Tel-Chai Nation

It's very bad that Australia's government under Anthony Albanese is being lenient on Islamic antisemitism and such. But there's also their ambiguous approach to terrorism in the legal system that needs to be considered (archive link):

It is 61 years since Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court legitimised embedding definitional vagueness in the law, when he declared of what constituted obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

Stewart made his 1964 observation in an opinion backing the court’s majority judgement that Louis Malle’s film The Lovers was not obscene, and a series of Ohio courts were wrong to say it was. Included in his published reasons, the seven-word treatise on applying judicial intuition where legal definitions are lacking was celebrated for injecting plain old common sense into a domain not generally known for it. But it’s also become an excuse for inserting concepts in the written law that are deliberately broad and leave lots of interpretive wiggle room, even if they underpin the most serious offences that carry grave consequences for those found to have committed them.

Terrorism is in this category. Almost a quarter of a century since the September 11 attacks in the US exposed serious holes in Australian law and prompted a legislating frenzy, the articulation of what terrorism actually is now faces interrogation, to determine if the relevant definitions – or absence thereof – are fair and reflect modern reality. [...]

“And – spoiler alert – nothing,” Blight told the audience at the Australian National University’s launch event. His issues paper notes that the High Court has considered the meaning of “religion” only in the context of a tax case. The paper observes that there is clearly overlap between religious, political and ideological motives, but itemising them in the definition suggests there are distinctions. Previous reviews, the most recent federally a decade ago, have canvassed removing either the reference to religion or the whole motive requirement, because of the risk that they target specific communities – particularly Muslims. This is because when many of the laws were designed, terrorism was perceived as being linked to Islam.

If they're going to remove all discussion of the Religion of Peace, they're not getting anywhere. No doubt, Communism is off the list too, and the left certainly made quite an effort in the past quarter century to remove it as a subject for discussion in cinema, for example. Some could argue Ronald Reagan has some blame to shoulder, since for somebody who called for elimination of Russian communism, he never applied the same standards to China, or even Cuba, and that, as a result, enabled a comeback of communism in Europe as much as anywhere else, even in the USA.

Unfortunately for this particular article, its author, Karen Middleton, has also written anti-Israeli rhetoric (archive link), that devastates the impact of the prior article:

Albanese took a question from independent MP for Mackellar Sophie Scamps – a question he knew was coming – who said messages were flooding into her office from constituents distressed at both Hamas’s terrorist atrocity in Israel on October 7, 2023, and the Palestinian people’s suffering from Israel’s response. Scamps asked the prime minister what message he had about social cohesion and the importance of Hamas and Israel acting to end the conflict. He used his answer to blast those he said were peddling misinformation and inflaming division in Australia, singling out the Greens. His emotion was visible as he called social cohesion “a national asset” and said it was “unacceptable” that “deliberate” misinformation was compounding Australians’ distress, especially those with connections to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[...] “Children are starving,” Albanese said. “Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe, and Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children seeking access to water and food, cannot be defended. Nor can it be ignored.”

The same day, the deputy Israeli ambassador, Amir Meron, briefed selected press gallery journalists, reportedly describing images of starving Palestinians as “false” and part of a Hamas-driven “false campaign”.

“We don’t recognise any famine or any starvation in the Gaza strip,” Meron was reported as saying. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly made similar statements.

Well if Mrs. Middleton's perpetuating falsehoods and fabrications against Israel, as this article strongly hints despite any suggestions to the contrary, then I'm not sure why she's saying in the previous item there's a problem with what definitions of terrorism are allowed in Oz or not. Does she think Israel's a sacrificial lamb, and that throwing them to the wolves will literally appease the enemy, despite what the koran dictates? That's quite a sorry approach there, I'm afraid. Very pathetic. So how does she expect to improve a dire situation in Oz, any more than anywhere else? I'm sorry, but she put any concerns back at square one, effectively damaging the prior message as a result.

Labels: anti-americanism, anti-semitism, Australia, dhimmitude, islam, Israel, jihad, misogyny, Moonbattery, political corruption, racism, sexual violence, terrorism