Subscribe in a reader


Add to Google

 

contact ValuesAustralia

Find value goodies at the Values Australia Shop

Government finds innovative new way to terrify citizens

Be a true blue mate!

The Nazgûl

 

 

 

 

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Subscribe to Values Australia's RSS feed. with your email:

FBFPowered by ®Google Feedburner

Tags

Links:

Older Posts

Categories

RSS RSS Feed

Just When We’d Fallen In Love All Over Again

 

 

Just when we’ve told America how much we love her really [see below], just as we’ve fallen head over heels again and told her she’s so beautiful, she turns back into the evil witch and vomits her putrid saliva in our face.

 

[Before viewing this, hold onto your seat … and get a bucket … and remove heavy throwable objects from within reaching distance … ]

 

 

So GetUp is “far left”? Only compared to O’Reilly and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin perhaps – oh, and the rest of Fox* “News” – but don’t tell the grannies, the war veterans, the people who have stood side by side with American soldiers in any number of wars and are now members of GetUp, don’t tell the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians that they’re so far left that in America they’re classed as America-hating terrorists. Surely the members of GetUp just want decency in politics, they want politicians to act consistently with what they say they believe when they ask us to vote for them: little things like free speech, the presumption of innocence, the rule of law, the same basic human rights that we expect for ourselves available to everyone, anywhere in the world. Etc.

Plus it would be helpful if Lt. Col. Peters wouldn’t mind providing the evidence he must have in order to accuse Wikileaks of responsibility for rape, torture and murder of human rights workers and aid workers. Or he’s blowing hot air up his own arse and ours, because his agenda certainly is not to tell The Truth.

By the way, Peters has clearly issued an incitement to murder during this interview. If he were in Australia this man would be in a remand prison right now. Does what he has said amount to terrorism? because Australia’s terrorism legislation asserts extra-territorial jurisdiction. How about an Interpol Red Notice and a request for extradition? I wonder … [strokes chin] …

 

* You might have thought that Julian Assange was Australia’s biggest embarrassment, but no, it’s the Dirty Digger, Rupert Murdoch, born and raised here but now responsible for tearing apart the fabric of American (and British) society. Of course, Assange is a worry for all Australian politicians – who knows what Wikileaks might release next – and he can be attacked and accused of any number of illegalities by McClelland and Gillard and others without too much trouble. But they won’t touch the real troublemaker, the really evil ‘Australian’, the real media terrorist, because they are terrified of him.

Sir Roger has had a few legal minutes to think about terrorism in relation to Lt Col Peters, not to mention a Professor Flanagan, accused of bribery in 2008, former adviser to Canadian PM, Stephen Harper until 2004 who said on 30 November:

“Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should maybe put out a contract and maybe use a drone”

This is what (we think) the Criminal Code says about terrorists and terrorist acts:

terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and
(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
(c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:
(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
_________________
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(b) causes serious damage to property; or
(c) causes a person’s death; or
(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or
(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or
(f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:
(i) an information system; or
(ii) a telecommunications system; or
(iii) a financial system; or
(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or
(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or
(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.
(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and
(b) is not intended:
(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(ii) to cause a person’s death; or
(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or
(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

So Peters’ call to action to assassinate Assange does fall within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3). His call for the assassination of Assange is quite clearly a terrorist act in this definition.

DFAT says:

The Criminal Code makes it an offence if a person commits a terrorist act, provides or receives training connected with terrorist acts, possesses a thing connected with terrorist acts, collects or makes documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts, or does any act in preparation for or planning of terrorist acts. The penalty for engaging in a terrorist act is life imprisonment.
The penalty for other terrorism-related offences outlined above ranges from ten years to life imprisonment.

The act of calling for a person’s assassination in a television interview is an “act” and may be seen as part of preparing for or planning a terrorist act.

And here is what it means to “advocate” a terrorist act:

An organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act if:
(a) the organisation directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; or
(b) the organisation directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act ; or
(c) the organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act

Peters could be found to be guilty of (a) and perhaps (c).

The statements and incitement to murder by Lt Col Peters (repeated) in this interview are not only an outrage. They are against Australian law (and probably US law, as well as those of how many other countries?).

After smugly and smirkingly calling for Assange’s assassination and “feeling very manly today” when offered an opportunity to retract (perhaps he had just received a new supply of Viagra?), Flanagan later wrote an email to say, “I never seriously intended to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange.”

Well, Tom, you did “advocate and propose the assassination of Mr. Assange” What’s more, you gave advice as to who ought to arrange it and proposed a specific method by which it might be achieved. That would come under (b) above, “provide instruction”.

And, Tom, look at this:

  • The sedition law on incitement (section 80.2 of the Criminal Code) removes the requirement to prove that the person urging violence has any particular intention.
  • It would be surprising if the Canadian code didn’t include something similar. At least incitement to violence and murder must be criminal and you, Tom, have broken the law.

    Sir Roger likes the extraterritoriality provision of the terrorism legislation better, though, because it potentially brings these guys within our grasp, but in any case incitement to violence against an Australian citizen is unlawful in Australia.

  • “It is also a crime to use a telecommunications/carriage service in a way ‘that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive’ (section 474.17).”
  • Would that include to appear on a tv show – in an official capacity as a member of the US armed forces, speaking in a public rôle as a representative of an arm of government and advocating the assassination of a private, currently innocent civilian, a citizen of a country which is an ally? Peters and Flanagan are both implicated here.

    Therefore under Australian law, especially with its assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the Australian Government, through the Federal Police and the DPP should immediately begin legal action against Lt Col Peters and Tom Flanagan.

    What gives Sir Roger the shits is that governments including our own are sifting carefully through existing laws to find anything they can, any potential breaches of even minor laws that Assange may have made and not finding any so far apparently (and thus advocating the creation of new, retrospective laws which would net him). And all the while there are high-profile people who have committed clear, overt, unashamed, unquestionable – even “manly” – breaches of the criminal laws of at least three countries and no-one in the USA, Canada or Australia is going after them or has brought them in for questioning. No Australian politician has publicly called for any sort of action against them or expressed mild outrage or even surprise.

     

     

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

    Comments

    Comment from zoot
    Posted: 12 December, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Well I tried, but I only got to 1:35. Life’s too short to waste it on this sh!t.
    And I couldn’t agree more about the dirty digger. Why does he hate humanity?

    Comment from roger migently
    Posted: 12 December, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Yes, sorry, should have advised apart from a bucket, a handful of valium or you’ll just get too angry.
    Murdoch when he speaks in public always seems to present a persona of reasonableness, social responsibility and even intellect but – well, we know he’s clever the way a serial killer might be but I think serial killers have more sense of social responsibility than he does.

    Pingback from Assange: Wanted Dead or Dead
    Posted: 11 January, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    […] Two people had stood out particularly – Canadian Professor Tom (“Obama should put out a contract”) Flanagan and US Army Lt-Col. …. […]

    Write a comment