131–140 of 363 posts
Sounds like Australia to me.
Technically it is not Australia but New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia. Australia is a federation of states, with the federal government only having legislative power in certain areas. The result is a mish-mash of different layers [1]. Hopefully these laws won't survive a journey though the NSW courts, but even so they will have achieved their goal of disrupting protests. If there is a glimmer of h…
Can't wait untill they install obligatory mind readers in 8 years. What a joke of country has Australia gotten to?
This is a state level ruling, not federal. Blame the NSW government, not Australia as a whole. I'm not saying the feds are innocent either but this was not their doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's pretty clear [NZ has] a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance NEw Zealander here: I honestly don’t understand what you are talking about. The culture of “sue”ing doesn’t really exist here. I wouldn’t guess there was a lot in common between NZ and Ozzie: we laugh or cry about what happens over in Oz. No idea about Canada.
I have no idea about New Zealand’s government but surely you have a court system where someone can seek legal recourse. Suing in this context means taking the government to court. How does NZ solve civil matters?
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, Examples? You can’t just make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
When challenged in court a week later, the government recinded it (so the court case was dropped). A formal inquiry requested cabinet minutes on the decision to use the Emergency Act which was denied until very recently (when it was challenged in court and the media).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/public-inquiry-emergencies-...
It's very much a "we will do what we want and you can go ahead and sue us", but of course by then, the damage is done in the sense that infringement of our rights just got a little bit easier.
No doubt the inquiry will raise concerns, but not until next year when it'll get minimal attention in the news cycle and the Prime Minister will say "At the time it was the right decision...we only take away rights when there is no other option...democracy is safe..."
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
Don't lump NZ in with Aus, different government, different laws. Afaik the trying to outlaw encryption stuff hasn't hopped the ditch yet.
After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
The entire tradition of thought around natural law and limits on the legitimate scope of the state have simply disappeared in Australia so far as I can tell. Everyone just accepts that the state has absolute sovereignty and it can pass any laws it wants. Commonwealth nations have largely devolved into illiberal elective autocracies with immense power concentrated in the PM's offices, minimal parliamentary autonomy (i…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nXGt6Jnabc
An elected president who is head of the executive and armed forces which include these intelligence agencies, would be foolish to "take them on", because they would "get back at him". The people no longer have the power to determine the way in which they are governed by democratic means (maybe they never did, but I'm lead to believe that elected politicians used to hold a bit more power a century or two ago). I expect it is a similar situation in Australia, it's not really the PM's office the holds the real power.
Note these are bail conditions (so presumably an alternative to a much more constrained existence in prison) for a charge that indicates potential for inflicting severe economic damage after organization via communication devices. When compared to bail conditions for other charged crimes which may also be strict and context-related (eg. trackers or keeping distance from a victim of violence) it sounds tough (and righ…
Quoted post unavailable.
Not unexpected from the state that banned encryption, gives the police the right to modifiy, add and remove files from your devices. And can also force its citizens to implement backdoors and basically be spies even in foreign countries and companies.
Not to mention the extensive censorship. Ironically the only state which has legal X rated content and legal cannabis is the Australian Capital Territory which is where all the politicians live. (equivalent to DC).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but when people talk about the USAs suing culture they are primarily talking about personal injury suits and ambulance chasers aren't they?
Which largely exist because American health costs for an injury are life destroying, so few people can just eat the hospital bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Yes those anti-mask nut jobs complaining about how spare rags fashioned into a mask don't stop the spread of covid. Wow thats crazy talk!
Now, is protesting climate change any less legitimate or any more harmful that would warrant the level of punishment mentioned in the article?