Australian News


International “anti-vaxxers” banned from Australia

Make no mistake on our stance, a documentary about potential adverse effects, injured children and flawed testing is NOT an ‘anti vax’ film. – TMN

 

9th aug 2017

INTERNATIONAL anti-vaccination ringleaders have been banned from returning to Australia for a “substantial” period after a controversial film tour.

US anti-jab radicals Polly Tommey and Suzanne Humphries staged several secret meetings in Melbourne and nationwide in which Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, was shown, and parents were encouraged to expose children to deadly diseases.

“Australia to me is literally the worst country I’ve visited. Not the people, the government,” she said in a video.

“I had my phone taken away as I left Australia. They confiscated my phone and took photographs of all my emails and texts. They also told me I am banned from Australia for three years.”

 

 

read more/ source:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/international-antivaxxers-banned-from-australia/news-story/e1a00e0af748d115a57b5eaae5d5c804

Public servants face tough new social media rules

7th Aug 2017

PUBLIC servants who “like” or share a Facebook post critical of the government could find themselves in hot water — even if they select the “angry face” reaction.

Government employees could also be in breach of the public service code of conduct for material they send in a private email, or for failing to remove “nasty comments” posted by other people to their social media pages.

The new social media guidelines, published on Monday by the Australian Public Service Commission, reinforce that while APS employees “have the right to participate in public and political debate”, it is “not an unlimited right”.

“If you ‘like’ something on a social media platform, it will generally be taken to be an endorsement of that material as though you’d created that material yourself,” the guidelines read.

“‘Sharing’ a post has much the same effect. However, if you’re sharing something because you disagree with it and want to draw it someone else’s attention, make sure that you make that clear at the time in a way that doesn’t breach the Code itself. It may not be enough to select the ‘angry face’ icon, especially if you’re one of thousands that have done so.”

In the case of a private email to a friend, the guidelines state that there is “nothing to stop your friend taking a screenshot of that email, including your personal details, and sending it to other people or posting it all over the internet”.

“Again, the breach of the Code is not in their subsequent publication of your material, but in your emailing that material in the first place,” it says. “In fact, there’s nothing to stop your friend from forwarding your email directly to your employer and reporting your behaviour.”

And for “nasty comments made by someone else on my social media pages”, the guidelines state that “doing nothing about objectionable material that someone else has posted on your page can reasonably be seen in some circumstances as your endorsement of that material”.

“If someone does post material of this kind, it may be sensible to delete it or make it plain that you don’t agree with it or support it,” it says. “Any breach of the Code would not come from the person making the post. It would come from how you reacted to it.”

Posting anti-government content anonymously or outside of work hours is also a no-no. “Posting material anonymously or using a pseudonym doesn’t guarantee your identity will stay hidden,” it says.

“Even if you don’t identify yourself you can still be identified by someone else. It’s a simple fact: agencies often receive dob-ins about comments made by their employees. Often those employees are shocked to find they’ve been linked back to their employer so easily.”

An employee’s “capacity to affect the reputation” of their agency and the APS “does not stop when you leave the office”. “APS employees are required by law to uphold the APS Values at all times,” the guidelines say.

Even joining the wrong Facebook group could get public servants in hot water, they add. “People will draw conclusions about you and your ability to work impartially from a range of factors. This can include the nature of any online communities that you join.

“For example, if you work as a Customer Service Officer in Centrelink while being a member of a Facebook group that is opposed to current laws about the payment of welfare benefits to migrants. This might raise a concern about whether you would deal with all of your clients fairly and professionally in your APS role.

“People would reasonably be concerned about your ability to implement Government policies in a way that is free from bias and in accordance with the law.”

Nadine Flood, national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, described the new policy as “overreach”, saying it “clearly does not strike the right balance between giving our community faith in the Commonwealth public service and allowing people who work in public services to undertake normal, everyday activity in a democracy”.

“The notion that the mum of a gay son who happens to work in Centrelink can’t like a Facebook post on marriage equality without endangering her job is patently absurd,” Ms Flood said in a statement.

“It is one thing to say that public servants working on a particular Government policy shouldn’t be publicly criticising that policy, quite another to say they have no right to engage on social media on anything that could be a community issue.”

Ms Flood said government “acts in every area of life”, so the situation could not be compared to the private sector. “It’s completely unreasonable for a worker to face disciplinary action over a private email or something as benign as ‘liking’ a social media post,” she said. “Of course there need to be limits but [this] policy goes too far.”

 

 

source;http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/public-servants-face-tough-new-social-media-rules/news-story/db2893503fa0cb7997f9e066936c322c

Bondi synagogue ban over terrorism risk leaves Jewish community shocked and furious

6th July 2017

A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.

The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.

The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents.

Jewish leaders are shocked the decision appears to suggest they cannot freely practice their religion because they are the target of hate by Islamist extremists — and that the council has used their own risk assessment of the threat posed by IS against it.

The head of the local Jewish community said the council and the court had effectively stifled freedom of religion and rewarded terrorism.

“The decision is unprecedented,” Rabbi Yehoram Ulman told news.com.au.

“Its implications are enormous. It basically implies that no Jewish organisation should be allowed to exist in residential areas. It stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity in Sydney and indeed, by creating a precedent, the whole of Australia, and by extension rewarding terrorism.”
The synagogue is in the heart of Australia’s most iconic suburb and just a few hundred metres from the world famous Bondi Beach. Photo: Dylan Robinson

The synagogue is in the heart of Australia’s most iconic suburb and just a few hundred metres from the world famous Bondi Beach. Photo: Dylan RobinsonSource:News Corp Australia

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff told news.com.au he had never heard of any other religious group being denied a place of worship just because they were targeted by outside extremists and that the move was a dangerous precedent.

“It’s a very sad day for Australia if an established community, which needs a house of worship, is refused permission to build it because of fear that others may pose a threat,” he said.

“This simply shows how we’re all losing our freedoms. Those who want us to be afraid are winning, and this ill-conceived judgment represents a dangerous precedent.”

Ironically, the council and the Land and Environment Court appeared to use the proposal’s own risk assessment and security measures in the proposed design — including using setback buildings and blast walls — as evidence the site was too much of a security risk.

Yet in a classic catch-22, the council also said if the design was changed to boost security this would be unacceptable because it would be too unsightly.

“The proposed development should be refused as the site is not suitable for the proposed synagogue use as the Preliminary Threat and Risk Analysis relied on by the Applicant raises concerns as to the safety and security of future users of the Synagogue, nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians in Wellington Street and the physical measures proposed to deal with the identified threats will have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties.”
An artist’s impression of the synagogue development in Wellington Street, Bondi.

The Friends of Refugees from Eastern Europe, the Jewish group that appealed the council decision in the Land and Environment Court, argued the Preliminary Threat and Risk Analysis it commissioned from a terrorism expert did not indicate any risk to local residents or passers-by and was only about the security of those using the synagogue — who were used to the threat of violence.

Its evidence, as summarised by the court decision, was:

“The PTRA concludes nothing more than stating:

• western countries face a security threat, currently primarily from ISIS;

• the threat level in Australia is “probable”;

• Jewish communities across the world are no stranger to the threat of violence and as such will generally take security measures into account when planning, constructing or renovating buildings;

• the CITED design considers “potential possible threats” that are relevant to Australia; and

• the design measures focus on the persons inside the buildings only

“The PTRA does not raise concerns as to the safety and security of future particularly users of the synagogue, nearby residents, motorists; or pedestrians in Wellington Street.”
Rabbi Yehoram Ulman with local MP and now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2006.

But in the judgment handed down by the Land and Environment Court on Wednesday, Commissioner Graham Brown said the risk assessment was inadequate and upheld the council’s decision.

“It would seem that a more sophisticated risk assessment process could be required for matters such as a potential terrorist threat,” he found.

Rabbi Ulman said the decision “came as surprise and shock to the entire Jewish community” but was even more scathing about the council, warning it had threatened the future of Jewish life in Australia.

“By pulling the terror threat argument they have shown that they are completely out of touch both with the reality and with needs of their constituency,” he told news.com.au.

“They have effectively placed in jeopardy the future of Jewish life in Australia.”

A Waverley Council spokesperson noted the court had supported the council’s position, which was supported by several residents’ concerns.

“The ruling follows Council’s presentation of evidence to the court in support of refusal of the application, based on:

· The proposal does not respond to the context, character and streetscape of the area or provide sufficient residential amenity

· Unacceptable amenity impacts such as adequate solar access, noise and loss of privacy; and

· The site is unsuitable for a synagogue because of the potential risk to users and other members of the general public.

“A number of residents agreed with the contentions raised by the Council and provided additional evidence against the development of the site.”

source: http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4

Australian army to be deployed on domestic soil during future terrorist attacks

17th July 2017

The new system, which has been approved by cabinet and the national security committee, will be announced by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Defence Minister Marise Payne during a visit to Sydney’s Holsworthy Barracks on Monday.

State police will remain the first responders to a domestic terror incident, but will no longer retain sole command of an attack or hostage situation. The military will also be allowed on the streets to support the wider police response, including blocking potential suspects from leaving the scene. Elite special forces would have full legal authority to shoot and kill terrorists.

The fallout from the deadly 2014 Lindt cafe siege in Sydney triggered a year-long review of the so-called callout provisions of the Defence Act amid fears the legislation contained so many legal and administrative barriers it would hinder any swift military response to a terrorist assault in Australia.

It was the first major review of Defence’s contribution to domestic counter-terrorism in more than a decade.

“We cannot afford to take a ‘set and forget’ mentality on national security,” Mr Turnbull said. “We must constantly review and update our responses to the threat of terrorism.”
Breaking News Alert

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media’s terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Other changes will see army commandos train select state and territory police teams, while Defence will also offer to permanently embed officers within state law enforcement agencies to act as liaisons and advisers.

The Australian Defence Force has two tactical assault groups – one in Sydney and one in Perth – on standby to rapidly deploy to a terrorist attack.

While Defence was prepared to intervene in the Sydney siege and even built a mock-up of the Lindt cafe at the Holsworthy Barracks, it was never asked to get involved. The coroner overseeing the Lindt cafe inquiry found the ADF did not need to be deployed because the complex callout criteria had not been met and NSW Police largely had the situation in hand.

But the coroner did note the “challenge global terrorism poses for state police forces calls into question the adequacy of existing arrangements”.

Under the current system, the ADF can only be deployed if state or territory police believe their capability or capacity to respond has been exceeded. That provision will be abolished under the Turnbull government’s changes, meaning states could request federal help even if they retained control of the situation.

Under extraordinary circumstances, the Commonwealth would not need to wait for an invitation and could make the decision to deploy the ADF.

The system also only allows the ADF to be deployed if the governor-general signs off on a request from the prime minister, attorney-general and defence minister, who all have to agree state forces are incapable of properly responding.

Mr Turnbull said state and territory police remain the best first responders “immediately after an attack starts”.

“But Defence can offer more support … to enhance their capabilities and increase their understanding of Defence’s unique capabilities to ensure a comprehensive response to potential terrorist attacks,” he said.

The changes, which need to pass Parliament, will be discussed at the next Council of Australian Governments meeting.

Mr Turnbull said the new system would better support states in preparing for terrorist incidents and improve information flows between the ADF and police during an incident.

Former SAS commander-turned federal MP Andrew Hastie has previously said the Sydney siege response demonstrated state police were “not up to the task” of dealing with the unique nature of Islamist terrorism.

“The most lethal means of statecraft resides with the ADF,” Mr Hastie said.

“Contain and negotiating, which was the approach in the Lindt cafe siege, isn’t going to work [in dealing with Islamist terrorists].”

Australia’s terror threat level remains at “probable”, meaning the government has credible intelligence indicating individuals or groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack.

 

 

source:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-army-to-be-deployed-on-domestic-soil-during-future-terrorist-attacks-20170716-gxc7gu.html

Why Robert Whittaker is destined to become one of Australia’s biggest sports sta


10th July 2017

AUSTRALIA is still getting to know Robert Whittaker — the 26-year-old from Sydney who became the first man from these shores to wrap a bit of UFC gold around his waist in Las Vegas on Sunday.

The nature of Whittaker’s victory in his interim middleweight title bout against physical freak Yoel Romero at UFC 213 — coupled with his exemplary three-year body of work since moving to the 185-pound division — has made him a favourite with MMA fans.

But the former sparky — who can forget about his finances for a few years after pocketing half a million Aussie dollars for one day’s work — has more than enough going for him to become one of the country’s biggest sports stars.

He’s clean-cut and classy

Humble origins. Respectful in victory and defeat. Ability to fight through injury. Whittaker ticks every box Australians generally require of their champions.

Hell, he’s even got a southern cross tattoo over his heart if that’s your thing.

He’s not going to excite you with trash talk or make headlines for bad behaviour. And while that may inhibit his pay-per-view potential, it should be an advantage when the corporate world comes knocking.

If the Aussie public is honestly tired of our diva tennis stars it needs to put its money where it’s mouth is and back an athlete who is doing everything right.

He’s as mentally strong as anyone in Australian sport

It’s hard to compare standing toe to toe with a beast like Romero with say, pushing up the steeper climbs in the Tour de France or making a putt to win the US Masters.

But what’s become abundantly clear during Whittaker’s rise to the top is his mental approach to fighting is on par with anyone in the game.

Consider the discipline he maintained to avoid being caught by the creative striking of Uriah Hall. Or the composure he showed to survive an early Derek Brunson storm. Or the dexterity needed to escape “Jacare” Souza on the ground.

But all those performances paled in comparison to what he produced against Romero. After copping a savage kick to the front of an already-injured knee in the opening round, Whittaker was forced to fight another 20 minutes against the most-feared man in the division with limited movement.

After dropping the first two rounds, his margin for error was razor-thin. But he put all that behind him to snatch the third round and then held firm when Romero gave everything in an attempt to win the fight in the fourth. He never looked back. It was inspirational.

He’s only 26 years old

Whittaker joined UFC luminaries like Jon Jones, Jose Aldo and BJ Penn by winning his first strap in his mid-20s.

He needs to knock off undisputed middleweight champion Michael Bisping to cap his rise to the top — but from that point anything is possible.

Producing an extended reign as champion won’t be easy in a division that has treated its belt like a hot potato in recent years. There’s a murderer’s row of potential opponents, including former champions Luke Rockhold, Chris Weidman and the greatest of all-time Anderson Silva, who are all looking for another shot.

But with his best yet to come Whittaker figures to be at the top — or at least very near it — well into next decade.

He’s a complete fighter

The team behind the man known as “The Reaper” — or more recently “Bobby Knuckles” — received well-earned recognition during Sunday’s broadcast.

For the eighth fight in a row, Whittaker came in with a perfect gameplan and executed it to a tee.

His knockout power and submission skills have been evident since the very early days of his career, when his first nine wins all came inside the first round.

But Whittaker has improved with every showing — from the takedown defence Dana White describes as “ridiculous” to the diverse kicking game he used to take Souza’s head off and sap Romero’s energy.

Whittaker always comes prepared, has no obvious weaknesses — and most importantly is bloody exciting to watch. Five of his past seven purses have been topped up by fight of the night or performance of the night bonuses.

He doesn’t have to promote his next fight

Whittaker has already done a lot of the heavy lifting required to establish his career by overcoming two extremely dangerous opponents in Souza and Romero.

 

 

source/read more; http://www.news.com.au/sport/ufc/why-robert-whittaker-is-destined-to-become-one-of-australias-biggest-sports-stars/news-story

Cash crackdown boss floats nano-chips in notes

4th July 2017

THE man charged with cracking down on the “black economy” has revealed how he would like to keep track of your $100 and $50 notes.

Hi-tech nano-chips would be implanted in Australia’s “disappearing” cash under a plan floated by Michael Andrew, the head of the federal government’s Black Economy Taskforce.

Speaking to The Courier-Mail, Mr Andrew said too much cash was being hoarded under pensioners’ beds and stockpiled as a trusted currency in China.

Estimates for the size of Australia’s so-called black economy vary from $23 billion to $50 billion. The government claims tax avoidance through cash payments costs the budget up to $10 billion in revenue, money that could go towards funding welfare and other services.

In the May budget, the federal government announced an extra $32 million funding for the Australian Taxation Office to fund its cash crackdown, which it expects to bring in an extra $589 million in revenue over the next four years.

According to Mr Andrew, who will hand down his final report in October, there should be 14 $100 notes for every adult in Australia but there are fewer than that in circulation. While criminals prefer the $50 note, as the Reserve Bank pointed out in its defence of cash last year, foreign migrants and pensioners prefer $100s.

“You see a lot of Chinese don’t trust their banking system so they like to take Australian dollars back to China,” he told The Courier-Mail. “We’re seeing $100 notes used by pensioners because there’s an assets-based test at the moment and they like to keep a fair bit of cash under the bed.

“I’m working with the Reserve Bank and Austrac to get a better understanding of where our notes are. Clearly there’s a section of this that is organised crime. One of the options we would have is putting an expiry date on these notes.

“You could put a trace on some of these notes to see where they would go. You can use nano technology to put little chips in so you could then trace it.”

Last year, a report by UBS recommended Australia scrap the $100 note. According to UBS, benefits may include “reduced crime (difficult to monetise), increased tax revenue (fewer cash transactions) and reduced welfare fraud (claiming welfare while earning or hoarding cash)”.

Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm at the time criticised the cash crackdown proposal, saying “the only people who are distressed by the cash economy are the government and the public servants who want to spend taxes”.

“The incentives for a cash economy would be a lot reduced if taxes were a lot lower,” he said in December. “It’s a reaction to the level of taxes we pay.”

Earlier this year, Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer defended the move, saying “we don’t believe in a self-help approach to tax reform”.

“We think it should apply and be fairly represented across everybody,” she said. “There are always going to be people who try and avoid their tax, and [for] those in the cash economy it’s much easier to avoid detection.

“This comes at a time where we’re experiencing rapid technological change. A lot of people under 40 don’t really carry that much cash around anymore, but even despite this we have seen an increase in the number of $100 notes in distribution.

“I don’t know too many people who walk around with $100 notes, I certainly haven’t sighted one in a long time, but the point is that there is clearly an issue that we need to grapple with.”

 

source; http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/cash-crackdown-boss-floats-nanochips-in-notes/news-story/05db2212948c7d02e822532de63c170d

Cyber warfare unit set to be launched by Australian Defence Forces

30th June 2017

Its commander, Major General Marcus Thompson, has flagged some of the recruitment challenges.

Pay will be an issue, as will the military’s physical requirements.

The unit will work across the three services, with a brief to protect Australia’s military infrastructure.

A key part of its role will also be to identify high-value foreign targets and preparing to launch its own attacks.

Targets could include assets like the Chinese navy’s South Sea Fleet, which is operating in the South China Sea.
Australia buying in ‘big time’ on cyber warfare

A key part of information warfare is psychological and undermining and influencing the adversary.

This will be a key part of the new unit’s role, and its arsenal of cyber weaponry will be able to be used to defend, gather intelligence or launch attacks.
What’s going on with the latest cyber attack?

A ransomware attack has struck computers across the globe. Could you be affected? Here’s what we know so far.

It will be up to the unit and its command chain to determine which is best in each situation.

The Australian National University’s John Blaxland said it would not just be used in wartime operations.

“In between war and peace, there’s a lot you can do to hassle, harass, interdict, subvert, undermine and damage,” he said.

“That’s a space Australia hasn’t sought to buy in on, [and] it’s buying in on it big time now.”

Authorities say Russia has taken an aggressive approach, threatening its enemies with overt displays of its cyber strength.

China, in comparison, has been far more reserved, preferring espionage and intelligence-gathering over shows of military might.
Australia lagging in cyber prowess

The United States, Russia and China all have cyber warfare prowess, demonstrated through various recent attacks.

Experts agree Australia has been lagging behind.

“Australia is relatively undeveloped,” Professor Austin said.

“We’re well behind the United States, but the good news is Russia and China, potential adversaries of Australia, only really joined this cyber arms race in the relatively recent past.”

In January, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull flagged his concern about cyber warfare.

“This is the new frontier of warfare, it’s the new frontier of espionage,” he said.

 

 

 

source; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/cyber-warfare-unit-to-be-launched-by-australian-defence-forces/8665230

Stolen American malware used to take over traffic cameras in Australia

23rd Jun 2017

There’s fresh reason to be worried about Wannacry, the malicious software that hackers stole from the U.S. National Security Agency.

In May, hackers used the malware to infect computers in more than 70 countries. The attack was particularly bad in England, where the software disrupted service at many of the country’s busiest hospitals.

Now, the software has been used to take control of 55 speed and red light cameras in Victoria, the most densely populated state in Australia. The Czech security company Avast says the hackers didn’t use the Internet to launch the attack. The infection came through a USB drive.

That was likely the same technique the U.S. and Israel used to damage Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility with the Stuxnet virus.

Jonathan Penn, director of strategy at Avast, said in a statement Thursday:

“This attack has shown us that even if your device is not directly connected to the Internet, that doesn’t mean it is completely safe or can’t be infected with ransomware like WannaCry. The traffic cameras were connected to a vulnerable USB drive, which at one point got infected with malware.

“This incident isn’t the first of its kind. Stuxnet did its job on the Iranian nuclear facilities through none other than a USB in 2012.

“These attacks shine a light on not only the dangers of USB drives, but the diverse ways behind the spreading of malware and viruses like WannaCry or Stuxnet and the need for robust protections.”

There’s fresh reason to be worried about Wannacry, the malicious software that hackers stole from the U.S. National Security Agency.

In May, hackers used the malware to infect computers in more than 70 countries. The attack was particularly bad in England, where the software disrupted service at many of the country’s busiest hospitals.

Now, the software has been used to take control of 55 speed and red light cameras in Victoria, the most densely populated state in Australia. The Czech security company Avast says the hackers didn’t use the Internet to launch the attack. The infection came through a USB drive.

That was likely the same technique the U.S. and Israel used to damage Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility with the Stuxnet virus.

Jonathan Penn, director of strategy at Avast, said in a statement Thursday:

“This attack has shown us that even if your device is not directly connected to the Internet, that doesn’t mean it is completely safe or can’t be infected with ransomware like WannaCry. The traffic cameras were connected to a vulnerable USB drive, which at one point got infected with malware.

“This incident isn’t the first of its kind. Stuxnet did its job on the Iranian nuclear facilities through none other than a USB in 2012.

“These attacks shine a light on not only the dangers of USB drives, but the diverse ways behind the spreading of malware and viruses like WannaCry or Stuxnet and the need for robust protections.”

 

 

 

source:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/cyber-life/sd-me-wannacry-malware-20170622-story.html

Police Who Pre-Emptively Kill Suspected Terrorists Will Be Protected

-pic concealed carry.com

13th June 2017

The NSW government is set to introduce new laws by the end of this month which give police immunity for pre-emptively shooting a person they suspect of terrorism, even if that person does not pose an imminent threat to others.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced that she will support all 45 of the recommendations from the coronial inquest report into the Lindt Café siege, and will prioritise those which give police more powers and protect them from civil and criminal prosecution.

New South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller acknowledged that police already have the power to “shoot-to-kill” people they suspect of terrorism in situations analogous to the recent London attacks – where they pose an imminent threat to public safety.

However, he feels that situations like the Lindt Cafe siege are a grey area, as it was unclear whether Man Haron Monis was going to act upon his threats.

As it turned out, Monis was later categorised as a “deranged gunman” suffering from “mental health problems” who was not affiliated with any particular group, whether terrorist or otherwise.

Under the proposed legislation, police would be authorised to “shoot-to-kill” suspected participants once the commissioner declared an event to be a “terrorist incident”, regardless of whether those suspected of involvement pose an imminent threat to others.

Criticism

Critics point out that the proposed legislation confers virtually unfettered power on the police commissioner to determine whether an event constitutes a “terrorist incident”, and therefore when his colleagues will be protected from prosecution for wounding or killing people.

They are concerned he will declare such events “all too readily” in the interests of protecting police, thereby increasing the likelihood of police unnecessarily shooting and killing people. Critics are concerned that “rogue” police officers who carelessly shoot people will be protected, even if it turns out that their targets were completely innocent of any crime, and/or the shooting was not justified.

There are also fears that the legislation will cause the escalation of situations which could be kept under control and ultimately defused, again potentially leading to the loss of innocent lives.

There are additional concerns about the commissioner’s ability to identify whether a situation constitutes a “terrorist event”, with critics arguing that current laws which require an imminent risk to persons or the public representing a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether a particular individual should be shot or killed.

Shoot first and ask question later

New South Wales police are already being trained in specialised tactics based on a ‘confront and neutralise’ policy, and have access to semi-automatic weapons to act in order to protect themselves and members of the public.

The question, then, is whether the proposed legislation – which gives the minister significant powers, allows for the “pre-emptive” killing of suspects and protects rogue and careless police officers from prosecution – is really a good idea.

source:http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-who-pre-emptively-kill-suspected-terrorists-will-be-protected/

Margaret Court!

-zimbio.

-Anon

I’m tired of hearing her name. A lady who’s organization distributes 23tonnes of food a year to people, finds them jobs, feeds the homeless at her church every week, funds recent immigrants study plans, establishes clinics in Africa and is run by one of most celebrated sportspeople of Australia is worthless and so is that woman!

How dare she tell the media she doesn’t support Same Sex Marriage?

I am speechless to find that a Pastor of a Christian church may hold the value that marriage is between a hetero couple. I had no idea that the stipulation was in the Bible or that Christian pastors sometimes have an opinion which differs from the overly-saturated, biased media.

Firstly; Margaret Court replies to an editorial in a paper and states that she won’t be flying with Qantas, an airline who has backed the push to legalise same sex marriage in Australia.

I mean, it’s pretty weird that a person may take a personal stand and say they don’t want to use a public service which is choosing to be political in way they don’t agree with…Right?

Who does that? It’s almost like she has a free choice or free will and can choose to put her money (or not put her money) where she likes.

Then when there is a backlash on social media (thousands of comments calling for the tennis stadium, Margaret Court Arena to be renamed, death threats, name-calling) and people like amazing Waleed from The Project start being rude to her too and she still had the audacity to speak on panels and a radio station to elaborate on her opinion.

 

–poll on Metro.co.uk

I heard she said that transgender children are the work of the devil!

I was outraged when I heard that. Absolutely outraged…and I don’t know how really since I always tell people I don’t believe there is a devil so logically it doesn’t make sense. But the point is that I was angry and my emotions were stirred up!

I wasn’t able to understand that she meant when you ask a kid who is 4years old if they are a boy or girl you may be confusing that child. I didn’t know that in the Bible lies, confusion and anxiety are from Satan. She should know better! The majority of people who agree with me, don’t bother using the time to learn anything like that, come on! We don’t operate on context or anything that is longer than a 10 second sound bite. We no longer have the attention for anything significant! Why didn’t she assume we would understand?

I believe that my child will tell me if he is a girl inside if I ask him…and I ignore when he says he wants to be superman or a dinosaur or Thomas the Tank Engine because it’s only when he says he is a GIRL that I know he is serious.

Did you also hear Margaret Court is racist?

A more recently famous tennis player said she heard a quote where Margaret Court said something like “The situation was dealt with,” talking about Apatheid in South Africa. It doesn’t matter to me that the quote was by someone who didn’t cite the source or how she came up with it. It also doesn’t matter that Margaret Court has said she has no idea where that quote apparently came from but I read that it was from 1970 too so that means if it’s true then she has been racist for a long time, people can’t change even after becoming a Christian or even when almost forty years have passed. The fact is she is racist, I just know it. Cos anyone who doesn’t believe in same sex marriage is a bigot and they are most likely racist.

I have never been to her church in Perth or watched it live online…but despite all the pics on the internet and other evidence, I think there are only white people that go there and she only likes white people.

It took a one-liner from another tennis player I don’t really know, for me to make a thorough conclusion.

So booo to Margaret Court! I only like people who agree with my point of view…The one I formed by being bombarded with Liberal brainwashing and the mainstream media. Those things keep me focused on BS rather than take notice of authorities quashing my liberty in other areas. Maybe one day I will care about those things as much but that day is not today, not while my emotions are hurt!

I only believe in free speech if I agree with what the person is saying and don’t you EVER try and belittle my son’s right to anal sex with another man and then marry him.