|
>> Right...so let your own citizens have the right to free speech, blah blah
>> blah. Sounds good so far. >> But not visitors or immigrants. Visitors or immigrants have choice:
abide by the rules we dictate to them or don't bother coming. >> Being a citizen shouldn't confer rights that you have a justifiication for
>> taking away from others. Why? Owning my own
home confers rights that I take away from others (like the ability to do what
they like in it, or even come there at all). If they don't like that, well,
they don't have to visit. The shareholders in a company collectively have the
same right. If the
shareholders of MacDonalds don't want you in their restaurants - you have to
find somewhere else to buy your cholesterol. >> Otherwise this is taking it up the arse? No, regardless of what some nut
>> thinks, even if they are allowed to spruik their nuttery around, not even the
>> most pacifist Government would likely let them commit acts of terror...nuts
>> having the right to free speech does not equate to sedition or mass murder. And do they also have an equal right to welfare? First world medical
treatment? Education?
Protection from crime at Australia's expense? How
about the right to an equal say in selecting the government? >> The next bit is most important; >> Holding an ideology is completely different to being an operative or finacier
>> of a terrorist or revolutionary organisation. >> Although it is most likely if one is a revolutionary or terrorist, one will
>> have certain far out beleifs. Right - there is a common factor. Religious Fundamentalist murderers are Religious
Fundamentalists, kind of by definition. >> Some of the s11 terrorists were not "true beleivers", rather alcoholics,
>> depressed losers who thought what the hey, I'll take a motherload of Yankees
>> with me. You mean people who could easily be programmed by the 'true believers'? :-) >> "The only freedom being taken away is from those who clearly want to take it
>> from others" >> Being a libertarian, if this was the rule, I would have a right to expel or
>> incarcerate members of most other political parties. This is repulsive. From your own property, yes. Frankly I would expel most members of
foreign political
parties. They are repulsive. >> Is it a dumb law? Well, just see if it prevents violence or overthrow of
>> liberty, if it is even followed, or if strange people with funny ideas (e.g
>> internationalist communists), not the even more deluded terrrorists (al Qaida)
>> are the ones who get punished. Yes, making decisions to minimize risk is difficult, but you do it
every time you cross the road. How far should someone's rights go? Do foreigners have
the right to drive around in vans full of ammonium nitrate? "That's fine guys,
but if you pull the trigger you will be breaking the law!"? Most people take a more pragmatic view. Sometimes you fight fire with
fire, sometimes you save money by spending it, sometimes you ensure peace by
preparing for war, and sometimes you increase freedoms by limiting them. .. though frankly I prefer a solution which increases freedoms to Australians in
Australia by limiting freedoms to foreigners in Australia. Again - if they
don't like that policy, they don't have to come.
| 
