View Full Version : Draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005

10-14-2005, 02:58 PM
Link To Act Gov Document (http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf)

10-15-2005, 02:47 AM
Holy snapping duck shit.

I notice there is no concrete definition of a terrorist, I mean they even relate these laws to industrial relations.

I wonder if we are classified as terrorists yet?

Shit we might not even make it to the Gulag by the looks of it.

10-15-2005, 06:39 AM
Khopesh wrote:
Holy snapping duck shit.

I notice there is no concrete definition of a terrorist, I mean they even relate these laws to industrial relations.

I wonder if we are classified as terrorists yet?

Shit we might not even make it to the Gulag by the looks of it.

Scary :-o

10-15-2005, 10:56 AM
I have a solution!

Lets go and join H.M principality of Camside!


He declared war on Australia and won!
Awesome guy by the sounds of it.

10-15-2005, 12:24 PM
The Principality of Caledonia was previously the managing principality, of a group of seven principalities, which at that time legally annexed the National Estate of Australia in 1992-1993, and formed a treaty nation, British Israel, which then held the National Estate of Australia, in trust for the British subjects that were then resident in Australia.

Upon the abdication of Caledonia's then Prince, Edward James Renton in late 2001 and early 2002, which occured after he had dissolved his own interim government structure, in August 2001, the Principality of Caledonia was effectively dissolved.

To this date, it seems that the Principality of Caledonia continues to exist/trade, under the illegal operation of the Australian convicted criminal, Neal Arthur Lyster, who treasonously and invalidly claims to be a governor of the defunct Principality of Caledonia.

However, on 6th March 2003, due to the successful Declaration of War declared on the Commonwealth of Australia, by the Principality of Camside, the secession of these lands was overridden by the fact that the Principality of Camside, by default, won that war, due to the Commonwealth of Australia not turning up to battle.

The law relating to the Declaration of War, state, that if the country on which war has been declared (Australia), fails to turn up to battle, the country that declared war (Principality of Camside), is declared the winner. For this legal reason, the "spoils of war," namely the Australian National Estate, Crown Land, roads and freeways, are now the property and responsibility of the Principality of Camside.

These property spoils of war, however, exclude the sovereign lands already declared as the sovereign independent lands of Hutt River Province.

The Principality of Camside is now be legally referred to as Her Majesty's Government of Camside, as another of the consequences of the Principality of Camside having won by default, the war that they declared on the now defunct, abdicated and defeated Commonwealth of Australia.

The Government of Commonwealth of Australia, abdicated no later than 1986, because of the human rights that the Australian Government was, and to this date are still taking away from the people, without the consent of either the people, or Westminster Parliament.

Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (U.K.), the State Imperial Application Act of NSW, the State Imperial Application Act of Qld, and the State Imperial Application Act of Victoria, all of which bind our human rights, and ties all the Great Statutes in place for ever, and they cannot be changed.

All States and Territories, are bound through the Act of Settlement of 1700, to have the same rights, and once given, shall never be taken away.

Lord Bracton wrote:
“Where the Will rules, and the Law does not, the King is Dead"

This means, that if the Government of the day rules by the will of the Government, and not the Law, then they, the Australian Government, are deemed to be dead - in other words, they have abdicated !

10-15-2005, 03:26 PM
They are going to give the senate 1 whole day to review the terror legislation.

Sneaky part of it is, it's an ammendment to the crimes act, meaning that to see the true picture, you need to read both together.

i.e. "Replace Clause 17.4 with...." is one thing, but it depends on what clause 17.4 was in the first place.

10-15-2005, 05:42 PM

10-16-2005, 09:39 AM
ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483453.htm)

10-16-2005, 02:55 PM
And we know what happens when we have anti-terrorism exercises, don't we ?

10-16-2005, 03:32 PM
As the saying goes - that I don't particularly like -
'sh*t happens!'

10-25-2005, 09:46 PM
October 26, 2005 - 11:02AM
Attorney General Philip Ruddock.

Attorney General Philip Ruddock.
Photo: Edwina Pickles
Related coverage

* POLL What part of the proposed terror laws do you most dislike?

The federal government is treating voters and the parliament with contempt by introducing its anti-terror legislation on Melbourne Cup day, shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon said today.


10-25-2005, 10:04 PM
The federal government is treating voters and the parliament with contempt by introducing its anti-terror legislation on Melbourne Cup day, shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon said today.

Well fancy that?

The desperation is telling. They are really desperate and i'd love to know why 'Winston' is in such a hurry. Have the masters called and demanded to know why it's still not safe for the Elite kiddie fiddlers et al to "come on down"?

The bird flu and this has really got me...the pathetic and ridiculous nature of it...the complete "reaching" bordering on the absurd. Whats up?

Something in the air? Soon?

Well, the good thing about it all is this. I feel VERY confident that when push comes to shove, the cliched Oz spirit of anti-authority, Ned Kelly, Chopper Read, Eureka Stockade will show itself once again...if the footies not on.

Once all this TALK is actually transformed into concrete reality and Ozzie slobs are being asked for their "papers" and their cars searched at road blocks we will see how it all pans out.

The NWO masters just do not understand the Oz nature if they think we will take it. We are not Americans...even if deep down we want to be.

10-25-2005, 10:10 PM
People are more concerned with the IR changes than any thing else $$$...

10-26-2005, 12:07 AM
I'm not - I'm vehemently opposed to both pieces of legislation. The absolute gall of Howard to say 'trust me' in relation to how the laws will be used, is amazing.

Lets look at his record of trust, shall we:

- A GST? Never, ever.
- that was a non-core promise
- there were children thrown overboard
- there were weapons of mass destruction
- parliamentary codes of conduct being breached

Nice for him to say 'if you don;t like the offer, get another job'. Once he's gone, he never has to work another day in his life - super he can get at immediately, tax-payer funded office, staff, and allowance for life.

I detest him, and practically everyone else in government who has not stood up and said anything against both the IR legislation, as well as the anti-terror stuff.

And the apathy of the general public about this stuff - it beggars belief!

10-26-2005, 02:00 PM
The French government has backed a draft anti-terror bill proposing more powers to track suspects.


11-29-2005, 07:42 PM
Last Update: Wednesday, November 30, 2005.

The New South Wales Law Society says while the State Government has watered down aspects of the Howard Government's counter-terrorism laws, the state-based bill is fundamentally flawed.

State MPs will debate the bill today, which allows the police to detain terrorist suspects for weeks at a time without charge.

Law Society president John McIntyre says while the New South Wales bill allows suspects to go to the Supreme Court and argue against their case, the normal rules of evidence do not apply and people can be held on the basis of hearsay and and suspicion.

"Therefore it's likely that applications could be made and granted on the basis of heresy, supposition, suspicion, evidence of that nature," he said.

He says while the Government claims the bill allows for people to be detained for up to 14 days without charge, there is a loophole that could see them held longer.

"Our analysis of this legislation suggests that under section 26k there is an opportunity for people to be subjected to further orders and they may effectively be detained for multiple periods of time and which could ultimately result in a very lengthy period of detention," he said.

Unlike the federal laws, it is not an offence for a suspect to tell a family member or friend that they are being detained.

ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519737.htm)

11-29-2005, 08:07 PM
By Emma Rodgers. Posted: Wednesday, November 30 2005 .


Cartoonist Michael Leunig says he does not believe any reassurances the Federal Government may give over the prosecution of artists under the sedition clause included in the new anti-terrorism bill.

ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate/200511/s1519710.htm)