another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[anthonyvop]

Okay yes, it is MSNBC and some can argue that it is skewed, but I wonder why they don't show the instances of people shooting on self defense (unless no one had to today)

Why? Because it is MSNBC. The media hates it when there are no victims.

[anthonyvop]

Not true.

Australia's constitution has no bill of rights. Rights in Commonwealth countries generally are unlimited except where hedged in by operation of law. The Bill of Rights Act 1689 and a side note confirmed in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) both confirm that free speech is in operation here. There is also Article 19 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971

"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009

Australian law moves and evolves. British law which also has no written constitution and where this website happens to be hosted also shares the same Bill of Rights Act 1689, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various pieces of Common Law traditions and rulings.

So, no.

If it wasn't for the USA the people in Australia would be speaking Japanese and bowing for their emperor.

[donKey jote]

and I'd be speaking German... ach warte!

[Rollo]

If it wasn't for the USA the people in Australia would be speaking Japanese and bowing for their emperor.

Again not true.

We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.
- Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, per Background Paper Number 6 1992. Department of the Parliamentary Library.

Actually if it wasn't for the USA, Darwin would have never have been bombed. It was seen as a supply base for American forces.

[Tazio]

You guys are lame

[Starter]

I think that this thread is now officially far enough off track tht it can be safely closed.

[donKey jote]

You guys are lame

bunch of donkeys !

[pino]

I agree, time to close it