Jump to content

Controversial Australian lawmaker 'egged' after comments on New Zealand mass shooting


rooster59

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, simple1 said:

VIC Police

No they didn't.  He is being interviewed this afternoon (Tuesday)  he probably be charged with unlawful assault, a summary offence.  The matter will then probably be proven and dismissed in court. no conviction.  The judicial system has to run its course.  if Senator Anning makes a statement of no complaint then he wont be charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Whilst I agree with your main points I would be careful about using "right of centre" as a blanket term.

 

There are probably many conservatives who are right of centre (it's a centuries old tradition) but are not right wing extremists.Conservatism as a whole,dos not conflate "freedom of speech" with "hate speech"

 

Of course we should also take into account that the Americon political lexicon is much different from ours.

Exactly.  I would classify myself as moderately to the right of centre, and have the same disdain and disgust for right wing extremists as I do for left wing ones.  If someone points to the ugliness (for want of a better term) of the far right, I would agree with them, and not say but, but, the far left! 

 

The flurry of bigots on here who rushed to excuse this mass murderer - some by posting rubbish stating he was actually an extreme leftist, and who defend the far right whenever a post attacks it, quite openly display their own position.  And it's not a particularly savoury one.  The correct response to this atrocity is not to (falsely) say "it's okay, he was really a lefty", or "but, look at what other people in some other country, who also pray in mosques, have done".  The correct response is condemnation and rejection of this person and the ideals that made him do such a thing.  It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he was, what colour he was, what religion he was.  He could have had a copy of Mein Kampf in one pocket, Mao's Little red book in the other, a Pol Pot hat on his head, a catholic priests collar, and wearing a Che Guevara T shirt under orange robes - it wouldn't make any difference to the correct response.  It was a disgustingly cowardly attack on innocent human beings.  And I would say, and have said, the same about terror attacks conducted by any other religious / nationalist / skin coloured group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wendyfromoz said:

f that was my son he would be getting a proper bloody slap when he got home.  It is never ok to assault someone if you don't agree with their opinions.

Oh, the irony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought an egging was actually throwing the egg. Holding the egg in your hand and smashing it into the back of someone's head is a violent assault, sometimes known as a rabbit punch, king hit or more often recently lamented as a one punch when someone dies as a result. And roundly condemned by everyone especially the police. Now they are going to let this guy off and of course the loony left is idolising him funding him, whatever. Somewhat similar to when the druggo headbutted Tony Abbott, the left wing would be outraged if it happened to them but they praise it. Similarly any speech they don't agree with is hate speech, in fact anything they do not agree with is incorrect.

 

As far as Fraser Anning goes he will be fish and chip paper come this election and good riddance. And lastly as far as the mass shooting goes I will be waiting for all the facts to come out before thinking anything other than complete revulsion. Those facts may not all come out given the NSW police blundering around in Northern NSW and Ardern responding to Trump's enquiry about whether the US could help, when she should have said yes please, full resources of American intelligence thanks, instead she says could you love the muslims more, noble but starry eyed when pragmatism was necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wendyfromoz said:

No they didn't.  He is being interviewed this afternoon (Tuesday)  he probably be charged with unlawful assault, a summary offence.  The matter will then probably be proven and dismissed in court. no conviction.  The judicial system has to run its course.  if Senator Anning makes a statement of no complaint then he wont be charged.

OK. Previously reported claimed no charges by VIC Police, so must have changed their mind for some reason

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Exactly.  I would classify myself as moderately to the right of centre, and have the same disdain and disgust for right wing extremists as I do for left wing ones.  If someone points to the ugliness (for want of a better term) of the far right, I would agree with them, and not say but, but, the far left! 

 

The flurry of bigots on here who rushed to excuse this mass murderer - some by posting rubbish stating he was actually an extreme leftist, and who defend the far right whenever a post attacks it, quite openly display their own position.  And it's not a particularly savoury one.  The correct response to this atrocity is not to (falsely) say "it's okay, he was really a lefty", or "but, look at what other people in some other country, who also pray in mosques, have done".  The correct response is condemnation and rejection of this person and the ideals that made him do such a thing.  It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum he was, what colour he was, what religion he was.  He could have had a copy of Mein Kampf in one pocket, Mao's Little red book in the other, a Pol Pot hat on his head, a catholic priests collar, and wearing a Che Guevara T shirt under orange robes - it wouldn't make any difference to the correct response.  It was a disgustingly cowardly attack on innocent human beings.  And I would say, and have said, the same about terror attacks conducted by any other religious / nationalist / skin coloured group.

Interesting that the knuckle draggers always bang on about MSM and how the press doesn't report whatever their deflection de jour is. Saw this video recently outlining how their some of their favourite reads (I use the word 'read' loosely) looks covers massacres like this:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wendyfromoz said:

No they didn't.  He is being interviewed this afternoon (Tuesday)  he probably be charged with unlawful assault, a summary offence.  The matter will then probably be proven and dismissed in court. no conviction.  The judicial system has to run its course.  if Senator Anning makes a statement of no complaint then he wont be charged.

He's lucky this happened in Australia. In the USA assaulting someone over the age of 65 is a special kind of felony with enhanced punishments. Hopefully the roughing up he got from security taught him a lesson because it looks like Aussie "justice" sure isn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bluetongue said:

I always thought an egging was actually throwing the egg. Holding the egg in your hand and smashing it into the back of someone's head is a violent assault, sometimes known as a rabbit punch, king hit or more often recently lamented as a one punch when someone dies as a result. And roundly condemned by everyone especially the police. Now they are going to let this guy off and of course the loony left is idolising him funding him, whatever. Somewhat similar to when the druggo headbutted Tony Abbott, the left wing would be outraged if it happened to them but they praise it. Similarly any speech they don't agree with is hate speech, in fact anything they do not agree with is incorrect.

 

As far as Fraser Anning goes he will be fish and chip paper come this election and good riddance. And lastly as far as the mass shooting goes I will be waiting for all the facts to come out before thinking anything other than complete revulsion. Those facts may not all come out given the NSW police blundering around in Northern NSW and Ardern responding to Trump's enquiry about whether the US could help, when she should have said yes please, full resources of American intelligence thanks, instead she says could you love the muslims more, noble but starry eyed when pragmatism was necessary.

NZ are part of the 5 eyes network. They are already plugged into the full resources. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...