[xasop]

Starting a new thread as this discussion is getting well beyond the scope of the other one.

David Cameron seems to be competing with Tony Abbott for the title of worst Commonwealth head of government. Abbott is currently pushing to violate international laws by revoking citizenship from sole Australian nationals involved in terrorism, effectively leaving them stateless, something even his own ministers have spoken out against. I'm honestly not sure which is worse, his comments or Cameron's.

The whole Commonwealth is going down the toilet. Let's all move to America.

According to the article, it would only be used toward those who have dual citizenship with another country.

There are two separate proposals. The one against dual nationals has widespread acceptance; Abbott and Dutton are pushing to extend that to sole nationals, but are meeting resistance even within the government.

Oh. Got that. I misread. Sorry about that. It seems to me that the punishment for terrorism should be death or at least life imprisonment without possibility of parole. This whole question shouldn't even be an issue.

I don't think there should be a penalty for terrorism as such, simply because it's such a vague term that is used to refer to all kinds of different crimes. For example, Australian law does not distinguish between people fighting with and against the Islamic State overseas, or between people who fight alongside IS forces and people who simply provide medical treatment to the wounded. They're all "terrorists" as far as our government is concerned.

The second reservation I have is that we should be trying to solve the problem at the source, not waiting to apply punitive measures post facto. Obviously we have a social problem if young people in Australia feel they will be able to accomplish more by going to Syria or Iran and fighting with extremists than they can at home, and I don't think the threat of life imprisonment is going to do much to deter them. I'm not saying we shouldn't have punishments in place, only that they aren't actually going to solve the problem, and we need to be doing more.

Finally, leaving citizens stateless is both a violation of international laws and an irresponsible position for a government to take. Rather than helping to put a stop to terrorism abroad by treating the social problem at the source, the Australian government is throwing their hands up and saying "they're not our citizens anymore, someone else please deal with them". Leaving people stateless in the middle of a war zone is not going to accomplish anything except making Tony Abbott look tough.

That said, I agree there are some terrorist crimes for which life imprisonment, and perhaps even the death penalty (I'm on the fence as to whether or not I support that in principle) are appropriate. I just think the crimes with which those penalties are associated need to be more strictly defined than "terrorism".

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I personally think the whole "terrorist" label is bullshit. It allows a government, any government, to essentially classify anyone it doesn't like, as persona non grata. I mean, who IS or is NOT a terrorist? It's a totally subjective word. I think actions speak louder than words. I am radically pro-Israel. I think every single Arab in Greater Israel (current day Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights) should be forcibly removed from the State, and those who refuse to leave should be removed at gunpoint.

Does that mean that I am going to go off half-cocked and try to do anything violent? No. On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of persons who have ill feelings towards the State of Israel (and Jews as such) and have similar ideas. Would they go off half-cocked and try to do something stupid? No. They have more sense. As much as I may think they are idiots, that doesn't make them terrorists.

So, whatever you say is one thing. Unless you are directly threatening the stability of the State, or the lives of other persons, you should be allowed to say whatever the Hell you please. If you do anything stupid, that is when punishment should be considered. And there are degrees of punishment, at that point. What constitutes punishment? Do we punish some idiot 16 year old who goes off half-cocked to Syria after being radicalised in some loony mosque in Sydney by shooting him? Or do we try remedial work to make him a productive citizen? What about the Muslim cleric that radicalised the boy and should have known better? This man should have known better, and might indeed deserve the bullet, in my mind.

So its all a matter of degree. At least, to me, at any rate.

[xasop]

I personally think the whole "terrorist" label is bullshit. It allows a government, any government, to essentially classify anyone it doesn't like, as persona non grata. I mean, who IS or is NOT a terrorist? It's a totally subjective word. I think actions speak louder than words. I am radically pro-Israel. I think every single Arab in Greater Israel (current day Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights) should be forcibly removed from the State, and those who refuse to leave should be removed at gunpoint.

Does that mean that I am going to go off half-cocked and try to do anything violent? No. On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of persons who have ill feelings towards the State of Israel (and Jews as such) and have similar ideas. Would they go off half-cocked and try to do something stupid? No. They have more sense. As much as I may think they are idiots, that doesn't make them terrorists.

So, whatever you say is one thing. Unless you are directly threatening the stability of the State, or the lives of other persons, you should be allowed to say whatever the Hell you please. If you do anything stupid, that is when punishment should be considered. And there are degrees of punishment, at that point. What constitutes punishment? Do we punish some idiot 16 year old who goes off half-cocked to Syria after being radicalised in some loony mosque in Sydney by shooting him? Or do we try remedial work to make him a productive citizen? What about the Muslim cleric that radicalised the boy and should have known better? This man should have known better, and might indeed deserve the bullet, in my mind.

So its all a matter of degree. At least, to me, at any rate.

That's more or less the point I was trying to get across, so I think we're more in agreement than we are in disagreement. My concern with the current state of affairs (both in Australia and abroad, although the problem is particularly bad here) is that there are no degrees; we're just treating anyone who associates with terrorist organisations in any way with the same hard-line approach.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, I think you and I are actually more alike in some ways than not. I've observed that this is not the first time we have agreed on matters of principle. Gay marriage was another area wherein we agreed.