Fisherman jailed for people smuggling

You'll have to take that up with Dr Gordon Hughes and the Law Council of Australia.


"The laws tend to target Indigenous persons"

http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=91B75434-1E4F-17FA-D2BA-B6D5A60592A7&siteName=lca

 

Yes, ...

"Mandatory sentencing laws target particular property offences that are
generally committed by people of lower socio-economic backgrounds. They
are discriminatory in effect against Indigenous people in particular."

Thus, the effects of "The laws tend to target Indigenous persons".

 

If they were sitting here I would most certainly despute it. 'Target' is the wrong word to be using. To target something is to deliberately aim at it, you must direct an action against a thing to be targeting that thing. The law does not in anyway target racial groups, the law targets behaviour.

 

I'll see if I can find his mobile number.

You can have a little chat to him.


EDIT: I think he works here now ...

ILSAC Secretariat
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

Tel: +61 (0)2 6141 5007
Fax: +61 (0)2 6141 5009
E-mail: ilsac.secretariat@ag.gov.au

 

... target is the wrong word ... To target something is to deliberately aim at it, you must direct an action against a thing to be targeting that thing. The law does not in anyway target racial groups, the law targets behaviour.

You also insisted that laws 'target' racial groups but I see you are now unable to dispute my statement in your own defense. Unother one who cannot think for himself.

 

Take up your discussion on semantics with the Dr Hughes. I've provided you with his number.

Mandatory sentencing laws (i.e. their effects) tend to target indigenous persons.

Mandatory sentencing laws (i.e. their effects) tend to target indigenous persons.

This has been backed up with evidence (follow my links, and do some reading).

 

Granny says dey oughta scuttle his boat...

... den dat'll put a stop to dat.

 

Using a lawer as a referance for your "morality" argument isn`t your best tactical option.

 

In what way? Do you suggest that he hasn't broken Australian law? Or that he should not be subject to the laws of our land? Perhaps you believe that he will be required to do productive work? Not so. Prisoners have not been put to genuine productive work since the government printing office, the number plate stamping facilities and the prison laundry were privatised or moved out of the penal system. As for the provision of meals based on dietary or religious requirements. Australia is a signatory to several conventions that ban us from offending any persons religious purview and to deny these people halal or kosher meals would be a violation. Diabetes and other disorders are also catered for. If you take ill in prison you are taken care of! To allow these prisoners to die, go blind or suffer unreasonable pain would, once again, be a violation of their human rights and the conventions that our politicians have signed. Could be he will be better off here than impoverished in his homeland where things are so tough.

 

Perhaps I will send him a dictionary, with a marker on the appropriate page. You clearly could use one yourself.

There is no evidence that mandatory sentencing laws 'target' Australian Aborigines. Show us were the law mentions Aborigines. Show us where the preamble to the law mentions Aborigines.
The only evidence is that Aborigines are more prone than other racial groups to committing certain offences. Whats more I believe mandatory sentencing doesn't even come into play unless the person before the court is a repeat offender.
The law itself targets (repeat) criminal behaviour and is completely non-discriminatory. Aborigines claiming the law is picking on them is just bullsh!t.

 

I've explained this to you several times, yet still you don't seem to have the intelligence to understand.

Aborigines are not mentioned in mandatory sentencing laws and I've never once said that they are. Understand? Is there anything in that sentence that you don't comprehend?

What I have said is:

"The effects of mandatory sentencing laws tend to target indigenous persons, not the actual words in a written Act."

Now, what part of that don't you understand?

What part of that says that Aborigines are mentioned in the laws?

What part of that says that Aborigines are mentioned in the preamble to a law?

Seriously. Read my posts properly before you decide to make a fool of yourself again.

 

You have explained nothing, just repeated your opinion. I've explained this to you several times, yet still you don't seem to have the intelligence to understand.
To target something is to deliberately aim at it, you must direct an action against a thing to be targeting that thing. If the law does not mention Aborigines then it cannot be said to be targeting them. I am not disputing the fact that mandatory sentencing tends to be brought against more Aboriginal repeat offenders than other racial groups but that is not because the law 'targets' them. It is because they are more likely to commit the offence that the law targets.
Please explain how mandatory laws 'target' Aborigines. No, don't just give us links and quotes from other people who are bleating your same line, explain it.
Trying to blame the law for the number of Aboriginals being convicted is just a cop-out.

 

• Mandatory sentencing laws target particular property offences.
• Those offences are generally committed by people of lower socio-economic backgrounds.
• Therefore, they tend to be discriminatory in effect against Indigenous people.

This is very easy to understand.

If you still can't understand it, don't bother replying: I've wasted enough of my time trying to explain this to you.

From now on I'll be directing my comments to this:



The results will be the same.

 

• 
  
  Yes, but they also target repeat offenders.
  
  
  Generally, yes. I have not seen any evidence of this but I am led to believe such is correct.
  
  
  So please explain how you make the leap to discriminatory against Aboriginals??
  Of all laws, mandatory sentencing does not and cannot discriminate in any way between race or gender.

 

I bet the news source you trust is Channel 7 and 9 lol.

Hey guys remember when John Howard said that the asylum seekers were chucking their children overboard? lol that would have been the darkest point of his career :L

Oh and the Intervention... DARKEST.

Adultmale - you are so narrow-minded. Stop joining a conversation without having any knowledge about it. If you want to join it... at least stop having the arrogance and have the will to learn. Have you been out to the Alice Springs and seen the injustice?

 

Sometimes I wonder how those TV channels get away with calling it "News".

They're a joke.

 

You are only engaging in useless semantics. The point is that these laws impact on certain groups much more than others, whether or not you call that "targeting" is a irrelevant. The point stands.

 

You are being racist, accusing Aborigines of specialising in particular crimes.

 

So, you are saying that if a non Aboriginal commits thesa specific "racist" crimes, they won`t be prossecuted.

 

Nope.

Wanna try again?

 

Never disputed the point that you are now correctly making, finally without using emotive semantics.

 

Better still, why don`t you sensibly explain what you are trying to say. On one hand you are saying that Aboriginals specify in certain crimes, and to prossecute them is racist. On the other hand you are saying that non Aboriginals who commit the same crimes, are prossecuted also. How can it be racist if everyone is treated equally?

 

Again? How many times do you need it explained for you?

I've already explained it perfectly well in order to satisfy a reasonable person.

Your comprehension issues are not my concern.

Perhaps this forum is more suited to your needs: http://betweentalk.com/forum.php

You're not reading my posts properly.

You'll have to do better than that.

Until then: http://www.topix.com/forum/family/kids

 

Not a very good attempt at side stepping. You`ll have to wait in the corner for the paint to dry.

 

No need to side step: I've addressed your question head on.

"I've explained it perfectly well in order to satisfy a reasonable person."

Whether or not you're a reasonable person, seems to be the issue now.