Good Onya Mate

[susanjacobs]

Good questions all, but it is too simplistic to say, "Don't come back now, ya hear!" I have issues with the Australian government that I air when I see and feel the need. However, I would not move back to the US (or anywhere else) because of these flaws I see. I see the good outweighting the bad, and I choose to stay.

Perhaps he feels the same... well, maybe not about the moving to the US thing, but you get the point.

[Mythor]

I don't know if I've ever seen him say anything good about the country and he's often decrying the very foundations upon which the country is built.
But I guess there's probably things about the country he likes. Money from our Government is probably high on the list...

[susanjacobs]

I think we all love "free" money from the Government.

[unfrufru]

i think the countdown for a downunder terrorist attack is approaching faster and faster everytime this dickhead opens his mouth

i think part of the problem is the media hyping it up. and a bit of mis-translation

i watched the same interview on 9,10 and abc last night and on sunrise this morning

Each translation was different and they picked and choosed which parts to focus on.

its like people are making a big deal about this more than it should be just to see what would happen.

and i had to cringe last night when a current affair ended the story with "for a man whose supposed to be building bridges, he sure likes blowing them up"

although i did have to agree with the man they interviewed that if a) the muslim community doesn't get rid of him and b) the press don't stop giving him so much attention that it would be the cronulla riots x 10 all over the country.

[Mythor]

Yes, and when he's not opening his mouth encouraging things, Howard and co. take over the stirring duties.

WE'RE DOOMED.

[susanjacobs]

I agree with you on this inciting a possible terrorist attacks and rioting. It isn't helping anything. I still think it is uncool to tell him to leave and not come back though. God help me, I hoped that Howard was right about it amusing Aussies.

Originally Posted by unfrufru

and i had to cringe last night when a current affair ended the story with "for a man whose supposed to be building bridges, he sure likes blowing them up"

Was it said with a straight face? I cringed while reading it.

[Mythor]

No, not "leave and don't come back." He's not even in the country at the moment. It's "well, stay there then?"

[unfrufru]

Originally Posted by susanjacobs

God help me, I hoped that Howard was right about it amusing Aussies.

i doubt it. the daily telegraph is stirring its readers up. the same people who watch crap like TT and ACA. they have a largely bogan, sheep like following who don't have a clear understanding of islam or even what's happening outside their own house.

its a whol culture of not trusting anyone whose not white versus some cultures who don't trust anyone whose not muslim. its been going on for centuries but now they have the net and tv networks who can spread the message of hate further.

just a matter of time now.

[susanjacobs]

To Mythor: That is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

To unfrufru: I agree. It is only a matter of time.

[Gutter Monkey]

Every time I hear about that Sheik he's either complaining about something, trying to get an unfair advantage for his mates, whinging about stuff that can't be changed or just plain sticking his foot in his mouth AGAIN and having to backtrack and vacilitate over what he meant and how it sounded to everyone. He's a dickhead and a stirrer.

Sounds like a typical Australian to me, I don't know what all the fuss is about ...

[sara]

Originally Posted by susanjacobs

He has an implied right of free speech.

It's actually an implied right of political communication which is quite different. We have no freedom of speech in Australia. Sorry to be a bit pedantic but I'm somewhat of a law nerd.

[susanjacobs]

Originally Posted by sara

It's actually an implied right of political communication which is quite different. We have no freedom of speech in Australia. Sorry to be a bit pedantic but I'm somewhat of a law nerd.

Hence me being really carefully with the way I worded my sentence...

There isn't a constitutional right to free speech as there is in the US. However, there is a implied right of free speech. Politicians and others speak of our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has been pretty much upheld by the laws and courts of Australia (there are always exceptions). Since the courts have upheld it, it is implied.

We may also have a implied right of political communication as well. However, I worded my sentence correctly about the free speech.

Further on the cleric story, there is a story about it in the BBC news.

[sara]

Originally Posted by susanjacobs

Hence me being really carefully with the way I worded my sentence...

There isn't a constitutional right to free speech as there is in the US. However, there is a implied right of free speech. Politicians and others speak of our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has been pretty much upheld by the laws and courts of Australia (there are always exceptions). Since the courts have upheld it, it is implied.

We may also have a implied right of political communication as well. However, I worded my sentence correctly about the free speech.

There is no freedom of speech in Australia implied or otherwise (i.e. express). The first cases to really deal with the proposition that there could be implied into the Constitution a legal right to free speech was Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (ACTV). The Courts held that a freedom of political communication can be implied into the Constitution because of the nature of Australian government however they didn't settle it's exact nature. It's Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation that's the current law on the matter. The court found that because responsible and representative government relies upon people being able to make informed choices about who they elect then people need to be able to talk about matters related to politics or government matters. This isn't a personal right conferred on the individual but a restriction on legislative power ( i.e. people have the right to discussion only to the extent that the governmetn doesn't legislate against it). Even our implied freedom of political communication is limited in that governments can make laws to stop citizens discussing political matters. It's allowed so long as the law is for a legitimate purpose, compatible with our system of government and is reasonably and appropriately adapted to fulfilling the legitimate purpose. For example in Levy it was decided that animal rigths protesters could be stopped from entering a duck shooting area even though it impaired their freedom of political communication because there was a legitimate purpose for the prohibition. Another example is that the government can make laws against discussion that instructs in matters of crime.

Freedom of political communications is similar to freedom of expression and freedom of political communications but it's not the same (butterworth's legal dictionary). Like I said above it's limited only to what is necessary for the operation of Australia's system of government. Other than that there is no reason why the government can't make whatever laws it wants in order to limit our speech. What the cleric said is probably protected by the implied freedom of political communication, but it's not because of freedom of speech.

[susanjacobs]

I don't disagree with you. Mainly because I studied Law in the US, not Aus -- actually my studies of the Law were under my Criminal Justice degree. US Constitutional Law was one of my fave subjects.

But if there isn't any freedom of speech (implied or otherwise), you need to tell Howard and others to stop using the phrase 'cause they do use it. I have only a lay person's understanding of the Australian Constitution, and I haven't really looked into that very much (just to verify there was no Freedom of Speech clause).

I know it was a nit-pick on your part, and I am just discussing this -- no hard feelings on my part, and I hope not yours. I will have to read your post in more detail. Thank you for the cases!

However, some people I know think there is a expressed Freedom of Speech and are surprised to hear there isn't. Some think it is implied, which I do as well. The particulars are not that interesting to me. Politicians (perhaps in error) have spoken about how we have the Free Speech. If they can't get it right, then a lot of Aussies won't either.

[sara]

No hard feelings at all, I only really meant it to point out the common misconception. You are right in the sense though that although there's no legal right to freedom of speech we do have a pretty broad ability to talk about whatever we want but that's simply because the government hasn't made any laws to stop us yet. I'm pretty sure when they're referring to freedom of speech they mean it in the non-legal more philosphical sense.

But yes no hard feelings, it was only ever intended as a discussion.