

Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism
Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.
He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.
Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.
Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.
“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”
And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.
“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.
“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard
Not necessarily. He said he would give them what is necessary, not anything they want. So, if politicians are careful and measured in their thinking about that, they will give law enforcement agencies what they need, no more and no less. And if there is clear intelligence about jihadists plotting murder, then acting on that, with detention up to 14 days, seems very reasonable to me.Brian Peacock wrote:Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism
Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.
He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.
Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.
Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.
“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”
And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.
“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.
“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard
It's not so much the last sentence as Daniel Andrews's opinion that the cornerstone of peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms - habeas corpus - is a luxury. Yes, in theory this is only supposed to apply to people who are suspected of terrorism. In practice such powers have always been abused. Every . Fucking . Time . What Andrews is advocating, if implemented, will throw the gates wide open for democratic governments to gradually morph into dictatorships.Brian Peacock wrote:Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism
Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.
He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.
Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.
Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.
“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”
And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.
“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.
“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard
Yeah, this was a real surprise, given he's by far the most progressive Premier, in the most progressive state, in Australia.Brian Peacock wrote:Read that last sentence again and tell me it's not the definition of a police state.Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism
Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has defended his comment that people who aren’t in power have the “luxury” of complaining about police powers that infringe on civil liberties, saying effective political leaders must give police exactly what they need to combat terrorism.
He has also dismissed again Malcolm Turnbull’s criticism of Victoria’s moratorium on onshore gas exploration, saying geologists have said there are no proven gas reserves in Victoria anyway and he won’t be ruining the environment on which farmers rely.
Speaking on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, Andrews was asked if civil liberties had become a luxury in modern Australia, following his dismissal last week of concerns from civil libertarians about a uniform federal law that will allow terrorism suspects, including minors, to be detained without charge for up to 14 days.
Andrews said last week: “There will be some ... who will focus on the notional infringement, the notional reduction in peoples’ rights and liberties and freedoms, the rights and liberties of a small number of people.
“Some people have the luxury of being able to have that notional debate. Those of us in positions of leadership don’t have that luxury.”
And on Sunday he didn’t resile from that remark, saying police had to have the powers they needed to protect Australians from terrorists.
“The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe ... Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need’,” Andrews said on Sunday.
“Law enforcement have asked very carefully, in a considered way, for additional powers, additional support, additional resources, and it’s the job of effective leaders in this country to give them exactly what is necessary."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... _clipboard
Wrong thread?pErvin wrote:Just a bit more on the social consequences of favouring one sex over the other... That's an indication of a problem with a particular society. The answer to that is for government to address the reasons why that society finds males more valuable than females, not force women to give birth to a child that they may not want.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests