Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Travel bans for Australian citizens
No... you need to be a dual national with the ALLEGATION of 'terrorist related offenses' placed against you and the Minister can then on their whim remove your Australian Citizenship.
The proposed legislation requires No conviction, nor judicial oversight. It will INSTANTLY meet with a High Court Challenge and the law will be repealed. The Govt knows this, Ministers within the Govt have already leaked there horror about the proposals (Mostly ones who have been practicing solicitors).
As for the current law. YES it has been enacted a fair few times, just no convictions using it since the courts here do NOT kowtow to govt bullshit propaganda or wishes.
All three of your paragraphs are so wrong that the wrongness is incredible.
In fact what you've just said in ALL THREE of your paragraphs is one of the most insanely idiotic and wrong things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought or even correct. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it...
Re: Had minion read the Brisbane comments: no one has ever been prosecuted under the prior law.
No one was ever prosecuted (and they mean convicted) since the courts have always dismissed the charges ( a whole heap of people have been charged with it though)
In fact the new legislation that the current Liberal party is going for is for NO judicial oversight, no Procedural fairness, and all based on what the Minister wants. Our constitution specifically forbids this sort of power being laced in the hands of any politician. We had a similar thing in 1957 when the then government tried to do same thing with communists. It then after the high court wiped the law went to a referendum, the referendum failed BIG TIME!
You like most of your comments have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and this is nothing to do with the labor party (who some in it are actually all for this change in legislation).
Next time before you comment out of the blue like, on something you have no clue on SHUT THE FUCK UP! Or you make yourself look more incompetent and moronic then we already know you are
Personally I refuse to give my business to any firm who calls itself the 'largest xxxxx' mainly since basic probability would suggest that they would be more inclined to have MORE idiots working there than anywhere else.
This petulance by Dentons (never heard of em so maybe it's the US 'world') proves my theory absolutely.
Images of a private intimate, or sexually explicit nature are always the property of the individual(s) they portray, in perpetuity (I think that means forever), No exceptions.
NO they are NOT! And until you accept that premise the rest of your argument fails on it's face.
Images are under the exclusive control of the copyright holder NOT the subjects of the photo, unless those subjects actually took the photo. Where it gets murky is if the photographer is also in the photo with another subject (ie: using a timer on the camera) though it then comes down to who pressed the button and owns the camera - though not that simple sometimes.
Viewing another's private parts is undeniably a kind of sexual act. If we can't agree on this we're denying some pretty simple truth about ourselves.
Again you are wrong and generalising. A doctor views a patients 'private parts", an artist painting a nude does as well. The list goes on. What instead you should be stating is the mens rae of viewing for purient purposes is Generally considered a sexual act.
What I am suggesting, no, what I am stating, is that posting revenge porn is a near equivalent of giving the keys to you EX's apt to a rapist. Ah.. I wondered when the Godwin of Revenge porn would appear here ie: the word rape(ist). Rape is not in any way comparable to what is happening here, and to conflate rape with this is deplorable.
Yes it is morally repugnant and societally wrongful for someone to intentionally post unwanted images of someone to embarass, humiliate and harrass someone else. Though thankfully we already have laws against that. USE THEM! But to equate it with rape is abhorent.