What were the broadcast contents about?

Labelling something extreme left-wing because you don't agree with it is intellectual cowardice praggers.



Lying doesn't help your argument either. And that's what you're doing unless you can show me an example of 'significant interference'.



Well you've put me right off positivism (sounds like an oxymoron) - I'll stick to secular humanism.

Edmund Burke said 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing', your reasoning seems to be 'Nah, as long is its legal it's fine'.



And who said they were?



My point was in response to Dadpad's comment about how many people could have died if the heroin had got to Australia - and I was arguing against his point by saying it is a legal fundamental not to charge people for things that haven't happened. Your using it out of context lessens how much I respect your views.



I don't see how this is an argument against what I said praggers. Do you think I object to Loong having an opinion just because it differs from mine? You tend to get apoplectic, on this issue, about opinions that differ from yours.



Trouble is, our argument is not about state rights - it's about the morality of the death penalty.



Is your real name Alan Jones? :wink:



So you're saying 'Failure is not a reason for abandonment'. Is it a reason to try to improve it? How can you have a proven better system if you don't 'abandon' the existing system?

On what grounds do you make the assertion that the Australian jail system is failing. I'm not arguing I'm just curious why you singled it out - Is Singapore's jail system better?



The first is no different from hanging. The second (and also applies to capital punishment) is irreversible, there is no chance of redemption.



So everything before this wasn't your personal view?



Again, taken out of context, I was asking dadpad why he was asking if we had children and hinting at the double-edged sword of the argument I assumed he was trying to raise.

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing your opinion, it tells me much about you.

Whereas I understand where dadpad is coming from your slavish acceptance of authority I find morally abhorrent.

Have a nice day.





But there was no time, and that's the point.

I voted with my feet (ears?) prag and didnt listen. I caught the start of a broadcast which to my horror seemed to be as i descibed. I turned it off immediatly i realised what was going on.

I want to make it very clear that i have posted opinions on this particular issue only , based on what i have read in the print media. I reseve the right to be open minded, to listen and absorb or reject any or all points of view.

I wish I had more time to reply in detail, prag, but I've been incredibly busy & rushed off my feet for the past couple of weeks. So I have to be very brief, sorry. In a nutshell I believe that state-sanctioned killing is unacceptable. I can't see any convincing justification for it, period. This editorial (from the Australian, of all newspapers!) puts the case against captial punishment far better than I ever could.:

Editorial: Against executions

There is no case that can justify capital punishment
December 02, 2005

THE Government of Singapore was due to murder a man this morning. Certainly, it is acting according to the laws of that country. Certainly, the means of his death is known from long experience to be quick and painless. Certainly, no one in Singapore took any apparent pleasure in the decision that a man should die. But no qualification can disguise that they have planned an act of murder. And there is no explanation, no justification, that can excuse any nation from killing an individual who has broken the law. There never has been and there never will be. For any state to kill a convicted criminal already imprisoned and incapable of doing further harm, is desperately cruel. It is not an act committed in rage or madness. It is not the act of an evil individual killing for gain or to assuage some appalling passion or prejudice. It is not needed to defend the state against enemies within, or to protect the community against imminent harm. The death penalty is an ineffable act of violence against individuals who are defenceless and, at the end of their lives, utterly alone. And the leaders of countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from China to Singapore, that allow executions, are deficient in humanity and reason. The death penalty is wrong - no ifs, no buts.

Advocates of capital punishment advance abstract and emotive arguments in its defence, arguments that are all unconvincing. The death penalty is a necessary deterrent, they say. The certainty of death if convicted of a capital crime discourages people from committing crimes in the first place, and it ends their opportunity to harm more innocent people, they argue. Perhaps it does in some cases, although the American experience does not seem to support this. The US has not become a country free of capital crimes since the Supreme Court decided the death penalty was not unconstitutional in 1976. And in all sorts of countries with capital punishment, greed, stupidity and outright evil will drive men and women to commit heinous crimes. Just ask the Government of Singapore. Additionally, to take a life for the pragmatic reason that it may discourage future crimes sends a clear signal that killing is acceptable when it is done by the state in the national interest. Some supporters of capital punishment also argue that the death penalty provides closure to the victims of crime; that people who have been harmed or have lost a loved one will feel the hurt less if their assailant is executed. Once again, perhaps some do. But however this argument is expressed, it is nothing more than a recipe for revenge, an assertion that the state has the right to take an eye for an eye, a life for a life. And, ultimately, revenge is always an act applied by the powerful against the helpless. It is victor's justice - and more often than not it is no justice at all. From the earliest legal codes, murder has always been forbidden. And if killing is wrong, it is more so when done by the state.

The case for capital punishment fails for many reasons, but above all because it is inhumane and unnatural. It is in human nature to preserve, not take, life. Certainly, wholesale slaughter in war and civil strife is an indisputable fact of history. The genocides and mass murders ordered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all their evil ilk demonstrate that when states order their citizens to kill, many willingly obey. The record of lynchings in Mississippi during the 1920s, of murderous mobs in Soweto in the 1980s, demonstrates what happens when the protection of the law is not applied to all. But such enormities do not obscure the fact that people have always been appalled by close-quarter killing. In every century, soldiers have had to be conditioned for close-quarter combat. And for all the images from centuries past of crowds delighting in torture and public executions, stable communities have never enjoyed watching the routine mutilation and murder of helpless individuals. Execution is repugnant to us all.

From the 18th century on, as the idea that ordinary people had inviolable rights took hold, nations began to reject state-sanctioned murder. One reason for British settlement of Australia was public discomfort with the prospect of wholesale execution of the enormous number of men and women convicted of capital crimes. Today, with the outrageous exception of the US, nations where political power depends on the electoral assent of the governed are likely to have abandoned capital punishment. And as more and more nations embrace democracy, they will abandon the contradiction of forbidding individuals to kill but allowing the state to commit murder. To assert that states that murder criminals are backward and brutal may offend many nations with which Australia enjoys excellent relations. Tough. It is true.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17429751%255E7583,00.html

How do you know how she raised her children? What gives you the right to judge her, prag? Maybe she was just an ordinary person just doing her best, like most people? Your words are very cruel & judgemental.