In any case, after the farcical arrests and trial it's now clear that the hastily drawn up Suppression of Terrorism Act under which the Urewera
It must go.
▼
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
A shambles
Is there any truth to the rumour that jurors failed to convict Tame Iti and his co-defendants on the charge of involvement in an "organised" criminal group because what they saw of their group looked far from organised?
In any case, after the farcical arrests and trial it's now clear that the hastily drawn up Suppression of Terrorism Act under which the Urewera20 16 15 14 4 were seized and charged is as great a shambles as Iti's rabble, and perhaps an even greater threat to our individual security.
It must go.
In any case, after the farcical arrests and trial it's now clear that the hastily drawn up Suppression of Terrorism Act under which the Urewera
It must go.
3 comments:
We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
But we do (ir)regularly moderate comments -- and we *will* delete any with insulting or abusive language. Or if they're just inane or off topic. It’s okay to disagree, but pretend you’re having a drink in the living room with the person you’re disagreeing with. This includes me.
PS: Have the honesty and courage to use your real name. That gives added weight to any opinion.
a good dismissal,and thoroughly deserved, the idiot Crown.
ReplyDeleteMy God I googled you up on UnPC and met a mad woman, it was terrible
I thought that the Libz supports the notion of the freedom to do whatever you wanted to do in your private property as long as you don't tremble up on others rights? They were playing war games in their own land. Does the Libz now support the notion that doing such activities in your private land as a violation of others rights? Crikey, the Libz are a bunch of incoherent fucktards.
ReplyDeleteYou may properly by right do anything you wish on your property,just so long as you don't infringe the rights of others.
ReplyDeleteSuch an infringement might, for example, be building a machine gun nest on your boundary and pointing its contents at your neighbour; or collecting a stockpile of nuclear weapons while telling all-comers your neighbours should be wiped off the map; or holding weapons training drills on your land while boasting about killing the Prime Minister.
Such things would constitute an objective threat, and are rightly the subject of legal or defensive action.
In this case however the objective threat was unproven--partly because of pathetic, poorly written law, and partly because (fortunately) the defendants were little more than a disorganised rabble.