redhawk44p
New member
I just read this article at Sixgunner.com. Will our lawmakers try this here?
The Australian government, after having forced its citizens to surrender their firearms, wants to give its standing army the power to shoot its own citizens. A bill that has already passed the House of Representatives would allow the army to mow down protestors and civil dissidents. Green Party Member of Parliament Bob Brown, realizing the potential for abuse, is cautioning the government to reconsider because the bill would allow the government to call out the army without first getting permission from the state or consulting with it first.
The bill, known as the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 (Aid to the Civilian Authorities) allows the army to use reasonable and necessary force to suppress civilians. Of course, the definition of "reasonable and necessary" are defined by the government. The bill would also allow the army to enter buildings without warrant, cordon off areas, erect barricades and stop vehicles in order to search and seize. The army would also have the authority to stop, search and detain civilians and seize personal property.
The most chilling portion of the bill would allow the army to use lethal force whenever the government decides it has "reasonable grounds" to believe that such action is necessary. Brown’s objection to the bill is that it does not define "domestic violence," which is one of the reasons the armed forces would be given their "shoot-to-kill" orders.
Damien Lawson, a community legal educator at Melbourne’s Western Suburbs Legal Service, was quoted in the Aug. 10 edition of The Sydney Morning Herald as saying, "…domestic violence was so undefined that it’s really a political decision of the government of the day as to whether they think they can get way with using troops."
Three of Australia’s largest unions have joined Brown’s Green Party in opposing the shoot-to-kill bill. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Maritime Union of Australia all call the shoot-to-kill bill a threat to democracy. These unions have a right to be worried as strikes and work shutdowns may be construed by the government as "domestic violence" and "civil unrest," which would necessitate the use of lethal force on unarmed workers.
Labor Sen. Barney Cooney, chairman of a Senate committee charged with examining the impact of the shoot-to-kill bill, expressed his views in an Aug. 18 edition of The Herald. "The Army and the police forces really exercise different functions. The function of the Army is to defend us from external forces. In civil society, the police are the ones that look after us. To confuse those functions," Cooney said, "is very dangerous and should only be done in the most drastic of cases."
Other Rights
Cooney is very disturbed by the special powers given the military if the bill should pass. It does not detail the rights of citizens when detained, rights they would have if in police custody.
Realizing that history has a tendency to repeat itself, minorities in Australia are very worried about the shoot-to-kill bill. As in most governments where the military has the right to kill its citizens, minorities are the first to face the business end of a firearm. Their concern is shared by the New South Wales Labor Council.
Vietnamese, Filipino, Indonesian and Yugoslav workers fear they may be targets for the military’s bullets if they should decide to strike or protest work conditions. Many of the minorities in Australia fled there to escape their own government’s shoot-to-kill mentality.
Prime Minister John Howard claims that minorities and other citizens have nothing to worry about, that the shoot-to-kill bill is aimed at curbing terrorism, not civil disobedience. But if he’s so confident that this bill is so benign, why did the government attempt to rush it through Parliament at the last minute supposedly to get it passed in time to protect athletes during the Summer Olympics?
Vicki Bourne, spokesperson for the Democrats, expressed her doubts in the Aug. 22 edition of the Australian publication The Age. "The government has known that the Olympics were to be held in Sydney for seven years. So why has it been left to the 11th hour to put this legislation before the Parliament?" she asked.
The Australian government, after having forced its citizens to surrender their firearms, wants to give its standing army the power to shoot its own citizens. A bill that has already passed the House of Representatives would allow the army to mow down protestors and civil dissidents. Green Party Member of Parliament Bob Brown, realizing the potential for abuse, is cautioning the government to reconsider because the bill would allow the government to call out the army without first getting permission from the state or consulting with it first.
The bill, known as the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 (Aid to the Civilian Authorities) allows the army to use reasonable and necessary force to suppress civilians. Of course, the definition of "reasonable and necessary" are defined by the government. The bill would also allow the army to enter buildings without warrant, cordon off areas, erect barricades and stop vehicles in order to search and seize. The army would also have the authority to stop, search and detain civilians and seize personal property.
The most chilling portion of the bill would allow the army to use lethal force whenever the government decides it has "reasonable grounds" to believe that such action is necessary. Brown’s objection to the bill is that it does not define "domestic violence," which is one of the reasons the armed forces would be given their "shoot-to-kill" orders.
Damien Lawson, a community legal educator at Melbourne’s Western Suburbs Legal Service, was quoted in the Aug. 10 edition of The Sydney Morning Herald as saying, "…domestic violence was so undefined that it’s really a political decision of the government of the day as to whether they think they can get way with using troops."
Three of Australia’s largest unions have joined Brown’s Green Party in opposing the shoot-to-kill bill. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Maritime Union of Australia all call the shoot-to-kill bill a threat to democracy. These unions have a right to be worried as strikes and work shutdowns may be construed by the government as "domestic violence" and "civil unrest," which would necessitate the use of lethal force on unarmed workers.
Labor Sen. Barney Cooney, chairman of a Senate committee charged with examining the impact of the shoot-to-kill bill, expressed his views in an Aug. 18 edition of The Herald. "The Army and the police forces really exercise different functions. The function of the Army is to defend us from external forces. In civil society, the police are the ones that look after us. To confuse those functions," Cooney said, "is very dangerous and should only be done in the most drastic of cases."
Other Rights
Cooney is very disturbed by the special powers given the military if the bill should pass. It does not detail the rights of citizens when detained, rights they would have if in police custody.
Realizing that history has a tendency to repeat itself, minorities in Australia are very worried about the shoot-to-kill bill. As in most governments where the military has the right to kill its citizens, minorities are the first to face the business end of a firearm. Their concern is shared by the New South Wales Labor Council.
Vietnamese, Filipino, Indonesian and Yugoslav workers fear they may be targets for the military’s bullets if they should decide to strike or protest work conditions. Many of the minorities in Australia fled there to escape their own government’s shoot-to-kill mentality.
Prime Minister John Howard claims that minorities and other citizens have nothing to worry about, that the shoot-to-kill bill is aimed at curbing terrorism, not civil disobedience. But if he’s so confident that this bill is so benign, why did the government attempt to rush it through Parliament at the last minute supposedly to get it passed in time to protect athletes during the Summer Olympics?
Vicki Bourne, spokesperson for the Democrats, expressed her doubts in the Aug. 22 edition of the Australian publication The Age. "The government has known that the Olympics were to be held in Sydney for seven years. So why has it been left to the 11th hour to put this legislation before the Parliament?" she asked.
And if the sheeple don't wake up here, It could be coming soon to a town near you 
