Discussion:
Singapore swing
(too old to reply)
Don H
2005-11-17 17:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Jacques Schidt
2005-11-17 18:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.

Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do
it"

Bullshit bullshit. Cancel Optus, fuck Singapore airlines and Qantas,
Don't fly either again.
Blockade Singapore embassy and other missions in Aus.

Fucking animals.
--
O.Schidt
http://tinyurl.com/79sfn
inter_ton
2005-11-18 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do
it"
So you'd expect Singapore, which has been very consistent in hanging drug
traffickers for decades, to suddenly say..."Oh well, we'll let this bloke
off and just leave him in gaol" ?

Get real.
Brissie
2005-11-18 06:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by inter_ton
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do
it"
So you'd expect Singapore, which has been very consistent in hanging drug
traffickers for decades, to suddenly say..."Oh well, we'll let this bloke
off and just leave him in gaol" ?
Get real.
People want Indonesia to change their regular sentencing and free
Corby or only give her a very short sentence

But Corby's white isn't she?
Cartman
2005-11-19 22:11:36 UTC
Permalink
And seen by some as an attractive female.
Post by Brissie
Post by inter_ton
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do
it"
So you'd expect Singapore, which has been very consistent in hanging drug
traffickers for decades, to suddenly say..."Oh well, we'll let this bloke
off and just leave him in gaol" ?
Get real.
People want Indonesia to change their regular sentencing and free
Corby or only give her a very short sentence
But Corby's white isn't she?
--
Usenet by www.trynsave.net - Visit it today for sales online in Australia
bassett
2005-11-20 09:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cartman
And seen by some as an attractive female.
Post by inter_ton
Post by Jacques Schidt
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to doit"
So you'd expect Singapore, which has been very consistent in hanging drug
traffickers for decades, to suddenly say..."Oh well, we'll let this bloke
off and just leave him in gaol" ?
Get real.
The pity of it is, they missed his drug'y brother, then they could hang the
pair of them,,
It's a great way to take out the rubbish.
It should be shown live on all the news nerworks in the Asian area.
Do a slow-mo of the drop,
A bloody pity thet don't have hangings here, all they get here for drug
dealing is a pat on the head, and a couple of days weeding some govenmemt
gardens, if they bother to turn up. .
bassett
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 01:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Singaporean society is really still primitive thinking. I heard they
sent a registered post item informing his mum of the date. Probably
just wanted to make sure they knew where to send the bill for the
killing!
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 03:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
Singaporean society is really still primitive thinking.
Wota terminal fuckwit...
Post by Ketut Royson
I heard they sent a registered post item informing his mum of the date.
Why should they bother doing anything else ?
Post by Ketut Royson
Probably just wanted to make sure they
knew where to send the bill for the killing!
Wota terminal fuckwit...
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 04:28:06 UTC
Permalink
"Probably just wanted to make sure they
Post by Ketut Royson
knew where to send the bill for the killing!
Wota terminal fuckwit..."

Well, it's a chinese custom to send the mother the bill for the bullet,
& Singapore aspires to it's chinese heritage.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 05:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Ketut Royson
Probably just wanted to make sure they
knew where to send the bill for the killing!
Wota terminal fuckwit...
Well, it's a chinese custom to send the mother the bill for the bullet,
Even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that there are quite a few differences
in the detail between Singapore and China.
Post by Ketut Royson
& Singapore aspires to it's chinese heritage.
Wota terminal fuckwit...

They dont even use bullets, fuckwit.
Justin
2005-11-18 03:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacques Schidt
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life.
Singpaore saying "we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do
it"
How do you support the death penalty without supporting the death penalty?
Simple - you outsource it.

If the Bali 9 get the death penalty, you can be assured that there'll be
plenty of public sabre rattling from the government, but you can't be so
sure they'll make the same noises to the Indonesians behind closed doors.

Government ministers applauded the death penalty handed out to the Bali
bombers. They seemed pleased that Azahari was killed & not captured. It's
capital punishment by proxy.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 05:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by Jacques Schidt
What really shits me is the fake diplomacy.
Howard making a bullshit appeal to save the guy's life. Singpaore saying
"we're oh so sorry, but we really really have to do it"
They dont say anything like that.

They actually say that thats the penalty in their country
and that fuckits like you get to like it or lump it.
Post by Justin
How do you support the death penalty without supporting the death penalty?
Simple - you outsource it.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Justin
If the Bali 9 get the death penalty, you can be assured that there'll be
plenty of public sabre rattling from the government,
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Justin
but you can't be so sure they'll make the same noises to the Indonesians
behind> closed doors.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Justin
Government ministers applauded the death penalty handed out to the Bali
bombers.
Their choice, fuckwit.
Post by Justin
They seemed pleased that Azahari was killed & not captured. It's capital
punishment by proxy.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Rod Speed
2005-11-17 19:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd.
Great. They clearly arent so stupid as to give it room and board
for 20 years before pulling the plug like the stupid yanks.
Post by Don H
Some feel he deserves it,
Corse he does.
Post by Don H
others not.
Their problem.
Post by Don H
After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious drug, which could
result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy family cause.
Or claims he did, anyway.
Post by Don H
Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
They clearly feel it does. You get to like that or lump that too.
Post by Don H
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Nope, they shoot theirs.
Ordog
2005-11-17 22:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd.
Great. They clearly arent so stupid as to give it room and board
for 20 years before pulling the plug like the stupid yanks.
Post by Don H
Some feel he deserves it,
Corse he does.
Post by Don H
others not.
Their problem.
Post by Don H
After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious drug, which could
result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy family cause.
Or claims he did, anyway.
Post by Don H
Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
They clearly feel it does. You get to like that or lump that too.
Post by Don H
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Nope, they shoot theirs.
I am really in favour of exiling creten Australians! Saves tax payers'
money becase we do not have to put them in asylums for anti social
psychotic behaviour!

Take for instance Rod Speed!

Singapore, Bali, Texas-USA, China, Pakistan or wherever. Any place they
love executions!

We allow you to choose, just relieve us from your moronic bloodthirsty
presence!

Ordog
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
Franc Zabkar
2005-11-17 20:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
n***@more.spam.invalid
2005-11-17 22:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Nah, I'll give it a miss, thanks anyway, Franc...
Fran
2005-11-18 09:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
It's dangerous to assume everyone else is just like you. Projection is
not analysis.

Fran
Ordog
2005-11-17 22:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
If you like it there so much just go back. No great loss for Australia!

Ordog
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
jantan
2005-11-17 22:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Hanging the arsehole is not going to stop the drug trade. He is just a mule
and is of no conscequence in the drug trade. What would be more important is
to glean and get his cooperation to get to the top boys in the trade and
hang those instead. May be the top drug trade guys are the ones who are in a
big hurry to hang him to shut him up for good.
Post by Ordog
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
If you like it there so much just go back. No great loss for Australia!
Ordog
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
k***@gmail.com
2005-11-17 23:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jantan
Hanging the arsehole is not going to stop the drug trade. He is just a mule
and is of no conscequence in the drug trade. What would be more important is
to glean and get his cooperation to get to the top boys in the trade and
hang those instead. May be the top drug trade guys are the ones who are in a
big hurry to hang him to shut him up for good.
I seriously doubt that the 'mule' would have any real contact with
anyone in the 'management' levels.

The boss would know enough to keep several layers of people between him
and the courier who gave the mule the drugs. I doubt if the boss would
come down and wish the mule a good trip.
Rod Speed
2005-11-17 23:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jantan
Hanging the arsehole is not going to stop the drug trade.
It does get rid of that criminal quite effectively and a lot
more cheaply than keeping him in jail for 20 years too.
Post by jantan
He is just a mule and is of no conscequence in the drug trade.
It might well make others considering doing
something as stupid as that what the risks are.
Post by jantan
What would be more important is to glean and get his cooperation to get to the
top boys in the trade and hang those instead.
They aint that stupid to allow that.
Post by jantan
May be the top drug trade guys are the ones who are in a big hurry to hang him
to shut him up for good.
Pathetic, really.
Post by jantan
Post by Ordog
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:56:25 GMT, "Don H"
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some
feel he deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling
heroin, a vicious drug, which could result in death of many - even
if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug
smuggling)? Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify
the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law
and order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
If you like it there so much just go back. No great loss for
Australia! Ordog
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
manly supporter
2005-11-18 09:14:42 UTC
Permalink
wouldnt trust any asian legal system. Let alone asians
Post by jantan
Hanging the arsehole is not going to stop the drug trade. He is just a mule
and is of no conscequence in the drug trade. What would be more important is
to glean and get his cooperation to get to the top boys in the trade and
hang those instead. May be the top drug trade guys are the ones who are in a
big hurry to hang him to shut him up for good.
Post by Ordog
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
If you like it there so much just go back. No great loss for Australia!
Ordog
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
Stan Pierce
2005-11-17 22:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
Yes, and I don't think you will see any reference to that fact in the
Australian press. Too many queers in the social services and in Law have
produce this result. An effeminate society that helped bring down the Roman
Empire is what is affecting us also. 'Concerns' for criminals instead of their
victims is beyond belief. At least Singapore has got it's priorities right.
k***@gmail.com
2005-11-17 22:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Pierce
Yes, and I don't think you will see any reference to that fact in the
Australian press. Too many queers in the social services and in Law have
produce this result. An effeminate society that helped bring down the Roman
Empire is what is affecting us also. 'Concerns' for criminals instead of their
victims is beyond belief. At least Singapore has got it's priorities right.
Yes, there have been too much of a movement towards protecting
criminals, and softer sentencing. There was a move some years ago
towards 'true' sentencing where the convicted criminals has to serve
the full term of the sentence, and not just a portion with early parole
for good behaviour.

It is a complex issue though, and it comes down to whether or not you
believe people can change.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 01:42:35 UTC
Permalink
"It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and order is the key."
So you would be in favour of uncompromising enforcement by the
Australian government of s104 of the criminal code (Cth)? If that is
so, then the AFP should arrest, and imprison for life, the Singaporeans
involved in the hanging if they ever come to Australia.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 03:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and order is the key.
So you would be in favour of uncompromising enforcement by
the Australian government of s104 of the criminal code (Cth)?
If that is so, then the AFP should arrest, and imprison for life, the
Singaporeans involved in the hanging if they ever come to Australia.
Wota terminal fuckwit...
k***@gmail.com
2005-11-17 22:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work over there,
and if you lived there long enough, you would realize that the safe,
orderly and clean life does have a price. That price is the underlying
understanding that you are free to do your own thing as long as you do
nothing against the government or their laws.

I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver, elderly
grandmothers and children going out to King George Square to call
Howard a liar brings a smile to my face. It is small freedoms like this
that you miss most in Singapore.

Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore, but I would risk
stepping in some chewing gum or gave my car broken in here, than to
live in Singapore.
Rod Speed
2005-11-17 23:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law
and order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas
or organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work
over there, and if you lived there long enough, you would
realize that the safe, orderly and clean life does have a price.
And I bet that if you put it to the vote, either here or there,
the wankers would be amazed at what the voters think
about whether that price is worth paying to get that result.
Post by k***@gmail.com
That price is the underlying understanding that
you are free to do your own thing as long as you
do nothing against the government or their laws.
I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver,
elderly grandmothers and children going out to King George
Square to call Howard a liar brings a smile to my face.
More fool you.
Post by k***@gmail.com
It is small freedoms like this that you miss most in Singapore.
They clearly dont.

And its not one or the other anyway.
Post by k***@gmail.com
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore,
but I would risk stepping in some chewing gum or
gave my car broken in here, than to live in Singapore.
And I bet most here dont agree with you on that.
k***@gmail.com
2005-11-17 23:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by k***@gmail.com
It is small freedoms like this that you miss most in Singapore.
They clearly dont.
And its not one or the other anyway.
It's hard for Singaporeans to voice an opinion when they aren't even
allowed to gather Rod.

And sure, it's not as cut & dry as I made it out, but I was not writing
a thesis on the issue either. Just pointing out the main issues that
people don't consider when they say Sinagpore is oh so great, being
there for a 5 day stop-over.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by k***@gmail.com
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore,
but I would risk stepping in some chewing gum or
gave my car broken in here, than to live in Singapore.
And I bet most here dont agree with you on that.
It's a matter of risk. How many people here suffer from getting their
car broken in? You live with the risk, but you most probably could live
10 years in Cabramatta in bliss, without an incident.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 00:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by k***@gmail.com
It is small freedoms like this that you miss most in Singapore.
They clearly dont.
And its not one or the other anyway.
It's hard for Singaporeans to voice an opinion
when they aren't even allowed to gather Rod.
Complete pack of mindlessly silly lies.
Plenty of obvious ways to express an opinion.
Post by k***@gmail.com
And sure, it's not as cut & dry as I made it out, but I was not
writing a thesis on the issue either. Just pointing out the main
issues that people don't consider when they say Sinagpore
is oh so great, being there for a 5 day stop-over.
And I was rubbing your nose in the fact that you'd get one
hell of a surprise that 'price' was worth it for that outcome here.
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Rod Speed
Post by k***@gmail.com
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore,
but I would risk stepping in some chewing gum or
gave my car broken in here, than to live in Singapore.
And I bet most here dont agree with you on that.
It's a matter of risk.
Nope.
Post by k***@gmail.com
How many people here suffer from getting their car broken in?
Enough that most would be happy to eliminate that risk.

Their houses in spades.
Post by k***@gmail.com
You live with the risk, but you most probably could
live 10 years in Cabramatta in bliss, without an incident.
And many would prefer not to too.
Don H
2005-11-18 17:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work over there,
and if you lived there long enough, you would realize that the safe,
orderly and clean life does have a price. That price is the underlying
understanding that you are free to do your own thing as long as you do
nothing against the government or their laws.
I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver, elderly
grandmothers and children going out to King George Square to call
Howard a liar brings a smile to my face. It is small freedoms like this
that you miss most in Singapore.
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore, but I would risk
stepping in some chewing gum or gave my car broken in here, than to
live in Singapore.
# Singapore is an interest case, politically, and in other ways. It's
virtually a one-party state, and anyone who offends the PAP (People's Action
Party) had better watch out. They used to have one Opposition MP, some
unfortunate Tamil, who was given hell for his presumption. I believe they
now have two Opposition MPs. The present Prime Minister just happens to be
son of a former (and formidable) PM; best man for the job? Quite likely
(like father, like son?).
Many wealthy Singaporeans own a dwelling overseas, eg. in Australia, where
they can temporarily escape the benevolent conformity of their home country.
But, let's be understanding. Singapore is a small nation with a
racially-mixed population, though 60+% Chinese. It has work-permits due to
past slaughter of Chinese by Malays; so any Malays who cross the Causeway to
work in Singapore need a permit, renewable monthly.
Its one-party rule is also understandable, for same reason. Just as
one-party rule in China is understandable; though there it's due to vast
size of the population. (US plutocracy is a one-party state, but has two
heads?)
Singapore could teach Australia a few things about national independence
and self-respect, but it does tend to be rather self-righteous, as retention
of the death penalty may indicate.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 19:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don H
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law
and order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work over there,
and if you lived there long enough, you would realize that the safe,
orderly and clean life does have a price. That price is the
underlying understanding that you are free to do your own thing as
long as you do nothing against the government or their laws.
I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver,
elderly grandmothers and children going out to King George Square to
call Howard a liar brings a smile to my face. It is small freedoms
like this that you miss most in Singapore.
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore, but I would risk
stepping in some chewing gum or gave my car broken in here, than to
live in Singapore.
Singapore is an interest case, politically, and in other ways.
It's virtually a one-party state, and anyone who offends the
PAP (People's Action Party) had better watch out.
That's a lie, they just need to behave themselves.
Post by Don H
They used to have one Opposition MP, some unfortunate
Tamil, who was given hell for his presumption.
Yep, because he was rather stupid.
Post by Don H
I believe they now have two Opposition MPs. The
present Prime Minister just happens to be son of a
former (and formidable) PM; best man for the job?
Just as true of any PM or president etc, stupid.
Post by Don H
Quite likely (like father, like son?).
Very different in many respects.

Same with the two Bushs too.
Post by Don H
Many wealthy Singaporeans own a dwelling overseas,
Not that many at all actually as a percentage.
Post by Don H
eg. in Australia, where they can temporarily escape
the benevolent conformity of their home country.
Plenty of ours have a dwelling overseas too, stupid.

And a lot bigger percentage of indonesian chinese have
a house here, basically so they can piss off over here
if the monkeys start torching chinese businesses again.
Post by Don H
But, let's be understanding. Singapore is a small nation
with a racially-mixed population, though 60+% Chinese.
Much higher than that, actually.
Post by Don H
It has work-permits due to past slaughter of Chinese by Malays;
Pig ignorant drivel. They have those because Malaysia
and Singapore were once all in together, stupid.
Post by Don H
so any Malays who cross the Causeway to work
in Singapore need a permit, renewable monthly.
Basically to give them some control over the hordes of
others from places like indonesia wanting to work there.
Post by Don H
Its one-party rule is also understandable, for same reason.
More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
Post by Don H
Just as one-party rule in China is understandable;
though there it's due to vast size of the population.
More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
Post by Don H
(US plutocracy is a one-party state, but has two heads?)
More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
Post by Don H
Singapore could teach Australia a few things about national
independence and self-respect, but it does tend to be rather
self-righteous, as retention of the death penalty may indicate.
More utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.

They've just kept it the way it was in ALL first world countrys,
arent stupid enough to pander to the mindless wankers who hate it.

There is majority support for the death penalty for the most serious
crime in this country too. We just get ignored by the pollys on that here.
Stan Pierce
2005-11-18 21:05:02 UTC
Permalink
"Don H" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:Qtoff.20593$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
(snipped)
Post by Don H
Singapore could teach Australia a few things about national independence
and self-respect, but it does tend to be rather self-righteous, as retention
of the death penalty may indicate.
Self-righteousness is not a pejorative. It has been made so by the thought
police since Dr. Benjamin Spock's influence in the 1950's.
Self righteousness is needed to uphold standards of respect for public civility.
Without it societies crumble for want of standards. Respect for elders,
swearing in public, contempt for restrained behaviour becomes commonplace,
disrespect for law. Anarchy is the result.

Singapore obviously has had past experience of this happening so knows how to
deal with it and doesn't need western decadent legalese to decide how to punish.

Dr. Spock has been a disaster on the Western mind and led to the Hippy
generation of useless mindless anarchists that now make up the left / liberal
/communist / drug dealing / Muslim huggers that's turning the Western world into
a cesspit.

Being self-righteous is the only way to stop it. Without being self-righteous
to begin with there is no ACTION to stop it, and it requires a sense of right
and wrong for action to be generated.

So treat self-righteousness as the prime mover of civilized action...not a
pejorative. Spock and Gramsci would be having sleepless nights if they could
see the mindless result of their influence.

Singapore, or rather the thinking heads in Singapore are certainly is teaching
us a lesson here.
Craig Welch
2005-11-20 02:17:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:48:32 GMT, "Don H"
Post by Don H
It has work-permits due to
past slaughter of Chinese by Malays; so any Malays who cross the Causeway to
work in Singapore need a permit, renewable monthly.
Anyone, Malay or not, who crosses the causeway to work in Singapore
needs a work permit or an employment pass. And the term can be much,
much longer than a month.
--
Craig
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 01:23:08 UTC
Permalink
"Anyone, Malay or not, who crosses the causeway to work in Singapore
needs a work permit or an employment pass"

Although this is ostensibly the case my firm has correspondence from
Singapore Dept Immigration & Manpower saying we do not need either an
employment pass or work permit to send staff to Singapore to do
software implementation & Training.
Craig Welch
2005-11-23 01:28:53 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Nov 2005 17:23:08 -0800, "Ketut Royson"
Post by Ketut Royson
"Anyone, Malay or not, who crosses the causeway to work in Singapore
needs a work permit or an employment pass"
Although this is ostensibly the case my firm has correspondence from
Singapore Dept Immigration & Manpower saying we do not need either an
employment pass or work permit to send staff to Singapore to do
software implementation & Training.
Different matter altogether. They're employed here, not there.
--
Craig
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 01:43:30 UTC
Permalink
"Different matter altogether. They're employed here, not there."
So a Malay labour hire firm could send its Malay-employed workers to
work in Singapore without a work permit/employment pass?
Craig Welch
2005-11-23 03:24:44 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Nov 2005 17:43:30 -0800, "Ketut Royson"
Post by Ketut Royson
"Different matter altogether. They're employed here, not there."
So a Malay labour hire firm could send its Malay-employed workers to
work in Singapore without a work permit/employment pass?
No more so than your Australian labour hire firm could send workers
to Singapore on a routine bases without a work permit or employment
pass.
--
Craig
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 07:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Craig Welch says: "Anyone, Malay or not, who crosses the causeway to
work in Singapore
needs a work permit or an employment pass."
Ketut points out: "Although this is ostensibly the case my firm has
correspondence from
Singapore Dept Immigration & Manpower saying we do not need either an
employment pass or work permit to send staff to Singapore to do
software implementation & Training."
Craig reckons: "Different matter altogether. They're employed here, not
there."
Ketut asks a pin-down question:"So a Malay labour hire firm could send
its Malay-employed workers to
work in Singapore without a work permit/employment pass?"
Craig Welch says:"No more so than your Australian labour hire firm
could send workers
to Singapore on a routine bases without a work permit or employment
pass."

In other words, you don't need an employment pass or work permit to
cross the caiseway and work in Singapore...

Franc Zabkar
2005-11-18 20:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work over there,
and if you lived there long enough, you would realize that the safe,
orderly and clean life does have a price.
Not true. In a *real* democracy where people can vote on every single
important issue, personal liberty and personal safety need not be
mutually exclusive. You are falling into the same trap as all those
others who believe that our choices must necessarily be limited to
indivisible package deals. I'm advocating that we recognise and accept
the good ideas and jettison the bad ones.
Post by k***@gmail.com
That price is the underlying
understanding that you are free to do your own thing as long as you do
nothing against the government or their laws.
We have basically the same problem here, although at a different
level, ie we are subject to "their" laws, not ours. In any case you
are missing my point completely. I am extolling Singapore's approach
to law and order, nothing else. Singapore has *many* failings, notably
in the area of personal freedom, but that's a *separate* issue.
Post by k***@gmail.com
I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver, elderly
grandmothers and children going out to King George Square to call
Howard a liar brings a smile to my face. It is small freedoms like this
that you miss most in Singapore.
True, and none is more vocal in my criticism of the arrogant Lee Kuan
Yew than I. In fact I lived in Singapore's only opposition electorate.
But then what does one achieve by calling Howard a Lying Rodent, other
than letting off some steam? The Liberals will still screw you anyway.
Post by k***@gmail.com
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore, but I would risk
stepping in some chewing gum or gave my car broken in here, than to
live in Singapore.
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog for
a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 20:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising
law and order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or
Lakembas or organised crime syndicates. In contrast Australia
is a criminal cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt
and impotent police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary,
and a legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
I've also lived in Singapore temporarily when I had work
over there, and if you lived there long enough, you would
realize that the safe, orderly and clean life does have a price.
Not true.
Fraid so. There are two main prices paid. The most important
is that your vote is irrelevant, essentially because there are
only two MPs who arent part of the govt party, and so any
vote against govt policys are completely irrelevant.

The other price is that the govt is a tad overbearing on some
stuff that is allowed in other countrys, like public demos etc.
Post by Franc Zabkar
In a *real* democracy where people
can vote on every single important issue,
No such animal anywhere in the entire world, not even in Switzerland.
Post by Franc Zabkar
personal liberty and personal safety need not be mutually exclusive.
So that is one price paid by those living in singapore, stupid.
Post by Franc Zabkar
You are falling into the same trap as all those others
who believe that our choices must necessarily
be limited to indivisible package deals.
No he isnt, he was JUST pointing out that there
is a real price paid for the result singapore gets.
Post by Franc Zabkar
I'm advocating that we recognise and accept
the good ideas and jettison the bad ones.
Irrelevant to whether there is a real
price paid for the result singapore gets.
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
That price is the underlying understanding that
you are free to do your own thing as long as you
do nothing against the government or their laws.
We have basically the same problem here,
Nope. You can do anything you like against the govt here,
just as long as you arent stupid enough to try blowing up
govt buildings or killing people in the process etc.
Post by Franc Zabkar
although at a different level, ie we
are subject to "their" laws, not ours.
Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. If enough of us object to particular
laws, we can elect a different group of monkeys to change them.
Post by Franc Zabkar
In any case you are missing my point completely.
You are missing his completely.
Post by Franc Zabkar
I am extolling Singapore's approach to law and order, nothing else.
And he was pointing out that that approach has a real price.
Post by Franc Zabkar
Singapore has *many* failings, notably in the area
of personal freedom, but that's a *separate* issue.
No it isnt.
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
I'm back in Brisbane now, and the sight of grubby truck driver,
elderly grandmothers and children going out to King George
Square to call Howard a liar brings a smile to my face. It is
small freedoms like this that you miss most in Singapore.
True, and none is more vocal in my criticism of the arrogant Lee Kuan
Yew than I. In fact I lived in Singapore's only opposition electorate.
But then what does one achieve by calling Howard a Lying Rodent, other
than letting off some steam? The Liberals will still screw you anyway.
If they screw enough voters enough, they get the bums rush, stupid.

Doesnt happen in Singapore.
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
Australia might seem chaotic compared to Singapore,
but I would risk stepping in some chewing gum or
gave my car broken in here, than to live in Singapore.
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog
for a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...
And while most dont end up with as bad a result as yours,
I bet most would prefer the result singapore gets, and would
be prepared to pay the price they do pay to get it too.
Kwyjibo
2005-11-19 10:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
That price is the underlying understanding that
you are free to do your own thing as long as you
do nothing against the government or their laws.
We have basically the same problem here,
Nope. You can do anything you like against the govt here,
just as long as you arent stupid enough to try blowing up
govt buildings or killing people in the process etc.
So getting little Johhny pissed one night and shaving off one of his
eyebrows would be ok?
Cool!
--
Kwyj
Tony Smith
2005-11-19 12:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kwyjibo
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by k***@gmail.com
That price is the underlying understanding that
you are free to do your own thing as long as you
do nothing against the government or their laws.
We have basically the same problem here,
Nope. You can do anything you like against the govt here,
just as long as you arent stupid enough to try blowing up
govt buildings or killing people in the process etc.
So getting little Johhny pissed one night and shaving off one of his
eyebrows would be ok?
Cool!
What a bloody wonderful image.

Perhaps we could use a felt pen to put spectacles on him too?




Tony Smith
k***@gmail.com
2005-11-18 22:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franc Zabkar
indivisible package deals. I'm advocating that we recognise and accept
the good ideas and jettison the bad ones.
Sure.
Post by Franc Zabkar
are missing my point completely. I am extolling Singapore's approach
to law and order, nothing else. Singapore has *many* failings, notably
in the area of personal freedom, but that's a *separate* issue.
Yes, I take your point about the law and order issue. I also think
Australia should take a harder stance on punishment.
Post by Franc Zabkar
True, and none is more vocal in my criticism of the arrogant Lee Kuan
Yew than I. In fact I lived in Singapore's only opposition electorate.
But then what does one achieve by calling Howard a Lying Rodent, other
than letting off some steam? The Liberals will still screw you anyway.
Yes, but you are able to do that and organise to do that here, but in
Singapore you can not. In Australia, such actions may achieve an
outcome. It demonstrated to the government of the day that their
policies are not to these people's wish, and that they risk a voter
backlash.

Of course, my point is moot in Singapore, where the one party has no
fear of being voted out.
Post by Franc Zabkar
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog for
a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...
I'm sorry to hear that, and I still maintain that the vast majority of
suburbs around Australia has no such problems. Even in some ghetto
suburbs where the community are even tighter.
Craig Welch
2005-11-20 02:18:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:26:35 +1100, Franc Zabkar
Post by Franc Zabkar
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog for
a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...
So move to a better suburb ...
--
Craig
Franc Zabkar
2005-11-21 06:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Welch
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:26:35 +1100, Franc Zabkar
Post by Franc Zabkar
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog for
a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...
So move to a better suburb ...
In which country?

The "safest" city in Australia was recently recognised as being
Deniliquin, but even their police precinct has 20 burglaries per
month.

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Craig Welch
2005-11-21 22:17:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:22:46 +1100, Franc Zabkar
Craig Welch"
Post by Craig Welch
Post by Franc Zabkar
In the last three years I've had my car vandalised three times at two
shopping centres, my house has been burgled twice, and a neighbour's
brat has walked over my wet concrete. Every day that I take my dog for
a walk I have to negotiate broken beer bottles and burnt out car
wrecks. I haven't had a proper night's sleep in the last five years
due to early morning fireworks ratbags. Not my idea of Utopia ...
So move to a better suburb ...
In which country?
The "safest" city in Australia was recently recognised as being
Deniliquin, but even their police precinct has 20 burglaries per
month.
Shouldn't be too hard. Where I live there are no burglaries, most
households have guns and would use them against intruders, and none
of the problems you mention above take place.
--
Craig
Warren
2005-11-18 12:58:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:45:15 +1100, Franc Zabkar
Post by Franc Zabkar
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates.
It's also as boring as batshit.
Post by Franc Zabkar
In contrast Australia is a criminal
cesspit full of juvenile filth and garbage, a corrupt and impotent
police force, a limp wristed, self indulgent judiciary, and a
legislature dominated by pontificating parasites.
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Craig Welch
2005-11-20 02:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren
Post by Franc Zabkar
I've lived in Singapore. It is a safe society. Uncompromising law and
order is the key. Singapore has no Cabramattas or Lakembas or
organised crime syndicates.
It's also as boring as batshit.
Boring is as boring does.

I never found it boring, but I've observed lots of people I would
call boring, no matter which country they lived in.
--
Craig
That's Mr Fat Bastard to you Sonny
2005-11-17 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don H
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Shooting is preferable, it's more efficient and cheaper too. Something the
Indons are well aware of.
jantan
2005-11-17 22:50:37 UTC
Permalink
One Australian Pm call the hanging barbaric and offended the Malaysian PM
then. Will Howard call the PM of Singapore barbaric as well and tell
Singapore to withdraw its embassy, send the Singapore forces here under
training to go home, ostracise Singapore until they become civilised?
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Rod Speed
2005-11-17 23:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jantan
One Australian Pm call the hanging barbaric and offended the Malaysian PM
then. Will Howard call the PM of Singapore barbaric as well
He aint that stupid.
Post by jantan
and tell Singapore to withdraw its embassy,
He aint that stupid.
Post by jantan
send the Singapore forces here under training to go home,
He aint that stupid.
Post by jantan
ostracise Singapore until they become civilised?
Taint gunna happen, they aint that stupid either.
Post by jantan
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some
feel he deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling
heroin, a vicious drug, which could result in death of many - even
if he did it for a worthy family cause. Does the end (family)
justify the means (drug smuggling)? Likewise, does the end
(punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
quietguy
2005-11-17 23:46:08 UTC
Permalink
I think people forget or ignore the misery these peddlers impose on others -
in this case it was suggested that the stuff he was trying to import would
give some 22,000 hits - think about who pays for these - it is usually victims
of crime.

Users of H (and other nasty stuff) seem to have no compassion for the people
they rob in order to get cash to feed their habit - yet the misery of people
who may have gone without or scrimped and saved to buy a TV or video etc that
is then stolen by a user is sad to see - one hour of bliss for the user,
perhaps a year of misery for the victim of the theft.

David - who found the junkies he worked with had little concience about their
victims
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 00:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by quietguy
I think people forget or ignore the misery these peddlers impose on
others - in this case it was suggested that the stuff he was trying
to import would give some 22,000 hits - think about who pays for
these - it is usually victims of crime.
Users of H (and other nasty stuff) seem to have no compassion for the
people they rob in order to get cash to feed their habit - yet the
misery of people who may have gone without or scrimped and saved to
buy a TV or video etc that is then stolen by a user is sad to see -
one hour of bliss for the user, perhaps a year of misery for the
victim of the theft.
David - who found the junkies he worked with had little concience
about their victims
Yep, I have more than a little sympathy with what you say.

Use of drugs is a public health issue and not a legal one, and never
should have been a legal issue.



But, on the other hand, trafficing in drugs is a legal problem, and one
that deserves the hardest sanctions.

The guy in Singapore is (apparently) an educated and intelligent
person, who is not himself a drug user. He knew exactly what would
happen if he was caught, and did it anyway.

Sooner he swings the better. Should televise the event so that more
potential mules get the message.

In spades the upcoming shooting of the ones in Bali.





Tony Smith
an
2005-11-18 00:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by quietguy
I think people forget or ignore the misery these peddlers impose on others -
in this case it was suggested that the stuff he was trying to import would
give some 22,000 hits - think about who pays for these - it is usually victims
of crime.
Users of H (and other nasty stuff) seem to have no compassion for the people
they rob in order to get cash to feed their habit - yet the misery of people
who may have gone without or scrimped and saved to buy a TV or video etc that
is then stolen by a user is sad to see - one hour of bliss for the user,
perhaps a year of misery for the victim of the theft.
David - who found the junkies he worked with had little concience about their
victims
Panadol harms more Australians than ALL illicit drugs combined. So do you
count that as nasty stuff?
Stealing TVs and video recorders to support a drug habbit is a thing of the
past, TVs are so cheap now you'd need to steal 100s of them to support any
kind of drug problem.

These days most heroin addicts work to support their habbits, the street
junkies survive by selling a couple of deals and getting a free one.
There is no shortage of customers.

Howard has the power to stop 99% of the illegal heroin coming into
Australia, he chooses not to. (He knows where his donations come from)
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 01:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by an
Panadol harms more Australians than ALL illicit drugs combined. So do
you count that as nasty stuff? Stealing TVs and video recorders to
support a drug habbit is a thing of the past, TVs are so cheap now
you'd need to steal 100s of them to support any kind of drug problem.
Use of Panadol is not illegal, so any problem relating to its overuse
is a public health problem, not a legal one.

The guy I caught in my lunge room a couple of years ago wasn't looking
to knock off stuff to buy Panadol.
Post by an
These days most heroin addicts work to support their habbits, the
street junkies survive by selling a couple of deals and getting a
free one. There is no shortage of customers.
Howard has the power to stop 99% of the illegal heroin coming into
Australia, he chooses not to. (He knows where his donations come from)
So which part of decriminalising use and topping those that traffic in
the blasted stuff do you actually have a problem with again?




Tony Smith
an
2005-11-18 01:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
Panadol harms more Australians than ALL illicit drugs combined. So do
you count that as nasty stuff? Stealing TVs and video recorders to
support a drug habbit is a thing of the past, TVs are so cheap now
you'd need to steal 100s of them to support any kind of drug problem.
Use of Panadol is not illegal, so any problem relating to its overuse
is a public health problem, not a legal one.
The guy I caught in my lunge room a couple of years ago wasn't looking
to knock off stuff to buy Panadol.
If it was in the last couple of years, I'm sure he wasn't there for the VHS
recorder.

And I suppose this guy admitted to you he needs to rob you to buy heroin?
Most people who rob houses are taking drugs like Valium, serepax and
Rohypnol
And most don't even remember what they have done.

You know the benzo class of drugs, the same drugs that cause most of the car
accidents
the very same drugs that aren't tested for in a roadside saliva test because
they are made by rich American drug companies.


You mentioned users of H and other nasty stuff,..... panadol is nasty stuff.
https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/tylenol
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
These days most heroin addicts work to support their habbits, the
street junkies survive by selling a couple of deals and getting a
free one. There is no shortage of customers.
Howard has the power to stop 99% of the illegal heroin coming into
Australia, he chooses not to. (He knows where his donations come from)
So which part of decriminalising use and topping those that traffic in
the blasted stuff do you actually have a problem with again?
Post by an
Tony Smith
I don't have a problem with that, its what needs to happen, I just hate it
when someone's drug education comes directly from "60 minutes"
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 02:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by an
And I suppose this guy admitted to you he needs to rob you to buy
heroin? Most people who rob houses are taking drugs like Valium,
serepax and Rohypnol And most don't even remember what they have done.
No....By the time I had subdued him, he wasn't saying much at all, just
the occasional groan.

He did wake up a bit more when the police arrived though, got a bit
mouthy with them and got bounced off the car rear door frame a couple
of times.


Personally, I didn't give a rotund rodent's rectum why he was in my
house after having carefully, and fairly quietly forced the door lock.
Didn't exactly get around to asking him what his motivations where, not
that I'd have cared anyway.
Post by an
You know the benzo class of drugs, the same drugs that cause most of
the car accidents the very same drugs that aren't tested for in a
roadside saliva test because they are made by rich American drug
companies.
No, I don't know that most car accidents are caused by "benzo class of
drugs" and nor do you, you are making it up.

Ditto for your silly embedded conspiracy theory.
Post by an
You mentioned users of H and other nasty stuff,..... panadol is nasty
stuff. https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/tylenol
Just about anything can harm you if misused.

Your point is?
Post by an
I don't have a problem with that, its what needs to happen, I just
hate it when someone's drug education comes directly from "60 minutes"
I don't know anyone whose opinions come from such a source.

Mind you, I have vary little time for people whose opinion seems to be
little more than a pastiche of popularist claptrap, interspersed with a
few mindless conspiracy theories.


Tony Smith
an
2005-11-18 03:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
And I suppose this guy admitted to you he needs to rob you to buy
heroin? Most people who rob houses are taking drugs like Valium,
serepax and Rohypnol And most don't even remember what they have done.
No....By the time I had subdued him, he wasn't saying much at all, just
the occasional groan.
He did wake up a bit more when the police arrived though, got a bit
mouthy with them and got bounced off the car rear door frame a couple
of times.
So how do you know he was even on drugs?

Just thought you'd make that bit up??

Well done.
Post by Tony Smith
Personally, I didn't give a rotund rodent's rectum why he was in my
house after having carefully, and fairly quietly forced the door lock.
Didn't exactly get around to asking him what his motivations where, not
that I'd have cared anyway.
So again, you just made up the story to impress your friends because someone
beat the crap out of you in your own house.

Again.... well done.
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
You know the benzo class of drugs, the same drugs that cause most of
the car accidents the very same drugs that aren't tested for in a
roadside saliva test because they are made by rich American drug
companies.
No, I don't know that most car accidents are caused by "benzo class of
drugs" and nor do you, you are making it up.
Ditto for your silly embedded conspiracy theory.
Oh Gawd.... what a dick.
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
I don't have a problem with that, its what needs to happen, I just
hate it when someone's drug education comes directly from "60 minutes"
I don't know anyone whose opinions come from such a source.
Besides your own.
Post by Tony Smith
Mind you, I have vary little time for people whose opinion seems to be
little more than a pastiche of popularist claptrap, interspersed with a
few mindless conspiracy theories.
So someone has pointed out that you're a lier and now you're upset.... again
well done.
Post by Tony Smith
Tony Smith
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 03:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by an
So how do you know he was even on drugs?
Never said he was.... That's your fantasy, try and keep that straight
in your addled head.
Post by an
Just thought you'd make that bit up??
I didn't "make up" anything, on the other hand you are now "making up"
that I wrote something that in fact I did not.
Post by an
Well done.
Are you always this stupid? Or do you reserve it just for "special"
occasions.
Post by an
So again, you just made up the story to impress your friends because
someone beat the crap out of you in your own house.
Again.... well done.
Yawn.......
Post by an
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
You know the benzo class of drugs, the same drugs that cause most
of the car accidents the very same drugs that aren't tested for
in a roadside saliva test because they are made by rich American
drug companies.
No, I don't know that most car accidents are caused by "benzo class
of drugs" and nor do you, you are making it up.
Ditto for your silly embedded conspiracy theory.
Oh Gawd.... what a dick.
Ah!, Now you are confirming that you are of the "I can't contribute
with logic and thought, so I'll use abuse, that's nice and simple so my
pitiful brain might be able to handle that" ilk.


Please, do go on....
Post by an
Post by Tony Smith
Post by an
I don't have a problem with that, its what needs to happen, I just
hate it when someone's drug education comes directly from "60 minutes"
I don't know anyone whose opinions come from such a source.
Besides your own.
Funny that, never watched the show.
Post by an
Post by Tony Smith
Mind you, I have vary little time for people whose opinion seems to
be little more than a pastiche of popularist claptrap, interspersed
with a few mindless conspiracy theories.
So someone has pointed out that you're a lier and now you're
upset.... again well done.
Ahem...... Who "pointed out" anything of the sort?

Or are you referring to your own mindless fantasy? And did another of
your multiple personalities write it so that you could refer to
"someone" in the "royal we" sense.....

What an idiot!
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 03:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by an
Post by quietguy
I think people forget or ignore the misery these peddlers impose on others -
in this case it was suggested that the stuff he was trying to import would
give some 22,000 hits - think about who pays for these - it is usually
victims of crime.
Users of H (and other nasty stuff) seem to have no compassion for the people
they rob in order to get cash to feed their habit - yet the misery of people
who may have gone without or scrimped and saved to buy a TV or video etc that
is then stolen by a user is sad to see - one hour of bliss for the user,
perhaps a year of misery for the victim of the theft.
David - who found the junkies he worked with had little concience about their
victims
Panadol harms more Australians than ALL illicit drugs combined.
Pig ignorant lie.
Post by an
So do you count that as nasty stuff?
Nope, because that is a pig ignorant lie.
Post by an
Stealing TVs and video recorders to support a drug habbit is a thing of the
past, TVs are so cheap now you'd need to steal 100s of them to support any
kind of drug problem.
These days most heroin addicts work to support their habbits,
Pig ignorant lie.
Post by an
the street junkies survive by selling a couple of deals and getting a free
one. There is no shortage of customers.
Howard has the power to stop 99% of the illegal heroin coming into Australia,
he chooses not to.
Pig ignorant lie.
Post by an
(He knows where his donations come from)
Wota terminal fuckwit.
cramerj
2005-11-22 05:25:01 UTC
Permalink
heroin is not the only addictive. junkies batten on doctors for serepax
etc etc.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 01:31:24 UTC
Permalink
If the Singaporeans involved ever come to Australia, they should be
arrested and imprisoned for life under s104 of the Criminal Code Act
which provides:

A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and
(c) the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of
Australia; and
(d) the first-mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to
causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia
or any other person by the conduct.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).
In the meantime, an Interpol warrant should be put out for them.
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 01:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).
In the meantime, an Interpol warrant should be put out for them.
Why?

Australia recognises and respects the sovereign right of other
countries to pass laws and enforce those laws within their border.

The Singapore police didn't pop over to Sydney, whip him out of his
bed, spirit him out of the country and then just decide to execute him
without due process.


Instead, he went willingly to their country, knowing full well what the
penaly for being caught doing what he was doing was.


And got caught.

And was tried according to the law of that jurisidction, found guilty
and the sentence that he had already had notice of was passed.


You could look at it as chlorination of the gene pool.
--
Tony Smith
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 02:15:11 UTC
Permalink
"Why?
Australia recognises and respects the sovereign right of other
countries to pass laws and enforce those laws within their border.
The Singapore police didn't pop over to Sydney, whip him out of his
bed, spirit him out of the country and then just decide to execute him
without due process."

So I presume it's your view that we should change our Criminal Code? In
the meantime do you think it is the job of our government and AFP to
enforce it, rather than pander to foreign governments?
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 02:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Smith
"Why?
Australia recognises and respects the sovereign right of other
countries to pass laws and enforce those laws within their border.
The Singapore police didn't pop over to Sydney, whip him out of his
bed, spirit him out of the country and then just decide to execute him
without due process."
So I presume it's your view that we should change our Criminal Code?
In the meantime do you think it is the job of our government and AFP
to enforce it, rather than pander to foreign governments?
Whilst the various laws of both the Commonwealth and State Governments
do have a degree of extra-territoriality attached to them, there are a
number of threshold steps that must be met.

The easiest one to deal with is the "sufficient connexion" requirement.

The soon-to-swing parasite in question is an Australian citizen, but
that does not supply the "sufficient connexion" requirements for action
taken against him to constitute a crime in this jurisdiction.


He committed a crime in a foreign jurisdiction.
That jurisdiction's laws call for a particular penalty, death by
hanging, that we don't use in this country anymore.

Just because our country has made a decision that a particular penalty
is not used here, has no effect when that same penalty, having been
arrived at by due process of law, in another jurisdiction, is in fact
applied there.


If similar, flawed and stupid, logic as that which you are employing,
were used universally, then Australians who had had a pregnancy
termination would be unable to visit Italy. Australians of non-Moslem
faith would be unable to visit Moslem countries.

Certain current or former service personnel might be in strife if they
visited Vietnam, Korea or a host of other places.

Now please stop being silly and think before typing.


--
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 04:46:27 UTC
Permalink
"Whilst the various laws of both the Commonwealth and State Governments

do have a degree of extra-territoriality attached to them, there are a
number of threshold steps that must be met.
The easiest one to deal with is the "sufficient connexion" requirement"

So do you think that s104 of the criminal code is invalid as being
beyond commonwealth power (it is expressly directed at events outside
Australia and semmingly within the external affairs power)?
The rest of your post amounts to ignorance of the fact that different
countries laws may conflict with respect to the same action. In this
case Singapore Law requires the guy to be hung, and Australian law
makes that hanging a crime. Which law should the Australian Police be
upholding? The answer is simple - Australian law. The conflict is then
presumably handled through diplomacy, but the basis is that we expect
the Australian government to enforce and execute Australian law, in
this case, s104 of the Criminal Code (Cth).
"Certain current or former service personnel might be in strife if they
visited Vietnam, Korea or a host of other places.
Now please stop being silly and think before typing."
It certainly is the case that Australian citizens can be in trouble
with laws that they did not expect to have enforced upon them if they
go to a foreign country - eg many greek born Australian citizens get
locked up for not having served their greek national service. Former
Nazi officers are still being hunted by Isreali agents to be brought to
trial. It happens commonly, so my post is quite considered, not silly
at all.
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 05:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"Whilst the various laws of both the Commonwealth and State
Governments
do have a degree of extra-territoriality attached to them, there are a
number of threshold steps that must be met.
The easiest one to deal with is the "sufficient connexion"
requirement"
So do you think that s104 of the criminal code is invalid as being
beyond commonwealth power (it is expressly directed at events outside
Australia and semmingly within the external affairs power)?
Is the above bit of piffle a question or a statement?


Nothing I've written could possible lead to a conclusions that I think
that S104 of the Cwth crim code is "beyond power".

The problem is for you to show how it applies.


To take your nonsenscial POV to its logical conclusion, all other
countries should just tear up their legal codes because they are now
invalid as those made in Australia now apply.


Now, to go just a bit easier on you, you are probably not quite that
silly.

But where is the line drawn if not where I say it is, and how are you
going to enforce your alternate posiiton fro the drawn line.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 05:58:42 UTC
Permalink
"Nothing I've written could possible lead to a conclusions that I think

that S104 of the Cwth crim code is "beyond power".
The problem is for you to show how it applies"

Well here is the section:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and
(c) the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of
Australia; and
(d) the first-mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to
causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia
or any other person by the conduct.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

A hangman ( "a person") is going to hang ("engage in conduct") in
Singapore ("outside Australia") and that hanging will "cause the death
of another person" and that other person is an Australian citizen.
Furthermore, the hangman is going to intend to kill the Australian
citizen by hanging him.

Now what part of that process is outside the terms of s104 of the
criminal code, and if so, why?
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 06:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"Nothing I've written could possible lead to a conclusions that I think
that S104 of the Cwth crim code is "beyond power".
The problem is for you to show how it applies"
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and
(c) the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of
Australia; and
(d) the first-mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to
causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia
or any other person by the conduct.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
A hangman ( "a person") is going to hang ("engage in conduct") in
Singapore ("outside Australia") and that hanging will "cause the death
of another person" and that other person is an Australian citizen.
Furthermore, the hangman is going to intend to kill the Australian
citizen by hanging him.
Now what part of that process is outside the terms of s104 of the
criminal code, and if so, why?
In Honiaria (can't spell the name of the country for some reason this
afternoon) it is a crime to enquire as to who the office bearers of a
company registered in that country are.

Does that mean that if I email their registrar of companies and ask who
the secretary of XZY corporation is, that they should have a bunch of
gun toting goons jump into a rubber-ducky and come and arrest me.

And by force of logic (yours, not mine I hasten to point out),
Australian authorities should stand around playing tiddly-winks whilst
that happens?


Or, for another example in a similar vein.

David Hicks should be returned to Australia. After all, he has not
committed *ANY* crimes under Australian law. (Actually I would agree
with you on this one, but probably for different reasons)


If you want me to try an get into your mindset so that I can put the
answer in terms you might understand, you will have to help me and
answer my questions.




Tony Smith
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 06:53:51 UTC
Permalink
"In Honiaria (can't spell the name of the country for some reason this
afternoon) it is a crime to enquire as to who the office bearers of a
company registered in that country are.
Does that mean that if I email their registrar of companies and ask who

the secretary of XZY corporation is, that they should have a bunch of
gun toting goons jump into a rubber-ducky and come and arrest me"

It means that if you go to Honiara you might well get prosecuted.
Australia will give you "consular assistance".

"David Hicks should be returned to Australia. After all, he has not
committed *ANY* crimes under Australian law. (Actually I would agree
with you on this one, but probably for different reasons)"

Mmn. My logic says that: a) American law says the US can validly
prosecute him for harming US citizens outside of the US if that is part
of their law (in a manner analogous to s104 of our criminal code). We
might not agree in political terms with the fairness of that process,
but it is a legally valid excercise of US sovereignty;
b) s104.3 of the Cth Criminal Code makes his internment by US Citizens
a crime under Australian Federal law for which they could be prosecuted
if they came within Australian jurisdiction (or we happened to capture
them in Afghanistan). His current situation is therefore a situation in
which the Australian government should not be complicit.
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 07:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"In Honiaria (can't spell the name of the country for some reason this
afternoon) it is a crime to enquire as to who the office bearers of a
company registered in that country are.
Does that mean that if I email their registrar of companies and ask who
the secretary of XZY corporation is, that they should have a bunch of
gun toting goons jump into a rubber-ducky and come and arrest me"
It means that if you go to Honiara you might well get prosecuted.
Australia will give you "consular assistance".
And I would in due course be found guilty and punished according to the
law of that jurisdiction (which fortunately for me does not mandate a
death sentence for that particular crime).

But of course you don't see that is being identical to the case of the
drug courier in Singapore do you, for the simple reason that you don't
like the penalty involved in that case.

To borrow from someone who I rarely agree with, but in this instance I
do, you might like to set fire to yourself in protest.
Post by Ketut Royson
"David Hicks should be returned to Australia. After all, he has not
committed ANY crimes under Australian law. (Actually I would agree
with you on this one, but probably for different reasons)"
Mmn. My logic says that: a) American law says the US can validly
prosecute him for harming US citizens outside of the US if that is
part of their law (in a manner analogous to s104 of our criminal
code). We might not agree in political terms with the fairness of
that process, but it is a legally valid excercise of US sovereignty;
b) s104.3 of the Cth Criminal Code makes his internment by US Citizens
a crime under Australian Federal law for which they could be
prosecuted if they came within Australian jurisdiction (or we
happened to capture them in Afghanistan). His current situation is
therefore a situation in which the Australian government should not
be complicit.
Shame that they cannot do any of those things which is why Hicks is
being held on an off-shore military establishment that has been beyond
the reach of the civil and criminal justice system in the US.

Funny also that that they wanted a military tribunal and not a court
subject to legal rules to hear it....

But you are OK with that because the end result is one you think is OK.


This is relevant to why your pathetic bleatings on the subject of S104
are just plain silly.


Your concept on the applicability of Australian law, or more correctly
the sovereign right of other States to make laws that apply in their
jurisdiction is an odd one that only kicks in when you disagree with
the outcome of another jurisdiction's due legal process.
--
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 09:31:03 UTC
Permalink
"And I would in due course be found guilty and punished according to
the
law of that jurisdiction (which fortunately for me does not mandate a
death sentence for that particular crime).
But of course you don't see that is being identical to the case of the
drug courier in Singapore do you, for the simple reason that you don't
like the penalty involved in that case."

???Who is disputing the validity of the Singapore law? Not me.

"they wanted a military tribunal and not a court subject to legal rules
to hear it....
But you are OK with that because the end result is one you think is OK"

??? What? Where, exactly, do you get the idea that I think that the
result for Hicks is OK? Are you psychotic?

"Your concept on the applicability of Australian law, or more correctly

the sovereign right of other States to make laws that apply in their
jurisdiction is an odd one that only kicks in when you disagree with
the outcome of another jurisdiction's due legal process"

You are either completely bent or you can't comprehend written English.
Nowhere do I dispute the sovereign right of other States to make laws
that apply in their jurisdiction. Your argument seems to be that
Australia has no power or moral right to make laws of external effect,
and that if it does, say in the case of s104 of teh Criminal Code, it
should not apply them if they conflict with foreign law.
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 10:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
outcome of another jurisdiction's due legal process"
You are either completely bent or you can't comprehend written
English. Nowhere do I dispute the sovereign right of other States to
make laws that apply in their jurisdiction. Your argument seems to be
that Australia has no power or moral right to make laws of external
effect, and that if it does, say in the case of s104 of teh Criminal
Code, it should not apply them if they conflict with foreign law.
You are too stupid to bother further with!

If you cannot comprehend the fundamental problem of saying on the one
hand that you do not dispute Singapore's right to hang criminals
processed through its legal jurisdiction, but then, say that those same
people should then be prosecuted under Australian law, then you don't
need legal advice, you need a good shrink.

As my qualifications are not in that area, I'll leave you to it.

--
Ketut Royson
2005-11-18 14:06:50 UTC
Permalink
"> You are either completely bent or you can't comprehend written
Post by Ketut Royson
English. Nowhere do I dispute the sovereign right of other States to
make laws that apply in their jurisdiction. Your argument seems to be
that Australia has no power or moral right to make laws of external
effect, and that if it does, say in the case of s104 of teh Criminal
Code, it should not apply them if they conflict with foreign law.
You are too stupid to bother further with!
If you cannot comprehend the fundamental problem of saying on the one
hand that you do not dispute Singapore's right to hang criminals
processed through its legal jurisdiction, but then, say that those same

people should then be prosecuted under Australian law, then you don't
need legal advice, you need a good shrink.
As my qualifications are not in that area, I'll leave you to it."

Don't you understand that different countries have different legal
systems that give rise to conflicting outcomes applied to the same
circumstances? It's called a diplomatic incident. Its very simple. I'll
explain it for you: Singapore govt's legal duty is to hang the guy
under their criminal code & Australian government's duty is to stop it
or prosecute the executioners under s104 of the Australian criminal
code. It seems that you are the one who lacks comprehension.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 17:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"> You are either completely bent or you can't comprehend written
Post by Ketut Royson
English. Nowhere do I dispute the sovereign right of other States to
make laws that apply in their jurisdiction. Your argument seems to be
that Australia has no power or moral right to make laws of external
effect, and that if it does, say in the case of s104 of teh Criminal
Code, it should not apply them if they conflict with foreign law.
You are too stupid to bother further with!
If you cannot comprehend the fundamental problem of saying on the one
hand that you do not dispute Singapore's right to hang criminals
processed through its legal jurisdiction, but then, say that those same
people should then be prosecuted under Australian law, then you don't
need legal advice, you need a good shrink.
As my qualifications are not in that area, I'll leave you to it."
Don't you understand that different countries have different legal
systems that give rise to conflicting outcomes applied to the same
circumstances? It's called a diplomatic incident. Its very simple.
I'll explain it for you: Singapore govt's legal duty is to hang the
guy under their criminal code & Australian government's duty is to
stop it or prosecute the executioners under s104 of the Australian
criminal code.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Post by Ketut Royson
It seems that you are the one who lacks comprehension.
Wrong, as always.
Tony Smith
2005-11-18 18:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
Don't you understand that different countries have different legal
systems that give rise to conflicting outcomes applied to the same
circumstances?
Actually, it's you who has the comprehension problem. If you actually
understood your own sentence above, we would not be having this silly
exchange.
Post by Ketut Royson
It's called a diplomatic incident.
Not it's not, it's called a silly first year law student chucking a wobbly
because they are finding out that the real world doesn't fit in neat boxes
and that they get no say what happens in another jurisdiction, and that
persons of that jurisdiction are not somehow magically subject to sanction
under Australian law for carrying out functions that are perfectly legal
in their own jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction for your beloved S104 does not even begin to be attracted
because (and this is the most simple reason, but it will do for now) there
is no "sufficient connexion". The fact that the stupid bastard who is
going to be hung is an Australian citizen doesn't cut it on its own.

Are you planning a career of haunting the courts of countries that have
legal outcomes you don't like and yelling from the public gallery that
what they are doing is a crime in Australia?

I'd predict a very short career before one of them put you away somewhere.
Post by Ketut Royson
Its very simple. I'll
explain it for you: Singapore govt's legal duty is to hang the guy
under their criminal code & Australian government's duty is to stop it
or prosecute the executioners under s104 of the Australian criminal
code.
This is the exact point where you go horridly wrong. Why do you have the
idiot view that the Cwth crim code has any relevance?
Post by Ketut Royson
It seems that you are the one who lacks comprehension.
I have always had difficulty unravelling disordered thought such as yours.

But with the dawning of a new day, I find, surprisingly, that your
capacity to amuse me is renewed, at least for a little while.



Tony Smith
Ketut Royson
2005-11-22 23:26:31 UTC
Permalink
"> Its very simple. I'll
Post by Ketut Royson
explain it for you: Singapore govt's legal duty is to hang the guy
under their criminal code & Australian government's duty is to stop it
or prosecute the executioners under s104 of the Australian criminal
code.
This is the exact point where you go horridly wrong. Why do you have
the
idiot view that the Cwth crim code has any relevance?"

Its the single purpose of s104 that it applies to acts outside
Australia.
The relevant connection is the criterion that the person killed is an
Australian citizen or resident. Simple.

Do you think that the law is somehow invalid as beyond the power of the
Commonwealth Commonwealth? Or do you just think it's not right that
Australia should legislate to make Acts outside Australia criminal?
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 06:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Antony Smith dreams: "The jurisdiction for your beloved S104 does not
even begin to be attracted because (and this is the most simple reason,
but it will do for now) there is no "sufficient connexion". The fact
that the stupid bastard who is going to be hung is an Australian
citizen doesn't cut it on its own."
Well the High Court must be wrong and you must be right Tony:
In Polukovitch v Crown (1991) 172 CLR 501 The High Court said: "The
requirement of some connection between Australia and the relationship,
set of circumstances or field of activity affected by a law is
satisfied when the law purports to control extraterritorial conduct
engaged in by Australian citizens or residents (whether natural or
corporate) or by persons who are under or are entitled to the
protection of Australian law."
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-19 01:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Ketut Royson wrote:

[..]
Post by Ketut Royson
Don't you understand that different countries have different legal
systems that give rise to conflicting outcomes applied to the same
circumstances? It's called a diplomatic incident. Its very simple. I'll
explain it for you: Singapore govt's legal duty is to hang the guy
under their criminal code & Australian government's duty is to stop it
or prosecute the executioners under s104 of the Australian criminal
code. It seems that you are the one who lacks comprehension.
You misunderstand what you read regarding s104.

NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such.

What you read there is that IF a person illegally (meaning, it does
not apply to a lawful executioner)) kills an Australian citizen or a
resident of Australia AND they escape the local law, AND are stupid
enough to come to Australia after that, THEN they can be detained and
prosecuted for that murder. BUT if they murder a person NOT
"Australian citizen or a resident of Australia" in another country,
then they will NOT be detained - UNLESS the country the crime was
committed in requests their extradition.

If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either - nor does Australian Law have any
bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the nation the crime was committed in
- they always take precedence. That is to say it cannot override the
Laws of another nation they apply in.

Note that the law only applies (can be acted on) IN Australia against
a person IN Australia in relation to an act committed outside
Australia - the LAW does NOT apply outside Australia.

Please note that a "diplomatic incident" is unrelated to Law - it is
political.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
quietguy
2005-11-19 04:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Actully I think you may be wrong about that - some Australian child sex laws
apply although the offence is committed in another country

David - who foolishly suggests what he believes to be correct
Post by Seppo Renfors
NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such.
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-21 01:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by quietguy
Post by Seppo Renfors
NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such.
Actully I think you may be wrong about that - some Australian child sex laws
apply although the offence is committed in another country
David - who foolishly suggests what he believes to be correct
Had you read my full text, you would be aware that they do apply in
exactly the manner I pointed out - ALL Australian laws apply that way.
You cannot set up a Court in in another country and try them there in
another nation under Australia law, can you?

Here is the remainder of the relevant text again - please take care
reading of it, and you will see it is indeed as I say.

[restore text]
What you read there is that IF a person illegally (meaning, it does
not apply to a lawful executioner)) kills an Australian citizen or a
resident of Australia AND they escape the local law, AND are stupid
enough to come to Australia after that, THEN they can be detained and
prosecuted for that murder. BUT if they murder a person NOT
"Australian citizen or a resident of Australia" in another country,
then they will NOT be detained - UNLESS the country the crime was
committed in requests their extradition.

If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either - nor does Australian Law have any
bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the nation the crime was committed in
- they always take precedence. That is to say it cannot override the
Laws of another nation they apply in.

Note that the law only applies (can be acted on) IN Australia against
a person IN Australia in relation AN ACT COMMITTED OUTSIDE
AUSTRALIA - the LAW does NOT apply outside Australia.
[end restore]

Note the now emphasised text.

Now that you have (hopefully) read that again and now understand what
is written, then you can explain how Australian Law applies to this
example:

A resident of Australia, engages in a child sex tour of Vietnam, a
country he happens to be a citizen of. He elects to remain in Vietnam
after the tour instead of come back to Australia - perhaps to be
closer to the "action".

After that IF you still claim Australian Law applies OUTSIDE
Australia, please explain why extradition of criminals TO Australia is
required at all?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 00:01:29 UTC
Permalink
"Had you read my full text, you would be aware that they do apply in
exactly the manner I pointed out - ALL Australian laws apply that way."

No they don't. Many Australian laws are not expressly framed to apply
outside Australia. They apply only to acts committed in Australian
territory.
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-23 00:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"Had you read my full text, you would be aware that they do apply in
exactly the manner I pointed out - ALL Australian laws apply that way."
No they don't. Many Australian laws are not expressly framed to apply
outside Australia. They apply only to acts committed in Australian
territory.
Even after that express invitation, you FAILED to comprehend
completely.

You have now imposed upon yourself the onus of proving which country
applies Australian Law in their own nation! I'd like to see you do
that!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 00:45:32 UTC
Permalink
"You have now imposed upon yourself the onus of proving which country
applies Australian Law in their own nation! I'd like to see you do
that! "
In terms of criminal law, I don't think any country does. I've never
suggested it.
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-23 03:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"You have now imposed upon yourself the onus of proving which country
applies Australian Law in their own nation! I'd like to see you do
that! "
In terms of criminal law,
In terms of ANY law will do.
Post by Ketut Royson
I don't think any country does. I've never
suggested it.
I then presume you are withdrawing your earlier comments.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 03:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Seppo challeges:"You have now imposed upon yourself the onus of proving
which country
Post by Seppo Renfors
applies Australian Law in their own nation! I'd like to see you do
that! ...In terms of ANY law will do."
OK Singapore is a good example, say, law of intestacy:
Section 4 of the Intestate succession Act provides:"4. -(1) The
distribution of the movable property of a person deceased shall be
regulated by the law of the country in which he was domiciled at the
time of his death."
There are many examples of a country applying the law of a foreign
jurisdiction, Australia will apply foreign law in certain matrimonial
disputes persuant to s 42(2) of the Family Law Act which provides:
"Where it would be in accordance with the common law rules of private
international law to apply the laws of any country or place (including
a State or Territory), the court shall, subject to the provisions of
the Marriage Act 1961 , apply the laws of that country or place"
Generally in legal issues with foreign elements, the correct law may
well be the law of a foreign country under common law principles.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 03:54:25 UTC
Permalink
"> I don't think any country does (apply foreign criminal law instead
of their own). I've never
Post by Ketut Royson
suggested it.
I then presume you are withdrawing your earlier comments."
As I say, I've never suggested it. Which comments?
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 00:08:52 UTC
Permalink
"Actually I think you may be wrong about that - some Australian child
sex laws
apply although the offence is committed in another country "
For example: Phillipe is a person born in France to an Australian
father whome he has never seen. His father registered his birth at the
local Australian consul, so Banjo is an Australian citizen even though
he has never been to Australia and hates the way Australia tried to
stop France testing in the Pacific. Phillipe goes to Amsterdam and has
sex with a fifteen year-old girl. In Amsterdam this is not illegal. He
goes to Britain and the Australians have him arrested and extradited to
Australia. He is prosecuted and imprisoned under Australia's criminal
code.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-22 23:56:55 UTC
Permalink
"NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such. "

How about the laws for people smuggling. In that case the Australian
government has sought the extradition from Egypt of a person who
conspired in Indonesia to send people to Australia? Are you saying that
the people smuggling law only applies to Acts done in Australia?

"What you read there is that IF a person illegally (meaning, it does
not apply to a lawful executioner)) "

Is this so? It is certainly not express in the description of the
offence, but is it a defence to a prosecution under s104 that the Act
was not unlawful under the local law? Would that defence stand up in a
"war crime" that involved the deaths of Australian citizens if the
accusedperson was issuing military orders in their command?

"kills an Australian citizen or a
resident of Australia AND they escape the local law, AND are stupid
enough to come to Australia after that, THEN they can be detained and
prosecuted for that murder."

Yep. Agreed. Or are extradited to Australia from a third country (like
Egypt in the case of the SIEV people smugglers)

"If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either "
No. They can issue a warrant through Interpol or make an extradition
request.
"nor does Australian Law have any bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the
nation the crime was committed in "
No shit?
" they [local laws- lex loci]always take precedence."
Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.

"Note that the law only applies (can be acted on) IN Australia against
a person IN Australia in relation to an act committed outside Australia
- the LAW does NOT apply outside Australia."

Well our disagreement here seems to be about the what you mean by
"applies". The Australian law is framed to apply outside Australia. It
can only be "enforced" using Australian machinery of course, and that
will require Australian authorities getting their hands on the accused
one way or another. My argument is (subject to what you say about local
law providing a possible defence) that the act of killing an Australian
overseas is a crime under Australian law - the ability to prosecute
that crime will be a matter of diplomacy and the stupidity of the
defendant. In the case under discussion t provides a clear way for the
Australian government to leverage its protection of our citizen. How
would it be if the personalities involved in teh execution could not
come to Australia or a country from which Australia could extradite
them, without fear of arrest and prosecution?

"Please note that a "diplomatic incident" is unrelated to Law - it is
political. "
In this case its not unrelated to law - it arises because there is a
conflict between the results of the two sovereign legal systems which
can be resolved only by force or diplomacy.
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-23 02:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"NO Australian Law applies outside Australia - it doesn't matter what
"law" you speak off. It is foolish to suggest such. "
How about the laws for people smuggling.
The same! People smugglers smuggling people from Iraq, through Turkey
to Germany are of NO INTEREST to Australia. I would have thought that
kind of obvious.
Post by Ketut Royson
In that case the Australian
government has sought the extradition from Egypt of a person who
conspired in Indonesia to send people to Australia? Are you saying that
the people smuggling law only applies to Acts done in Australia?
First of all please learn to read properly - you failed on that score!
Further more, "has sought to" does not say "succeeded in extraditing"
- in any event where do you think the extradition was TO - Indonesia?
Post by Ketut Royson
"What you read there is that IF a person illegally (meaning, it does
not apply to a lawful executioner)) "
Is this so?
It is - if you don't think it is correct, provide evidence of
something contrary.
Post by Ketut Royson
It is certainly not express in the description of the
offence, but is it a defence to a prosecution under s104 that the Act
was not unlawful under the local law? Would that defence stand up in a
"war crime" that involved the deaths of Australian citizens if the
accusedperson was issuing military orders in their command?
That nonsense is not even relevant, further more it suggests that no
other nation has a right to make laws applying to their own nation!
Surely it is not reasonable to even suggest such!
Post by Ketut Royson
"kills an Australian citizen or a
resident of Australia AND they escape the local law, AND are stupid
enough to come to Australia after that, THEN they can be detained and
prosecuted for that murder."
Yep. Agreed. Or are extradited to Australia from a third country (like
Egypt in the case of the SIEV people smugglers)
Please note your own words above "extradited TO Australia", now why
would that be exactly, hmmm - specially considering it is something
you have been arguing against!
Post by Ketut Royson
"If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either "
No. They can issue a warrant through Interpol or make an extradition
request.
I doubt they would get it -as extradition to the nation the crime was
committed in takes precedence. We have the Falkonio case ongoing right
here. IF it was otherwise than as I say - or as YOU say, the Poms
would have extradited the accused to Britain to stand trial. They
haven't and their request would be denied in any event. Can you think
of a reason why?
Post by Ketut Royson
"nor does Australian Law have any bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the
nation the crime was committed in "
No shit?
" they [local laws- lex loci]always take precedence."
Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.
Please name an "Australian Court" that exists in another nation.
Post by Ketut Royson
"Note that the law only applies (can be acted on) IN Australia against
a person IN Australia in relation to an act committed outside Australia
- the LAW does NOT apply outside Australia."
The above is written as clearly as needs be, specially considering
that "applies" has been specifically defined - to NOT understand it,
means not understanding the language!
Post by Ketut Royson
Well our disagreement here seems to be about the what you mean by
"applies".
It has a very well known meaning - the incorrect use of it doesn't
qualify as a "meaning", only as gobbledegook. It this case it does NOT
mean to apply butter to a piece of bread as your use of it infers!

In the correct context it has the well known meaning of "administer"
as in applying the Law to an act. You "apply the law" or "you
administer the Law" and that can ONLY be done IN Australia - nowhere
else, as THAT is the only place where it "applies".

Knowing the language and its correct use in any particular context is
paramount to the ability to communicate - and is specially critical in
law.
Post by Ketut Royson
The Australian law is framed to apply outside Australia.
THIS is where you stuff up in the comprehension. That above is
bullshit - THIS is what you should have written: "The Australian law
is framed to apply TO CERTAIN ACTS COMMITTED outside Australia" - then
it would have been understandable.

What you are essentially trying to do is say, "I did say that" has the
same meaning as "I did not say that"!

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 02:44:51 UTC
Permalink
"- in any event where do you think the extradition was TO - Indonesia?"
No - to Australia. Australia cannot extradite someone to a third
country.

"IF a person illegally (meaning, it does > not apply to a lawful
executioner))
Post by Ketut Royson
Is this so?
It is - if you don't think it is correct, provide evidence of
something contrary. "

The express terms of s104 of the Australian Criminal Code do not
provide an exemption for acts which are lawful under local law. s104
does not include the term "illegally kills". For example an Australian
guy having sex with a 15 year old girl in Amsterdam is not illegal
under local law, only Australian law. He could be prosecuted in
Australia, but not the Netherlands.

"> Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.
Please name an "Australian Court" that exists in another nation"
There are none. I've never suggested that there are.

"THIS is what you should have written: "The Australian law is framed to
apply TO CERTAIN ACTS COMMITTED outside Australia"
OK, that's exactly right. My mistake. So are we in agreement?
The Australian law says that the hangman who kills an Australian
citizen in Singapore is guilty of an offence persuant to Australian
Law. If he is stupid enough to come to Australia he can be arrested and
imprisoned. So can any officials complicit in the killing if they come
to Australia.
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-23 04:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"- in any event where do you think the extradition was TO - Indonesia?"
No - to Australia. Australia cannot extradite someone to a third
country.
Indeed and there has to be a reason for it - the reason being that
Australian law can ONLY be applied *IN* Australia.
Post by Ketut Royson
"IF a person illegally (meaning, it does not apply to a lawful
executioner)"
Post by Ketut Royson
Is this so?
It is - if you don't think it is correct, provide evidence of
something contrary. "
The express terms of s104 of the Australian Criminal Code do not
provide an exemption for acts which are lawful under local law. s104
does not include the term "illegally kills".
No, that will not do at all! Our Laws cannot override another nation's
laws IN that nation as you would have it - nor have you provided any
proof that such would - the above is such either.
Post by Ketut Royson
For example an Australian
guy having sex with a 15 year old girl in Amsterdam is not illegal
under local law, only Australian law. He could be prosecuted in
Australia, but not the Netherlands.
What are you on about - it can be legal here too! Again you supply
insufficient detail to support your claim.

There is an explicit Act in Australia that covers "sex tours"
specifically pertaining to sex with children. This does NOT support
your claim. The claim being that Australian Law overturns another
Nations laws in their own nation.
Post by Ketut Royson
"> Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.
Look it would be much better for everyone, for you to use the standard
convention of posting - ie quoting the text in the usual manner with
the normal attributions etc - the text above is yours, though it looks
like you are quoting me because you included my text with your text.
Post by Ketut Royson
Please name an "Australian Court" that exists in another nation"
There are none. I've never suggested that there are.
This was the context:

[restore]
Post by Ketut Royson
Post by Ketut Royson
"If the killer does NOT come to Australia - then Australia CANNOT
prosecute that person either, nor does Australian Law have any
bearing at all on LOCAL laws of the nation the crime was committed
in they always take precedence."
Not in an Australian Court trying a case under Australian law.
SIR wrote:
Please name an "Australian Court" that exists in another nation.
[end restore]

In the context of my text your reply required a Court to be OUTSIDE
Australia - therefor you did suggest such.
Post by Ketut Royson
"THIS is what you should have written: "The Australian law is framed to
apply TO CERTAIN ACTS COMMITTED outside Australia"
OK, that's exactly right. My mistake. So are we in agreement?
Only if you are not going to abuse the language and attribute a
meaning not available to it :-)
Post by Ketut Royson
The Australian law says that the hangman who kills an Australian
citizen in Singapore is guilty of an offence persuant to Australian
Law. If he is stupid enough to come to Australia he can be arrested and
imprisoned. So can any officials complicit in the killing if they come
to Australia.
Not when the "killing" is lawful (and obviously protected by their own
Laws in their own country).

There are such things as a "justifiable homicide" in the gun crazed US
- where our law wouldn't find it "justifiable" at all - are you now
suggesting OUR law overrides the Yank law?

"James Savage is an Aboriginal carefully Scrutinized. Australian, who
received his unfortunate name when forcibly adopted out of his family
under the White Australia policies of the early 'Sixties."

This is a case where the Judge overruled the Jury verdict of 11:1 in
favour of a life imprisonment and ordered a death sentence instead.
James was take to the US where he ended up out of his depth and went
astray. He eventually became an accomplice to a killing and ended up
on death row - there wasn't a single peep out of anyone here trying to
save him - but then he was an aborigine, wasn't he!

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/75494/75495rep.pdf
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 05:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Seppo reckons: "Australian law can ONLY be applied *IN* Australia"
Not true. Principle of private international law will mean that
frequently Australian law will be applied in foreign jurisdictions,
e.g. when Australian law is the proper law of a contract, Australian
contract law will be applied by a French Court in France.

Seppo reckons: "nor does Australian Law have any bearing at all on
LOCAL laws of the nation the crime was committed in they always take
precedence "
Ketut retorted: "Not in an Australian Court applying Australian law"
The local laws are simply over-ridden by any Australian law to the
contrary in a criminal matter.

Ketut reckons;"So can any officials complicit in the killing if they
come to Australia. "
Seppo Reckons:
Not when the "killing" is lawful (and obviously protected by their own
Laws in their own country). There are such things as a "justifiable
homicide" in the gun crazed US - where our law wouldn't find it
"justifiable" at all - are you now suggesting OUR law overrides the
Yank law?"

If there is a matter proceeding in an Australian criminal Court
regarding a charge persuant to the Australian Criminal Code, Australian
law will be applied, even if the local laws excused the Act. Our law
will over-ride Yank law.
Savage was tried in the States under American law for crimes commited
in America. What's your point? If your point is that he didn't have any
popular political support from Australia - I agree but there is not
conflict of laws issue.
Ketut Royson
2005-11-23 03:02:37 UTC
Permalink
"We have the Falkonio case ongoing right here. IF it was otherwise than
as I say - or as YOU say, the Poms would have extradited the accused to
Britain to stand trial. They haven't and their request would be denied
in any event. Can you think of a reason why? "

Actually there is a good example of this. There is an Australian guy
who has been extradited to the United States for performing, in
Australia, and act which was, in the view of the Australian magistrate,
not criminal in Australian law, but is criminal in the United States.
Personally I think that it is atrocious that we would extradite one of
our citizens to a foreign country for doing something which a
magistrate found was not criminal in Australia - but there you go, we
have the government we deserve!
In the end, instead of trying him in Australia, for acts done in
Australia, we extradited him to the United States!
Hre is the case reference:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal%5fct/2004/879.html
Seppo Renfors
2005-11-23 06:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
"We have the Falkonio case ongoing right here. IF it was otherwise than
as I say - or as YOU say, the Poms would have extradited the accused to
Britain to stand trial. They haven't and their request would be denied
in any event. Can you think of a reason why? "
Actually there is a good example of this. There is an Australian guy
who has been extradited to the United States for performing, in
Australia, and act which was, in the view of the Australian magistrate,
not criminal in Australian law, but is criminal in the United States.
However the appeal showed the magistrate to be wrong. Further more you
are wrong as well. The fact had it occurred in NSW it would indeed be
a crime here too - and that is where the magistrate erred. One other
matter that was not pointed to (as it was not necessary) was the
international treaty we are bound by in relation to copyright laws.
Post by Ketut Royson
Personally I think that it is atrocious that we would extradite one of
our citizens to a foreign country for doing something which a
magistrate found was not criminal in Australia - but there you go, we
have the government we deserve!
Again, you misunderstood what the magistrate was on about. It was the
"double criminality" issue he was dealing with - which he misapplied.
Post by Ketut Royson
In the end, instead of trying him in Australia, for acts done in
Australia, we extradited him to the United States!
As we would have expected the US to extradite to us, had the reverse
situation been the case. Your citation made that very point too.
Post by Ketut Royson
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal%5fct/2004/879.html
Thank you for that citation - it was a very interesting case. It was
clear, easy to follow and understand (often not the case) - well
written indeed. It also demonstrates the fallacy of too narrow a
view/definition of legislation. A very good citation. It actually
demonstrates (irrespective of personal views on the matter) why the
hanging of drug traffickers in Singapore cannot amount to an
extraditable offence by the executioners - it supports what I have
said all along.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 06:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
Post by Tony Smith
Nothing I've written could possible lead to a conclusions that
I think that S104 of the Cwth crim code is "beyond power".
The problem is for you to show how it applies
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and
(c) the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of
Australia; and
(d) the first-mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to
causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia
or any other person by the conduct.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
A hangman ( "a person") is going to hang ("engage in conduct") in
Singapore ("outside Australia") and that hanging will "cause the death
of another person" and that other person is an Australian citizen.
Furthermore, the hangman is going to intend to kill the Australian
citizen by hanging him.
Now what part of that process is outside the terms of s104 of the
criminal code, and if so, why?
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a fucking clue.

No surprise that you are completely unemployable.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 05:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
Post by Tony Smith
Whilst the various laws of both the Commonwealth and State
Governments do have a degree of extra-territoriality attached
to them, there are a number of threshold steps that must be met.
The easiest one to deal with is the "sufficient connexion" requirement
So do you think that s104 of the criminal code
is invalid as being beyond commonwealth power
No, he clearly doesnt.
Post by Ketut Royson
(it is expressly directed at events outside Australia
and semmingly within the external affairs power)?
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
The rest of your post amounts to ignorance of the fact that different
countries laws may conflict with respect to the same action.
Wota terminal fuckwit.

You're so stupid that you cant manage to work out that s104
doesnt apply to the judicial process in Singapore, fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
In this case Singapore Law requires the guy to be
hung, and Australian law makes that hanging a crime.
No it doesnt, you silly little pig ignorant fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
Which law should the Australian Police be upholding?
The answer is simple - Australian law.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
The conflict
There is no conflict except in your pathetic
little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.
Post by Ketut Royson
is then presumably handled through diplomacy,
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
but the basis is that we expect the Australian
government to enforce and execute Australian
law, in this case, s104 of the Criminal Code (Cth).
Wota terminal fuckwit.
Post by Ketut Royson
Post by Tony Smith
Certain current or former service personnel might be in
strife if they visited Vietnam, Korea or a host of other places.
Now please stop being silly and think before typing.
Not even possible, nothing viable between its ears.
Post by Ketut Royson
It certainly is the case that Australian citizens can be in trouble with
laws that they did not expect to have enforced upon them if they go
to a foreign country - eg many greek born Australian citizens get
locked up for not having served their greek national service.
None of them are unaware of that legal obligation.
Post by Ketut Royson
Former Nazi officers are still being hunted
by Isreali agents to be brought to trial.
Completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Post by Ketut Royson
It happens commonly, so my post is quite considered, not silly at all.
Completely silly, and terminally pig ignorant in spades.
Rod Speed
2005-11-18 03:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ketut Royson
If the Singaporeans involved ever come to Australia,
they should be arrested and imprisoned for life under
s104 of the Criminal Code Act
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
Post by Ketut Royson
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and
(c) the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of
Australia; and
(d) the first-mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to
causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia
or any other person by the conduct.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).
In the meantime, an Interpol warrant should be put out for them.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
manly supporter
2005-11-18 09:13:33 UTC
Permalink
wot do u expect when we import asian trash into this country? Dont tell
there are those who feel for the cretin.... He had it coming!
Cant wait for his hanging.
Post by Don H
Well, looks like a drug courier will hang on December 2nd. Some feel he
deserves it, others not. After all, he was smuggling heroin, a vicious
drug, which could result in death of many - even if he did it for a worthy
family cause. Does the end (family) justify the means (drug smuggling)?
Likewise, does the end (punishment/prevention) justify the means (hanging)?
And if it were Bali bombers, should they hang?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...