Jump to content


Photo

Is George Brandis right ?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 05 September 2017 - 06:55 PM

... should those people who've done their time for paedophilia and such be granted passports and the right to travel to other countries with the possibility of inflicting children of other countries with sexual assault ? I know it's a double-barrel loaded question, but he ( Brandis ) is in the poo a bit for it now ...

 

Most of me wants charged, convicted and jailed paedo's to rot in prison till death do them part. But then some countries don't have the same laws as we do.

And well, what's to say a paedo has completed their time and is proven to be doing their utmost to not re-offend? But, I also think we, as the host country of these paedos, have some responsibility to not allow our shit overseas to continue to harm others. Or indeed to give the impression, by allowing them passports and free-ish access to the world's children, that even though it's a crime to fuck kids, it's not a real biggy <<< that thought is what is behind my desire for paedos to rot in jail.


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#2 Nich...

Nich...

    Professional Tart

  • Mod
  • 43,271 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:06 PM

Sure.  If other countries care enough, they'd bar them entry due to their incarceration.

 

If we're not going to give them passports, we need to reconsider why we're letting them out of gaol at all, and that's going to call into question bigger legal concerns.


"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés" -- Nicholas Kurti

#3 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,058 posts

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:14 PM

It's up to the destination country really.  What's to stop someone going to Hong Kong then getting a flight from there to Thailand?



#4 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 05 September 2017 - 08:24 PM

So. Basically it's okay if our rubbish wants to leave and continue their own special brand of human-ruination in another country ? We don't have to tell other countries how to behave toward their children, but I reckon it would be bloody good to lead by example and not let our rubbish add anymore to their pile.

As to the question of our laws about the welfare of our society, who says they are perfect now ?


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#5 Nich...

Nich...

    Professional Tart

  • Mod
  • 43,271 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:08 PM

If they're rubbish and we can't let them go anywhere, should we just kill them?

 

In this pile of rubbish, too, should we place people convicted of violent assault?  How about normal sexual assault against adults rather than children?

 

Where do you draw the line?  I mean if Cori Bernardi had his way, apparently we shouldn't give gay people passports because then we might be inflicting them upon children in foreign countries.


"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés" -- Nicholas Kurti

#6 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:37 PM

 

  How about normal sexual assault against adults rather than children?

Do you not discern any difference between the assault of a child and one of an adult ?


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#7 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,561 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 05 September 2017 - 10:16 PM

How about normal sexual assault against adults rather than children?

Do you not discern any difference between the assault of a child and one of an adult ?


I think the point of Nich's question is to prompt the thought, 'where do you draw the line?'.

Do you say sexual assault of a child is so bad that you can't leave the country but sexual assault of an adult is 'only bad', so once you've done your time you can leave.

Generally I have a problem with people doing their time then being arbitrarily punished once they have paid their debt to the community(sic). It's basically saying the current sentencing doesn't fit the crime so we will make it up as we go along.
Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#8 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 05 September 2017 - 11:38 PM

I think the point of Nich's question seems to be to lessen the import of a crime committed against children . The question is merely about a paedophile's ability to gain a passport and travel to other destinations with the full possibility of committing more assaults against other children.Whether the country of choice has laws against this behaviour is morally and ethically beside the point, imo.

It is already a non certainty for some countries to allow people with a criminal background to enter their country. So bringing the " where do you draw the line " comment in here is a somewhat facile comment/question to be adding to a mix that is not a mix.

... with a bit of luck giving a passport to a paedophlie will mean listing their criminal activity which might well hinder them from entering other countries anyway


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#9 Nich...

Nich...

    Professional Tart

  • Mod
  • 43,271 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 06 September 2017 - 12:19 AM

No, Mac Dude had it right.  I'm wondering why you're drawing an arbitrary line, and how much thought you've put into the placement of it.

 

Sure, let's protect kids from our convicted criminals, but why only kids?  Why not adults too?

 

A lot of countries, it seems, will let you enter on a visa-free short stay period without doing any real  background checks.  But a lot of countries, too, will bar your entry if you have been convicted of certain types of crimes, or have been incarcerated for more than a certain length of time.  Which countries in particular are you concerned that convicted child molesters are going to go and prey on children in?  Do you think removing passports is the only option, or that just informing the country about where our citizens are going would suffice?

 

I mean, in some hypothetical situation, someone may want to go overseas to visit a dying relative or parent.  And you're saying we can't let them have a passport to go because they served prison time for a specific crime?

 

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?


"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés" -- Nicholas Kurti

#10 Sir_Substance

Sir_Substance

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 15,776 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 04:08 AM

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?

 

This is the important question, and it leads to the obvious conclusion: This isn't about pedophiles, it's about controlling movement.

 

If it was about pedophiles, we'd have kept these people in prison, or required that they be detained for psychological evaluation. The fact that they're allowed in general society tells you that they're not considered a threat.

 

You can see where this is really heading by looking from the other direction. Consider our recent decision to block the anti-vaxxer proponent Kent Heckenlively from entering Australia. Why would we do that?

 

Ok, he's a shithead with stupid ideas who will probably be indirectly responsible for the deaths of children. The same is true of (among others) homeopathy advocates and the modeling industry, but we don't ban them.

This is a government increasing it's control. Don't mistake me though, there's no dark conspiracy going on. What's happening is that governments from both sides of politics are losing support from the population and no one in power knows what to do about it. They're reverting to type, and trying to control harder what they feel they can still grasp. They're grabbing and squeezing anything they can touch to try to extract a win they can base an election campaign on. Sadly, it's a toxic policy plan, and we know where it ends. Soon enough, we'll see academics with controversial opinions denied the right to leave the country, because we don't want to "let our rubbish infect other countries". You figure where it'll go from there.


Edited by Sir_Substance, 06 September 2017 - 04:10 AM.

Kablez- You can only beat a brick wall with so many sticks until... you wasted all your time collecting and breaking sticks against a wall... Tantryl- Knowledge is the new power, but will never provide a stable baseload as cost effective as burning puppies. mm80x: I allege that Sir substance must be from the internet

#11 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 06 September 2017 - 06:57 AM

I love how I've not a put enough thought into this because someone else is thought to have the "right" of the situation ;).

 

And this question here ... " Why not adults too? " ... says to me that you don't really discern the import of an assault on children as opposed to those of an adult.

 

 

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?

 

This is the important question, and it leads to the obvious conclusion: This isn't about pedophiles, it's about controlling movement.

 

If it was about pedophiles, we'd have kept these people in prison, or required that they be detained for psychological evaluation. The fact that they're allowed in general society tells you that they're not considered a threat.

 

 

It is about paedophiles. It is that our laws do not deal with these criminals properly, because putting them in prison for a time and letting them out does not " cure " them.

The fact that they're allowed back into general society does not mean they're not considered a threat anymore, It means they have served the time our court system has allotted them for the crime of assaulting and fucking up our children. it's also, that we have no real idea how to properly curb their assault on children. And certainly letting them have clear access to travel to other countries to offend their kids is not " curing "  them either.


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#12 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,561 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:28 AM

I love how I've not a put enough thought into this because someone else is thought to have the "right" of the situation ;).
 
And this question here ... " Why not adults too? " ... says to me that you don't really discern the import of an assault on children as opposed to those of an adult.

Or, it begs the question as to why you draw the line at sex offences against children?

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?

 
This is the important question, and it leads to the obvious conclusion: This isn't about pedophiles, it's about controlling movement.
 
If it was about pedophiles, we'd have kept these people in prison, or required that they be detained for psychological evaluation. The fact that they're allowed in general society tells you that they're not considered a threat.

It is about paedophiles. It is that our laws do not deal with these criminals properly, because putting them in prison for a time and letting them out does not " cure " them.
The fact that they're allowed back into general society does not mean they're not considered a threat anymore, It means they have served the time our court system has allotted them for the crime of assaulting and fucking up our children. it's also, that we have no real idea how to properly curb their assault on children. And certainly letting them have clear access to travel to other countries to offend their kids is not " curing "  them either.


I'm still not sure why confiscating their passports so that they can only continue to abuse Australian children is preferred to allowing them overseas.

If the treatment/sentencing of paedophiles is lacking we should look at changing that not confiscating passports.
Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#13 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,181 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 06 September 2017 - 09:43 AM

I love how I've not a put enough thought into this because someone else is thought to have the "right" of the situation ;).

 

And this question here ... " Why not adults too? " ... says to me that you don't really discern the import of an assault on children as opposed to those of an adult.

 

 

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?

 

This is the important question, and it leads to the obvious conclusion: This isn't about pedophiles, it's about controlling movement.

 

If it was about pedophiles, we'd have kept these people in prison, or required that they be detained for psychological evaluation. The fact that they're allowed in general society tells you that they're not considered a threat.

 

 

It is about paedophiles. It is that our laws do not deal with these criminals properly, because putting them in prison for a time and letting them out does not " cure " them.

 

OK I have a fairly educated response typed up, but I decided to save it to notepad until I check you're aware...

 

Can you explain, just basically;

What the process is, when a pedophile is convicted in Australia (what the 'punishment' is, what the 'help' is)?

And then what happens when they 'get out'?

 

It's probably just the blase style of Internet typing, but it sounds like you're expecting "Go to this room for X years, OK, now you can go"


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#14 Nich...

Nich...

    Professional Tart

  • Mod
  • 43,271 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 06 September 2017 - 10:39 AM

I love how I've not a put enough thought into this because someone else is thought to have the "right" of the situation ;).

I love how I've suddenly said you didn't put enough thought into this ;)

 

And this question here ... " Why not adults too? " ... says to me that you don't really discern the import of an assault on children as opposed to those of an adult.

Just to be clear, your focus then is on overseas kids and not Australian ones? Says to me that you don't really feel like Australian kids are as important to protect as overseas kids.
 

It is about paedophiles. It is that our laws do not deal with these criminals properly, because putting them in prison for a time and letting them out does not " cure " them.
The fact that they're allowed back into general society does not mean they're not considered a threat anymore, It means they have served the time our court system has allotted them for the crime of assaulting and fucking up our children. it's also, that we have no real idea how to properly curb their assault on children. And certainly letting them have clear access to travel to other countries to offend their kids is not " curing "  them either.

Paedophilia isn't a crime.
 
The fact we have a sex offenders register, but not a register for people who commit non-sexual assault, says that we take it seriously and try to limit re-offending balanced against community concerns, and so place some restrictions on people released from imprisonment.
 
"But think of the overseas kids" is pretty cliched as far as why we should  not give them a passport, rather than other options.

 

If it's all about protecting the kids, why let them out of prison at all?


"I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés" -- Nicholas Kurti

#15 scruffy1

scruffy1

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,375 posts
  • Location:near the beach

Posted 06 September 2017 - 12:30 PM

george brandis isn't right.... he's far right  :P


ummmmmmmmmmm............


#16 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,750 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 06 September 2017 - 12:59 PM

Hmm,

 

I love kids, but in a good way, it can be difficult out there sometimes but I grabbed a small girl yesterday who was running away giggling from her mother who was hampered by bags but I was happily between her and a lot of traffic.

 

Just as well given how stuffed my legs are - I just scooped her up, put her in my trolley and back to mum, who, was very thankful, kid thought it was a hoot :)

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#17 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:24 PM

 

If it's all about protecting the kids, why let them out of prison at all?

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Some years back there was a thread in here talking about Dennis Ferguson's re-housing woes - I may even have been responsible for the thread ;) - No one really wanted to be his neighbour. At the time, I believe Cockatoo Island was in the news looking for someone to get in and ' do' something with it. I decided the Island would be a good place for Dennis and any other once-jailed-criminal-paedophiles to go. There amongst them selves the 'neighbour issue' would not be a thing. Given some building material and tools and seeds for food produce they could build new lives. I reckon on balance, it would have cost less than keeping them in the regular prison system or indeed trying to house them amongst a society they had little respect for.


george brandis isn't right.... he's far right  :P

I have to wonder if he is looking quite seriously beyond Aussie politics now. He's one very cagey dude. wouldn't ever trust him.


 

I love how I've not a put enough thought into this because someone else is thought to have the "right" of the situation ;).

 

And this question here ... " Why not adults too? " ... says to me that you don't really discern the import of an assault on children as opposed to those of an adult.

 

 

If we don't give them passports so they can't go overseas to reoffend, what are we going to do to then protect Australian children from them, if they're so likely to reoffend?

 

This is the important question, and it leads to the obvious conclusion: This isn't about pedophiles, it's about controlling movement.

 

If it was about pedophiles, we'd have kept these people in prison, or required that they be detained for psychological evaluation. The fact that they're allowed in general society tells you that they're not considered a threat.

 

 

It is about paedophiles. It is that our laws do not deal with these criminals properly, because putting them in prison for a time and letting them out does not " cure " them.

 

OK I have a fairly educated response typed up, but I decided to save it to notepad until I check you're aware...

 

Can you explain, just basically;

What the process is, when a pedophile is convicted in Australia (what the 'punishment' is, what the 'help' is)?

And then what happens when they 'get out'?

 

It's probably just the blase style of Internet typing, but it sounds like you're expecting "Go to this room for X years, OK, now you can go"

 

Post it if you wish M_S ... it is what a thread is for you know :)


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#18 scruffy1

scruffy1

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,375 posts
  • Location:near the beach

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:30 PM

it's not too hard to swim from cockatoo to either side of the harbour  :p


ummmmmmmmmmm............


#19 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 06 September 2017 - 08:35 PM

I think something would have to be a deterrent for them  to want to do that ... but anyway it's all too late for that, I googled. Cockatoo is some sort of a tourist venture now.

No idea if it's sustaining itself or not


Edited by eveln, 06 September 2017 - 08:35 PM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#20 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,387 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 08 September 2017 - 07:08 PM

Hah ! In Florida, sex offenders are not welcome in the shelters  ready to house people from the weather they've got happening just now. Also it seems there is not another designated place for them to take shelter ... no kiddie -fest in the shelter for them !

http://www.abc.net.a...helters/8885318


Edited by eveln, 08 September 2017 - 07:08 PM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users