open24hours posted:

Perhaps there's a good reason to separate the actions of 15 year old you know almost nothing about from the actions of another 100 'lone jihadists' rather than trying to conflate them, especially if you're trying to argue against speculation.

open24hours posted:

Sure, but it would probably help if people knew what what actually occurred during the event they are trying to contextualize before writing an article about it.

quote:

The fact is that radicalisation is not just a complex process but a rapidly changing one. Any attempt to develop profiles of violent extremists today may no longer be relevant tomorrow. More importantly, perhaps, attempts based on flawed understandings of radicalisation are bound to fail.

As long as politicians and commentators (academics included) continue to speculate about the plethora of factors implicated in radicalisation the same old narratives dominate the way in which we talk about tragedies like the Parramatta shooting and we learn nothing.

Personal motive, individual history, psychological state, mental wellbeing, social situation, family context, personal relations, social identity, ideological attachment – instead of this speculation, we should be taking the opportunity to truly learn something about how and why this young boy was radicalised.

Ahh Yes posted:

I'm ignorant here, but the abc and other media outlets, blur out faces of civilians involved in court cases in certain circumstances, not just children who have specific protection for obvious reasons.

I remember that ranga Muslim convert who married off his 12 year old daughter could request to have his face blurred, but that might relate to specific broadcasting obligations media organisations have to follow or a legal mechanism to enforce privacy for the defendant.

But then that meth head who killed a lot of puppies did not have his face hidden by the media, instead he had his own form of privacy by wearing a jumper over his head exposing his baby bump. And if I were him I would probably not want the Australian public to know my ugly face.

Anidav posted:

ALP announcing policies today, are they getting a whiff of an early election?

Anidav posted:

Internal polling shows "Do something" up 20 points.

*Bill Shorten smashes emergency box glass and triggers explosives creating mine collapse*

Laserface posted:

labors infrastructure is just more roads. even with tony gone they still agree with his policies

quote:

Rail line to Sydney's Badgerys Creek airport, connecting the Western and Inner West and South lines
Melbourne's Metro Rail
Brisbane's Cross River Rail project
Gold Coast Light Rail stage two
Ipswich Motorway
Pacific Highway
Queensland's Bruce Highway
Tasmania's Midland Highway
Electrification of the Gawler rail line in Adelaide
Pledge to support public transport in Perth, possibly the State Opposition's Metronet plan

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Six of the ten are rail or public transport projects, but sure.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Six of the ten are rail or public transport projects, but sure.

Birb Katter posted:

I know that at least one person here is going to need this picture for ~*reasons*~ so have at it

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Australia did not require Nauru to detain asylum seekers, high court told

Australia did not require Nauru to detain asylum seekers sent to the small Pacific nation for processing and any such limits on their movement had to comply with local law, government lawyers have told the high court.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/08/australia-did-not-require-nauru-to-detain-asylum-seekers-high-court-told

katlington posted:

Canceled due to the curry being refouled.

Australia isn't in charge, just paying for it?

Birb Katter posted:

You people are terrible at keeping me amused. Lift your game

Mr Chips posted:

The brouhahah over the home insulation scheme showed that if you pay for someone to do something and they kill someone doing it, it's your fault.

Zenithe posted:

I dunno, ScoMo has always struck me an "extra mild butter chicken" kind of guy. I'm quite curious now.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Does anyone still have the "sink the refugee boats and win a prize" gif ?

Anidav posted:

I read a chapter. He is apparently the self declared most "productive mayor and premier in Australian history?????"

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Australia did not require Nauru to detain asylum seekers, high court told

Australia did not require Nauru to detain asylum seekers sent to the small Pacific nation for processing and any such limits on their movement had to comply with local law, government lawyers have told the high court.

Australia’s solicitor general, Justin Gleeson SC, disputed assertions by lawyers for a Bangladeshi asylum seeker that Canberra was effectively responsible for the detention of people it transferred to Nauru because it paid for their temporary visas and funded the processing centre.

But Gleeson argued that even if the high court made such a finding, the actions were authorised by retrospective changes to the Migration Act that the Australian parliament passed in June, a month after the plaintiff initiated her case.

“It’s belts and braces; it’s parliament looking at what the executive [government] is doing saying, ‘If you need our permission you have it,’” he told the court during a hearing in Canberra on Thursday.

Gleeson said parliament had passed the legislation “in order to ensure that at least this aspect of the case didn’t trouble the court”.

He was addressing the full bench of the high court on the second day of a hearing into a case that challenges the legality of Australia’s involvement in the detention of asylum seekers in Nauru and the validity of the Australian government’s contract with the processing centre operator Transfield Services.

The result could have broader implications for the future of Australia’s system of offshore processing, which has support from the main political parties, but a decision could be months away.

The lead case involves a Bangladeshi woman who was on a boat intercepted by Australian officers in October 2013 and was detained on Nauru from January 2014 until August 2014, when she was brought to Australia for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth to a child. The baby is now 10 months old.

The woman’s lawyers argued on Wednesday that the Australian government had “funded, authorised, procured and effectively controlled” the detention on Nauru, but this was not authorised by a valid Australian law or section 61 of the constitution.

They were seeking to prevent her return to Nauru, saying there remained a risk she would be detained there because the new “open centre” arrangements announced by the local government could be revoked at any time.

Gleeson, who began his oral arguments late on Wednesday but continued to address the court on Thursday, sought to rebut the argument about the extent of Australia’s involvement. At most, he said, the court could find that there was “substantial funding and assistance by Australia in various steps which enable Nauru to carry out its law on its soil”.

The solicitor general said Nauru was a sovereign state that could not be bound to accept people Australia transferred to the island. He conceded that an application for Nauru’s special regional processing visa could only be made by an Australian officer but Nauru determined whether to accept it and what conditions to impose.

When the chief justice, Robert French, suggested that the visa “didn’t come out of the sky”, Gleeson replied that the critical point was that Australia did not determine the conditions.

Gleeson denied the plaintiff’s arguments that detention on Nauru could be described as arbitrary, saying it was associated with the purpose of processing refugee claims and, if successful, people would “graduate to a temporary settlement visa”.

Nauru had the power to relax the requirements for people to remain in the processing centre, he said. “If an Australian official purported to give a direction to a service provider to reject a request to leave the premises the service provider would be entitled to say, ‘I’m exercising a power pursuant to Nauruan law and that must be my guiding touchstone, not simply the dictates of Australia.’”

French asked whether the commonwealth, in the implementation of the arrangements, could be taken to provide “material support necessary for the establishment and maintenance of a detention regime”.

Gleeson said: “The short answer to that is yes.”

Referring to security restraints, Gleeson said: “Our position is it’s a restraint imposed by Nauru capable of relaxation by persons Nauru chooses who operate as Nauru functionaries.”

Gleeson acknowledged the Transfield contract contained references to Australian laws and policies, but added: “Anything the commonwealth and Transfield might agree is naturally subject to the overriding force of the laws of Nauru.”

Transfield’s lawyers were due to give evidence to the court on Thursday in defence of the validity of the contract.

The case began with an application filed on 14 May for an order to prevent the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, from taking steps to return the Bangladeshi woman to Nauru.

In June the Australian government – then led by Tony Abbott – rushed legislation through the federal parliament to retrospectively clarify the commonwealth’s powers to fund regional processing centres.

The legislation – which won support from the Labor party – inserted a new section into the Migration Act, backdated to August 2012, saying the commonwealth may “take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to” regional processing arrangements.

The new section, known as 198AHA, also declared the commonwealth could “make payments, or cause payments to be made, in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country” or “do anything else that is incidental or conducive to the taking of such action or the making of such payments”.

leeson told the court on Thursday the new provisions were designed to satisfy the requirements that arose from the so-called Williams case, which related primarily to the federal government’s funding of school chaplaincy but had broader implications.

“Namely, it works on a theory that it would be within the executive power under section 61 of the constitution for the executive to decide, as it were, to enter the arrangement in the first place,” he said.

“Here is parliament saying, ‘You may go ahead and do everything you need to perform that arrangement which you’ve considered appropriate to enter.’”

Gleeson emphasised that although the legislation gave the Australian government the capacity and authority to undertake such actions, it could not override Nauruan law.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/08/australia-did-not-require-nauru-to-detain-asylum-seekers-high-court-told

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Laserface posted:

Can someone please elaborate on why this would be good/bad either from their experiences or second hand info?