A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
State before Self?
Published on September 1, 2004 By Muggaz In Politics
The fervour of the Olympics have died down, the patriotism of those countries that did well have not. Over the last few days, I have no doubt that I love my country, and the reasons I love my country are for all to see – however there are plenty of reasons why I should always question those that lead my country, and I will refuse to be blinded by patriotism.

Collectively, Australia is a spirited nation, depicted by the surf, sun and sand – laid back and care free, however we have the dark spectre of our colonial past, with various act’s committed by previous governments that should be, and are, held in contempt. The thing I love about Australia is that we can admit these grievances occurred, and as a nation, we are always moving forward. While cooperatively we are interested in the development of our nation, there will always be that sense of self which is evident in any western culture – self improvement and individualism, personal development, no matter your class, creed, or race.

This brings me to my next point. It’s a big one, and certainly open to interpretation, as the written word always is – my greif is with the P-P-P-Patriot act of the United States of America. Traditionally, I would argue when it comes to patriotism, no one loves their country more than the average American citizen. Australians love their country, but you don’t see flags posted out the front of every second house, and we don’t have figures or gimmicks if you will, like Uncle Sam – well, the boxing Kangaroo can be classed as a gimmick, but the boxing Kangaroo doesn’t need YOU for war – if you know what I mean.

The Patriot act walks all over everything Americans hold dear about their great country – home of the brave and land of the ‘free.’ From the moment an American is born, they are watched by the hawks, or bald eagles, whichever you want to say, I know it’s easy from the outside looking in, but the whole notion of American patriotism appears very authoritarian to me – a state before self if you will.

I am fortunate to know many Americans, some I hold dear, and some not so dear, but the simple fact of the matter is, in America’s eyes, the Patriot act is a good thing because essentially it was created to protect civilians from horrific events such as 9/11 – this tells me a lot about the average American – as long as their personal rights aren’t infringed upon, they don’t really care about the rights of others.

Americans are always having cracks at the French for their justice system, cheesy odours, whatever. In France, you are guilty until proven innocent. The USA is held in high esteem for the free and choice filled image it conveys, however, the rights and freedoms that so many US troops are dying for are being infringed upon with this Patriot act – suspicion should not be enough to invoke the act, hence rendering the liberties Americans hold dear useless.

America is regarded as the leader of the free world, this was true to me before the Patriot act, however, now I am not so sure. With the state before self ideology, the general American is happy with the Patriot act – the average American has nothing to hide from the government, besides, it would be futile as the government has been watching since birth anyway – immigrants come to America for the right to be treated as a normal person, they take American citizenship so they too can enjoy the rights Americans ‘enjoy’. These rights no longer seem attractive.

The Americans aren’t entirely to blame for the Patriot act though – it’s unfortunate that people like the 9/11 hijackers utilised these civil liberties, and used them to spit in the face of America – but when America takes these liberties away based on suspicion, the entire American value system is brought into question. It’s ironic that it is called the patriot act – Americans are patriotic because their country is great – there are only a few countries in the world where you can make yourself with hard work, where you have the liberties to do and say what you want – America is one of these countries, or was one of these countries, until they were attacked because of the very values they are destroying.

Its hard for me to see where America will head towards in the next few years – what their social conscience will say in the back of their heads, based on what I know of America, granted, it may be not so much, though, I do see Americans following their commander and chief just because of the office he represents. It is my honest opinion that America has a problem with personal integrity going out the window because the president says it’s ok – respect the office, not the man, all that kind of talk. The president of the United States of America should command tremendous respect – when the office represents traditional American values of the family and fair go.

Maybe if Australia was attacked in the same fashion, our government would try to try and pass a similar act through our senate, however, I believe such an act would not get of the ground based on the traditional Australian values of giving everyone a fair chance, and you truly are innocent until proven guilty. Australians need to protect their interests by maintaining our national identity, and to maintain out national identity, we need to be consistent with our personal identities – Australia is a beautiful and great country, but my integrity will always come before my countries, and hopefully that holds true for our population, we wont be blindly led by the red white and blue of any flag, state before self sounds like a policy from authoritarian China – there are bad people everywhere in the world, but when you stop trusting the good on their account, it’s an inevitable decline in all that countries like America are perceived to represent.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Sep 03, 2004
US has courts too btw...
on Sep 03, 2004
US has courts too btw...


Yeah, and I don't think the Patriot Act would stand either - that's not the point. Australia has a similar if not more draconian version of the Patriot Act as the US, and both do little to ensure that either the populace is protected or that any "rights" are protected either. The ability to read anyone's emails or lock people up without warning or need does not mean that terrorists will be caught, only that the police will have more powers if they uncover a plot.
on Sep 03, 2004
The supreme court could declare the patriot act unconstitutional (which I believe it is), could they not? And could states not institute constitutional bans on the legislation set out in the patriot act?
on Sep 03, 2004
Patriot Act is a Federal Law not an Amendment, so as far as states are concerned their perspective law enforcement agencies comply with the federal ones when it comes to the Federal Law, as for putting forth a State Constitutional Ban against the Federal Government's Law, I don't think that can be done nor is it done out of a matter of principle at least. Could look into States passing Laws that go against Federal Laws if they exist.
on Sep 03, 2004
No, they have to report what they are doing. Not immediately, but it does have to be reported. For example, last I heard there were 0 searches of library records using the Patriot Act.


Incidentally, many librarians have taken to destroying their records at the end of the day so there's nothing for the feds to examine. They tend to be a militantly pro privacy bunch, them librarians, and I love 'em...buns and all!
on Sep 05, 2004

It bears repeating - the Patriot Act was passed unanymously. Is there some great conspiracy in government to enslave the populace or maybe..just maybe people are being a bit melodramatic?

 

on Sep 05, 2004
No, No, Get the NSA out of my house, oh wait, they have been there for over 50 years.
on Sep 05, 2004
Incidentally, many librarians have taken to destroying their records at the end of the day so there's nothing for the feds to examine. They tend to be a militantly pro privacy bunch, them librarians, and I love 'em...buns and all!


Especially that little red head number, the Dominatrix, on the movie where Jerry O'Connel made a bet with Busey's Kid about who would be the last bachelor, I forgot the title, but it also had Shannon Elizabeth as well.
on Sep 05, 2004
Who cares anyway about the patriot act..................Did the american people noticed that they have less privacy???
Dont think so...................And I saw Fahrenheit 9/1................Didnt impressed me......Michael moore just needed more money.
on Sep 05, 2004
It bears repeating - the Patriot Act was passed unanymously. Is there some great conspiracy in government to enslave the populace or maybe..just maybe people are being a bit melodramatic?

It did not pass unaminously. There was one single independent who did not vote for it (I believe he was from Indiana). And let us consider the context, the Patriot Act was written up one day and voted on the next. Who the heck read all (over 600) pages? What about politically, let us say that you read the Patriot Act and were to vote on it. You know it to be a bad bill but the American people (who aren't reading it) are demanding action. Are you going to vote against something that is touted as helping America defeat "terrorism"? It's a bad bill, it hurts American civil liberties, gives the government too much power, and actually does little to help protect Americans from terror, an act that can strike anywhere at any time. The fact that people are actually defending this shows how effective the propagand machine in America is, either that or how weak minded or distracted the public are.
on Sep 05, 2004
is trying to copy Canada's law, which, although not often enforced in Canada, does allow for the arrest of a church pastor for taking a moral stance on issues such as homosexuality, among other things...


An aside: Gideon, this isn't true. I wrote on this earlier on someone else's thread. I also quoted the part of the act that was applicable. I'm not going to try and re-create it now (unless you really demand it), but there's exemptions for (I forget the exact phrasing) "religious beliefs".
on Sep 05, 2004
In the U.S. though if a non-profit Religious Organization comes out and supports a candidate even if that pastor does it, that Organization could and would lose it's tax exempt status in the U.S., but as long as there are exemptions for it, than the state is not oppressing the religion in Canada, don't think they would do it in the U.S. because the Supreme Court would side with the amendment, as long as the Church is still seperated from the State.

Deference
Still despite needing some revisions, the Patriot Act just puts into wording what has been in existence off the books for at least 50 years, but was under the term National Security, which no sane Congressman/woman would do anything to restrict even though there are checks and balances in place.
on Sep 05, 2004
It bears repeating - the Patriot Act was passed unanymously. Is there some great conspiracy in government to enslave the populace or maybe..just maybe people are being a bit melodramatic?


Thats exactly what I am talking about Brad - The American general public dont care about the liberties they profess to be the worlds protectors of... freedom of speech etc. If someone showed the slightest bit of sympathy towards a terrorist cause, that would be enough to incite suspicion and a total invasion of privacy, in spite of complete innocence... like it has been said before - there is nothing un-democratic about the Patriot act, it's just double standards.

BAM!!!
on Sep 05, 2004
Thats exactly what I am talking about Brad - The American general public dont care about the liberties they profess to be the worlds protectors of... freedom of speech etc. If someone showed the slightest bit of sympathy towards a terrorist cause, that would be enough to incite suspicion and a total invasion of privacy, in spite of complete innocence... like it has been said before - there is nothing un-democratic about the Patriot act, it's just double standards.


You still are not facing facts, you have the freedom to type on this forum, so I would say it's not all bad with the patriot act, probably be fine with anything as long as you don't start spouting about committing acts of terrorism or plan to do something that compromises National Security. Invasion thing when the person is completely innocent has been happening way before the Patriot Act was a twinkle in somebody's eye under the umbrella of "National Security" and people waking up to that fact just goes to show you how little people really know, especially when somebody makes the Orwell reference of "Big Brothter is Watching You!"

BAM!!!


Be careful that is Emeril's trademark and he could bring a law suit against you. hehehe
on Sep 05, 2004
You still are not facing facts, you have the freedom to type on this forum


I am Australian - the American Federales can't do anything to me - although, I have no doubt our Prime Minister would give me up in a second, the Australian general public wouldn't have a bar of it though - I can see the 'Dont extradite Muggaz' signs now

It's not disputed that the American national security network has had these powers for a while now, as mentioned earlier in this thread though, the Patriot act just solidifies the powers and ability to encroach on civil liberties - hence giving the authorites that extra bit of leverage - there is nothing particularly wrong with that, because the sad fact of the matter is that people do plot against America from within, and this needs to be prevented - I just dont agree with the methods, thats all.

Be careful that is Emeril's trademark and he could bring a law suit against you


lol - I had best stop using it then eh?

BAM!!!

7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last