Thanks Val--I did see this on the news or somewhere on the TV the other week--what I hide they have trying to stop those from doing what they please with their life and also choosing to have a peaceful death

In principle, a filter is probably not all that bad. BUT, the

proposed Act is not for a filter. It will empower the Government

to make any printing, uploading to, or downloading or even

reading on the internet or printing in any newspaper or reading

any book or paper or even discussing ANY subject it sees fit.

The Liberal Party jailed Pauline Hansen for being a LEGAL

threat, & is withholding funds that are Legally hers. Just imagine

what could be done if they had the Law to enforce their will.

Yes one small step--and then BIG leaps Innes

It will empower the Government to make any printing, uploading to, or downloading or even

reading on the internet or printing in any newspaper or reading any book or paper or even discussing ANY subject it sees fit.



That sentence does not make sense to me. I presume you mean that it will make those items illegal which is scaremongering and completely wrong.

The statement is pretty straight forward. Which bit can't

you make sense of fwed?

At the risk of being pedantic, I repeat:- It doesn't make

anything illegal!!! It gives the Government, of the day, the

power to MAKE illegal, any form of publishing, reading, or,

MOST EMPORTANT, discussing any subject, that it states,

is not in the interests of Australia. Even China hasn't gone

that far.

Free speech is the first bastion of Democracy. WHY would

ANY Government want to legally remove that right?

Innes I think you posted something on the funds the Libs owe to Hansen--can you give me the site for that and the URL please

Hi PlanB, I can't give you the URL, off the top of my head.

BUT, Pauline was charged with illegaly accepting election

funding of over $1Million. The basis of the charge was that

the Party was not legally registered, because of a technicality.

She was jailed. The members of the Party & numerous

supporters personally collected the total funds & repaid the

funds in toto to the Electoral Commission. She was jailed

regardless. The Case was appealed & she was found

innocent & released from jail, but the fund were not returned.

What I have stated, thus far is recorded fact. A few months

ago, I asked her if she had been repaid? She stated NO &

I asked why she hadn't sued on the basis of the exoneration

on ALL charges? She told me that her solicitors had issued

a writ &, following discussions, with the Federal solicitors,

had advised her, that the Feds had advised them that they

would appeal the case until she was bankrupted & lost her

only remaining asset, her home. Remember, that under

our law, the applicant in any private suit, has to satisfy the

Court that they have the funds to pay the other side's costs,

should the application fail. I cannot think of any reason

why she should have been telling me anything other than

the truth. BTW, before Korry calls me a liar, this was a one

on one conversation over lunch.

Thanks Innes I was going to write to the Libs --Abbott in particular and ask him about this

fwed, I know you are accusing me of scaremongering, but,

The National Times reported yesterday a statement by

Ass., Professor Bjorn Landfeldt from the School of information

Technology at the University of Sydney, in part,

"Some information that may be considered as RC material

is actually material that should be made available to the general

public. Go into any public library and you will find many examples

of information that would fall under the current RC classification.

Even the late news often broadcasts imagery of severe violence,

murder, abuse and atrocities straight into our living rooms without

us having to search for it. Stopping such material, information about

the holocaust, inquisition, torture and the Belanglo state forest has

other far more dangerous consequences".

I don't think any Government should be given this power. Even the

USA has raised objections to the Bill.

What is proposed to be blocked includes sites containing child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or detailed information about how to use drugs or commit crimes.



To say that is just a start and next will be a ban on political discussion or other normal news items is untrue.

The ones who are complaining about this proposed filter are ones who have a vested interest in such things as drugs, pedophilia, sexual violence etc.



Note - that saying there will be a follow on to make the filter stricter than China's is your thought only and without any backing support.

I don't know why you keep comparing us to China, remember we have a democracy - China does not.

I will have one last try & then give up. I am fully aware of what the

proposed Act proposes. I have never stated that it is just a start

& will lead to a ban on Political discussion.

I don't know how to simplify my statement, for you.

THE PROPOSED ACT WILL, IF PASSED, GIVE THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE DAY, THE POWER TO LEGALLY BAN PUBLISHING, PRINTING

READING OR AT WORST DISGUSSING ANY SUBJECT THAT THEY

SEE FIT.

I am not suggesting that their is any intent whatsoever on the part of

the Rudd Government to do this. I am saying quite simply that we

should be frightened of any attempt to give this Legal Right to any

Democratic Government. I have been advised that any books on

euthenasia have already been removed from Public Libraries.

You state that we have a democracy, China does not. TRUE. But

remove the right to free speech & you remove the first principle

of Democracy.

Ken,



Calm down mate.



Casting pearls before swine comes to mind but is probably unfair in this particular forum.



I suggest you have a think about the the level of intelligence and education you are addressing.



Just be grateful Trollpaste has not responded yet.



A true diplomat can accept the wheat with the chaff and make good use of both.



[u]Just a friendly suggestion, I don't want to teach granny to suck eggs.[/u]

The ones who are complaining about this proposed filter are ones who have a vested interest in such things as drugs, pedophilia, sexual violence etc.

--

Well I am not into any of the above-but I am still against the filter--they have ways and means of catching these scum--and the filter will NOT stop it it will send it underground.

==



But

remove the right to free speech & you remove the first principle

of Democracy.

--

Yes this I agree with it is just the 1st step



Also yes books on Euthanasia have been removed and you have NOT been able to buy them here for many years

If every person was as decent and lucky enough to also be AS

clever as our mate fwed we would all be almost perfect :)

All the best

Phyl.