It's not easy to understand why the rest of us get blamed for Bondi.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Help me out here - I live peacefully in the bush with my fellow traditional Aussies and I now feel partly responsible for the Islamic Bondi attack because the Labor Government is making me feel that way - I had nothing to do with the attack, but now my speech could be curtailed via proposed new speech laws.

 

What have I (and we) done wrong?

 

We are always guilty until proven innocent - it's about time that stopped.

[rgmwa]

If you had nothing to do with the attack and live peacefully in the bush not harming anyone then there's no reason why you should feel guilty about the Bondi attack. The laws are for some of those who don't feel the same way you do. 

[facthunter]

When some people do abominable things, we all lose some freedoms in the aftermath. Society demands some action. We are still Miles better than Trumpland.  The Whole world is Becoming a Crock. Nev

[facthunter]

I'm not sure Living in the Bush is THAT safe, all things considered.  Personally I can't stand suburbia. I'd be happy  in a good Industrial estate.. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

47 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

If you had nothing to do with the attack and live peacefully in the bush not harming anyone then there's no reason why you should feel guilty about the Bondi attack. The laws are for some of those who don't feel the same way you do. 

It will be a Federal law if it's passed, it will affect everyone. The government is making everyone feel guilty. Like roadside breath testing, every motorist is guilty until the breath tester shows green zeros ... then you're right, you've been proven to be innocent. But highly suspicious of being guilty beforehand.

 

No difference with a "hate" speech law. Everyone will be a suspect.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think you are being paranoid 

[facthunter]

I believe it was Passed . People demanded something be done.  IF you aren't vocal about sensitive things, why would YOU attract attention. Similarly a breath test is a Minor Inconvenience. Fair enough if it Keeps pot heads and drunks OFF the road, so they don't kill  innocents. Nev

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

 Like roadside breath testing, every motorist is guilty until the breath tester shows green zeros ... then you're right, you've been proven to be innocent. But highly suspicious of being guilty beforehand.

You've got it the wrong way around. You are not assumed to be guilty. Every motorist is assumed to be innocent until the breath or drug tester shows otherwise. No different with the hate speech laws. Stop worrying. 

[facthunter]

Pulling People over for a breath test is random. IF you don't test above the Legal Limit you are free to go on your Merry way. IF you are OVER the Limit that's your Problem  for taking the  risk.  Nev

[old man emu]

Actually, the RBT stop is an "arrest". However reliquishing the right not to be arrested at random is something we do for the greater good. It is a means of protecting ourselves from injury caused by an intoxicated person, and is a means of contributing to the protection of others. For the vast majority of people, being stopped eventually becomes a mnor inconvenience for a few minutes. However, I know that any interaction with police that one does not initiate triggers fear because of all the adverse propaganda we have been fed that police will go looking for some offence not related to RBT. I know I get scared when I'm pulled in.

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

You've got it the wrong way around. You are not assumed to be guilty.

Why do the cops pull you over then? And why do they ask if you've had anything to drink, but then test you anyway even if you say "NO"

 

They don't believe you, and assume you're lying. Guilty before being proved innocent.

[octave]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Like roadside breath testing, every motorist is guilty until the breath tester shows green zeros ... then you're right, you've been proven to be innocent. But highly suspicious of being guilty beforehand.

Jeez, you do seem to be overly sensitive. When you fly, and you go through airport security, are you upset because you think the security staff are accusing you of carrying weapons?   Random breath testing is not just about catching an individual who is a danger on the road, but more importantly, it is a deterrent against attempting to drink and drive. 

 

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

No difference with a "hate" speech law. Everyone will be a suspect.

There are already laws against what you can and can't say (defamation). Do you believe that this means "everyone is a suspect?"  

 

There are many things we are called upon to do to keep society running relatively smoothly.   When I rent a car (or many other transactions), I am not offended by having to show my driver's license or ID. I don't believe I am presumed to be guilty of anything. When travelling overseas, whilst it is a slight burden, the customs officer may want to look inside my bag. I do not take this as some kind of personal attack or allegation. 

 

None of these examples makes me feel "guilty" 

 

 

 

[octave]

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Why do the cops pull you over then?

Because a small number of people do drive drunk.   Random breath testing literally does save lives.     If it is a choice between offending your overly delicate feelings or preventing a drunk driver from killing someone, I think most rational, well-adjusted people will accept the trade-off. 

[red750]

10 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

 

They don't believe you, and assume you're lying. Guilty before being proved innocent.

Because the idiots that do drink then drive lie about not drinking. Better to spend a couple of minutes to get them off the road than have them wipe you out.

 

[octave]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

but now my speech could be curtailed via proposed new speech laws.

Just wondering in what way it will curtail your speech. What is it you want to say but think you will no longer be able to say?

[red750]

It relates to another thread regarding ignorance of the law. We don't know in detail what this new law entails. I've heard that saying something about the honoured suntanned leader of another country in the northern hemisphere could be considered hate speech and get you in serious trouble.

[octave]

This is short summary

 

 

 

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/fact-sheet-combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

4 minutes ago, octave said:

Just wondering in what way it will curtail your speech. What is it you want to say but think you will no longer be able to say?

Unless they list exactly what you can say, and what you can't say, we'll be just taking a chance.

[octave]

We already have laws that place some restrictions on speech. Free speech has never been absolute. 

These are things you could have problems with

• threaten people

• incite violence

• harass or intimidate

• defame others.                                                           These restrictions have been around for many years. Why are you not all nervous about these restrictions?

Have you actually read any of the bill?

 

The Bill would introduce a new aggravated offence for religious or other leaders who advocate or threaten force or violence against groups, members of groups, their close associates, or their property, in contravention of sections 80.2A to 80.2BE of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The offence applies if a person, in their capacity as a religious or other leader, advocates or threatens force or violence in the course of providing religious instruction, or religious or secular pastoral care. 

 

[red750]

It was enough for 'Little to be Proud of' to pull the pin.

[octave]

Generally, I favour speech being as free as possible. Obviously inciting someone to violent acts or impuning someones reputation with falsehoods needs some limits on it.   I am not necessarily an enthusiastic supporter or detractor of the new bill.  My point is that these are not new restrictions; they have been tweaked as far as I can see. It is hard to argue that all of a sudden, we are all going to be highly regulated.   The things you could say are not really so different from before.

 

There will always be controversial edge cases. "Is it likely to incite violence or not?" I would suggest that for most of us, we are unlikely to ever stray into that territory since we obviously haven't previously. 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

I've always considered the major parties as the worst offenders of hate speech. They hate Pauline Hanson, and they hate anyone who opposes them. They hate conservative foreign visitors who want to give talks to audiences here. And they hate Trump.

 

In your thread "What is Trump up to now", you'd better watch what you say. You won't be able to advocate for his death anymore.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

why do they ask if you've had anything to drink,

The reason that question is asked is because alcohol stays in the mouth for a little while after consumed. The question is asked to ensure that there is no alcohol in the mouth which would result in a positive screening test, but a later analytical test would show a negative result. You have to remember that the roadside test is only a screeing test. A person is only arrested for the purposes of undergoing an analyitcal test using a breath analysis machine if the screening test has indicated that "there may be present in the bloood the prescibed concentration of alcohol".

 

Here's one that happened when I was doing RBT on a Sunday morning. I tested a bloke and the screening device showed an inordinatgely high result. The bloke showed no signes of intoxication, and was astounded at the result. He said he had not been drinking, and then said that he had used mouthwash after cleaninghis teeth a short time before. (He was going to the newsagent to ge the Sunday papers.) I held him at the site for about 15 miunutes and asked him to wash his mouth out with water. I tested him agasin and got a negative result. We both learned about mouth alcohol from that.

[rgmwa]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Why do the cops pull you over then? And why do they ask if you've had anything to drink, but then test you anyway even if you say "NO"

 

They don't believe you, and assume you're lying. Guilty before being proved innocent.

See above.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I've always considered the major parties as the worst offenders of hate speech. They hate Pauline Hanson, and they hate anyone who opposes them. They hate conservative foreign visitors who want to give talks to audiences here. And they hate Trump.

 

In your thread "What is Trump up to now", you'd better watch what you say. You won't be able to advocate for his death anymore.

Anyone with half a brain hates Trump, thinks Pauline is a joke, and thinks conservative Yanks who only want to travel here to break out society the way they've broken theirs, should stay the hell out.

 

Although I wish Trump were dead, and think it would be a huge benefit to the planet if he were, I would never encourage anyone to act on that wish and I don't think anyone else here would either.