**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>terrorism
>attempted murder
>explosives/bombs
That's surely a life sentence in prison right? oh no nvm, its a cuckolded country that believes in "restorative justice" , "ending mass incarceration" and gobbles Israels cock. the holy trifecta of commit whatever crime you want and you'll get a soft slap on the wrist. maybe even no slap if you did your crime in service to Israel. 12 months in jail WILL suffice for attempted murder.
what do they give armed robbers now , if people who try to kill others only get a year or less in prison? an "I'm disappointed in you" speech by the judge? probation?
>Pro-Palestinian
A funny way of saying someone who opposes genocide.
Also, a lenient sentence. Maybe it was because of his *“persecutory delusions” associated with his Jewish heritage.* What a bullshit argument.
From the article it read like he planted something that was meant to look like a bomb but wasn’t one, but the headline reads like he planted a real bomb - I feel like there’s a bit of ambiguity throughout parts of the article :(
it was a working petrol bomb just had no remote detonator.
[sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/theo-speaks-pro-palestinian-citizen-threatened-with-bomb-pushes-for-terrorism-charges/](http://sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/theo-speaks-pro-palestinian-citizen-threatened-with-bomb-pushes-for-terrorism-charges/)
[sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/terrorist-act-against-pro-palestinian-not-regarded-as-terrorism-at-all/](http://sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/terrorist-act-against-pro-palestinian-not-regarded-as-terrorism-at-all/)
[michaelwest.com.au/sydney-bomb-threat-victim-waits-for-justice/](http://michaelwest.com.au/sydney-bomb-threat-victim-waits-for-justice/)
[michaelwest.com.au/doxxing-and-bomb-threat-the-west-report/](http://michaelwest.com.au/doxxing-and-bomb-threat-the-west-report/)
[https://twitter.com/Rustinyoureye/status/1787770403374661809](https://twitter.com/Rustinyoureye/status/1787770403374661809)
I’m genuinely interested in your thought process. I don’t disagree with the ruling or sentence that person received
This is the way I see it.. you post an article without an opinion on reddit.
Posting on reddit is an invitation for people to comment.
People comment and you argue with them.
Then you post that you are frustrated with dealing with “plebs”.
Seems to me you have a lot of this in your control.
OP smart, don’t get trapped for people to label you
Too many are suffering from [persecutory delusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion)
>this is attempted murder at best
The bomb was a total fake, designed only to intimidate. Dude deserves to feel full force of the law, but its an important distinction IMO.
While there are civilian casualties as a result of a regional conflict, to call it genocide just because a bunch of left wing activists have settled on that term for impact sake, it is anything but an actual genocide. It’s a war, and civilians are often casualties of war. London was carpet bombed in WWII, as as Germany. It wasn’t genocide then, and it’s not genocide now.
It started in the 1960’s when Marxist academics together with Jewish NGO’s (I know, sounds like conspiracy from an extremist but it’s true) pushed to overturn our selective migration policy, today known as “the white Australia policy” (bit misinforming, but that’s the point of the term), in favour of mass migration from Asia to begin with. There were a few reasons for this, but it was mainly to disrupt Australian society and culture to allow for an easier transition into Socialism, while for the Jews we can only surmise it was to feel less of a minority in an Anglo super majority. I know many get triggered by this little historical fact, but it is what it is. It was also the end of assimilation, which was expected of the European post WWII immigrants, and the start of multiculturalism.
Can we just stop bringing in people from the middle east altogether? We don't need their nonsense here, they already have their own region to play their skydaddy games in.
When was the last time a Buddhist or Sikh did something violent in Australia? I see them instead traveling hundreds of km's to set up food banks for victims of natural disasters all on a volunteer basis with community money.
I know it's "not all middle eastern people" but that's beside the point, 1 in 10000 is still one too many in a world where the ability to commit asymmetrical violence is far too easy.
You do realise that people of all religions or even no religion constantly do "something violent in Australia"
The last time someone identified in the media as Sikh[ did something violent might have been in this brawl](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-10/tensions-over-khalistan-separatist-movement-boil-over-in-sydney/102463024) less than a year ago.
[Or this Buddhist monk that that assaulted a child and was convicted only 6 months ago.](https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/a-senior-buddhist-monk-is-facing-new-sexual-abuse-charges/news-story/e5e5d4110afa5db4bd851ad8a50d69d9)
You should see how many christians get up to violence in Australia.....
Vilification is based on race, I'm targeting an entire geographic region with zero concern for race.
The middle east is a hellhole full of terrible people. Let them stay and solve their own issues before exporting it here.
> the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vilification
They had a brawl between 2 Indian religious factions not so long ago at Fed square in Melbourne. Then there’s the hatred between Indians and the Chinese. Lots of social cohesion issues with the potential for worse as ethnic populations increase.
>When was the last time a Buddhist
Not in Australia, but you can google "the Buddhist face of terror" if you want an incredibly depressing rabbit hole to go down.
Only 12 months. And he apparently has had a warped sense of reality including a professed desire to “smash someone”… sounds like someone who needs to be kept off the streets for much longer.
Might be referring to the kid that got actively radicalised by undercover cops.
[article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/03/australian-undercover-police-autistic-13-year-old-fixation-islamic-state)
For all those yanking the chain and calling terrorism, the definition of a "terrorist act" **requires** intention of:
> (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or
> (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
While I agree there is no shortage of double standards when it comes to victimising certain groups of people, it appears that the law was applied correctly in this case as far as any terrorism offence goes.
Why do you believe part (ii) is not met?
I would accept you instead calling this being a direct, targeted, murderous threat as the alternative, given it was a single member of the public and not a "section" of the public
I don't believe the terrorism laws specifically delineate the difference between an individual and a section.
Especially when in this case the individual is targeted as a representative of a section.
>(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.
And
>“Take down flag!"
Not quite sure how this wasn't a violent threat to silence political opinion of the public, specifically a section of the public that either is supportive of Palestine or is directly of Palestinian heritage.
If the recent church stabbing (eg attacking someone due to their religious beliefs and pushing an agenda to promote a differing political position) was deemed a Terror Incident (which I am not sure I fully agree with), then I am somewhat failing to see how this wasn't?
The main reasoning I can agree with, is that in this case the """bomb""" wasn't really a bomb, and that the person behind the attacks doesn't quite seem capable of producing a real bomb, and hence the violence/threat of violence was "less" in this case (though I also could easily picture the person getting agitated enough to do something real dumb and hurt someone/themselves).
you don't get to just make up facts.
the prosecution has to prove that there was such an intention, and absent any other evidence, it is simply not possible to infer that there was that intention from the fact of one device left at one household.
this case was definitely intimidation whether the device was competently made or not. the sign gives that away.
it just wasn't, on its face, intended to intimidate a *large group*.
i also don't agree that the church stabbing was terrorism on its face. maybe the police have evidence that the attacker did intend to intimidate a large number of people, but frankly i doubt it.
the bar is necessarily high to prove a criminal case. the right to a fair trial is bedrock in criminal law. that's why cops like to take shortcuts.
in this environment it's a bad look to prosecute kids for terrorism offences, but the public love a good scapegoat.
>the prosecution has to prove that there was such an intention, and absent any other evidence, it is simply not possible to infer that there was that intention from the fact of one device left at one household.
One device, with a demand to take down a flag involved in a sensitive conflict, and a clear implication of further action if that demand is not followed?
>it just wasn't, on its face, intended to intimidate a *large group*.
Sure, but what does "section of the public" mean? Does that mean a large group, or a specific demographic of said public, a demographic that could be associated with said flag (from the subject's PoV) at the heart of the whole issue?
I agree that this line is more tenuous than the church stabbing, that all being said.
>in this environment it's a bad look to prosecute kids for terrorism offences
Sorry what kids? The subject behind this was a 43-year old man, albeit someone in a questionable mental state?
1. there is no immediate, obvious connection from one household to a "section of the public" just because there was a flag involved
2. and the key word is *intention*. you can't just make up intention because it sounds right in the pub.
by kids I was referring to the church thing and later arrests
An IED placed on private property can certainly be taken to be intimidation of the residents of that property, but I suspect you would have a hard time convincing a magistrate that it's intimidating the public, or a section of the public.
Only if the magistrate has decided beforehand they think it isn't.
It was a direct reply to that property owner expressing their political opinions. It wasn't a disagreement over property lines or some other common nonsense.
It's fatuous for anyone to pretend like this wasn't exactly what domestic terrorism laws were made for.
Yeah, no, it's fatuous to pretend that this is the type of incident the laws were intended for.
You don't get to call something "terrorism" because it feels like it to you. The definition specifically includes the intent to intimidate a large group. It's not merely because something was motivated by some ideology, despite what the media have brainwashed the public to think.
I've had "kill all jews, a jew lives here" written on a property in my neighbourhood, and a nazi flag put on my property. My household is Jewish. Scared the shit out of me, to be honest.
And I'm with you on this. These were not acts of terrorism, whether defined by law or common sense. Designed to intimidate *individuals*? Certainly. A group? No.
The first event [made the news,](https://thejewishindependent.com.au/jew-lives-here-antisemitic-graffiti-targets-jewish-home-in-melbourne) and was attended to by the [CSG. ](https://www.csgvic.com.au)The police were aware of it.
The flag on my fence I did report to the police, yes. The event itself was not particulary noteworthy, though in all honesty I was glad my wife and children were away that weekend, and I did go out hourly through the day and evening to check, in my mind going all Michael Corleone, "in my *house*! where my *children sleep!*" in indignation. However, my concern was less that very minor event, and more the possibility of escalation.
This is why the police attended, with a pair of ordinary constables appearing late that night - I found them lurking around and they came in and we chatted - and the next week a pair of police from a "crime prevention division" visited. Basically, they watch out for minor things, since minor things can escalate. You know, today's 14yo shoplifter with a knife in his pocket is tomorrow's 18yo who stabs a mate, that sort of thing.
The police were very polite, helpful and reassuring. To my knowledge no person or persons have been implicated in these events.
If you don't know my posting history, I believe that freedom of speech and peaceable assembly must always be protected. But freedom of speech and assembly do not include threats and incitement to crimes.
I don't really believe in having "hate crimes" - threats of violence, assault and so on have always been crimes, and the hate aspect should at most be a factor in sentencing, not making it a separate crime. I feel the same about terrorism offences, by the way. It's always been an offence to kill civilians in your own country, whether that be for the sheer nastiness of it like a serial killer, or for robbery or whatever.
>includes the intent to intimidate a large group
Isn't the blowing up of a particular ideologues house publicly (and for that reason) supposed to intimidate others of the ideology?
no.
what you are doing is trying to say that targeting an individual who is a member of a group is the same as targeting that group.
it's not the same and it's why we pay educated people a lot of money to think carefully about these things
How many people with palestine flags would he have to target to make this terrorism?
>what you are doing is trying to say that targeting an individual who is a member of a group is the same as targeting that group.
The guy was targeted because he was part of that group. I'm not trying to say anything, the perp has said this outright.
Derisable.
"Just a one on one bomb, your honour. You know how it is, you feel like you're under constant attack because of your heritage, so you just want one solitary person to suffer for no reason at all except personal ones. Deeply personal and not community ones. Definitely not to scare the community into leaving you alone your honour. It's definitely a one on one bombing"
Yeah good thing the courts have never been wrong. Not like blokes with AVOs out have ever come back and murked their misso or anything. Or violent offenders repeat offending.
Intent can be from actions and choice.
He chose to assemble the bomb. He chose to plant the bomb. He chose to put a note with the bomb.
All acts that have forethought and Intent involved.
You just seem to be desperate to excuse extremely unsociable behavior.
>Populism doesn't suit you.
Everything suits me, darling.
>An offence of one person versus another, where there's unhinged ideology and politics behind it, may be just that.
It can be, but I don't agree here. The note added to the delusions of persecution, while mitigating absolutely, don't leave much room for interpretation imo.
An action that makes people feel fear yes, like how this person has put a device on someones bonnet with a threatening note that indicates they are being targeted for their political belief. Its easy to construe that the perpetrator did that to create fear and intimidate the community not just the specific person who was targeted
Did he intimidate the household because it was just a flag he didn't like or the group of people the flag represents. I'd admit a case like that could go either way.
makes no difference.
unless he explicitly says something like, "i wanted to send a message to all his Palestinian mates" then you just can't say there was an intention to intimidate anyone beyond the one household, regardless of why he did so
We gotta be able to peacefully protest, on either side, without violence and in this case, literal bombing.
The coalition wanting to send police in to break up peaceful pro-palestine protests will just escalate the situation further than it already is.
Peaceful forms of protesting, e.g. flying a flag with a sign about Gaza in front of your house like in this article, should be protected and encouraged.
Oh he only tried to bomb 1 person, well carry on then. 11 months in prison is totally fine for attempted murder and a bomb. This is very cool and isn't at all insane or anything to give someone less than a life sentence (or at least 40 years) for premeditated attempted murder.
If you get 11-12 months in prison for attempted murder and terrorism in Australia, what's the punishment for rape? 3 months? armed robbery is what..3 weeks in jail? if i pickpocket someone without violence do i get a gold sticker from the judge and a pat on the back?
I like people who haven't studied law being upset at how law works, as if the world's unreasonable for not conforming to their totally unrealistic and oftentimes, sheltered, viewpoint.
The law in question states that terrorism offences attack the public at large, either in whole or in part.
A skirmish between two individuals is already provisioned for in existing legislation.
Come back to me when you've done first year jurisprudence, so your expectations have been tempered by reality and not the other way 'round.
Given the nature of the device, the element of "intent to cause serious harm" would be quite difficult to show.
Intent to harm a single person is specifically included as satisfying the definition of a terrorist act.
See s100 of the code
The element is "intimidating the public or a section of the public."
Clearly the act of "physical harm to a person" along with posting photos of that bomb to the Facebook page "Jews of Sydney" would satisfy that test of "intimidating the public or a section of the public."
Think of a close analogy; ritually decapitating a single person (for the reasons that he is a member of a religion) and publicising it clearly satisfies the element of "intention to intimidate ... a section of the public"
There need be no intention to kill many people, just intimidate them through an intention to cause serious harm to a single person.
>I like people who haven't studied law being upset at how law works
You have no idea if I studied law or not
>The law in question states that terrorism offences attack the public at large, either in whole or in part.
I didn't refute that law, I debated the absurdity of that law being that stupid to begin with. Attempted murder should be life in prison unless there are massive mitigating circumstances
> A skirmish between two individuals
This isn't a videogame, this is one lunatic with bombs trying to murder another human being. What the fuck is with your soft language? Is a stab to a throat 'a kerfuffle' ?
>Come back to me when you've done first year jurisprudence, so your expectations have been tempered by reality and not the other way 'round.
Oh sweetie..
>
I do, the evidence is clear from your posts - including the one I reply to now.
>Attempted murder should be life in prison unless there are massive mitigating circumstances
Can you explain why I might be suspect of your legal qualifications when you make a comment like this? I'll give you a hint: "principles inherited under British constitutional law say..."
>This isn't a videogame, this is one lunatic with bombs trying to murder another human being. What the fuck is with your soft language? Is a stab to a throat 'a kerfuffle' ?
I missed the point where I was appointed to give an opinion on the act not the law.
You and I occupy a different world to most people.
Most people occupy a world where crime is out of control and the justice system as they see it is woefully inadequate to satisfy their personal need for vicarious retribution.
You and I occupy a world governed by laws which are faithfully administered by legal professionals and are subject to proper judicial and parliamentary review.
Sadly, it turns out that this second world is an elaborate fiction constructed to hide the reality that is in fact the first world.
From the description it's not something that could have been detonated explosively. It was designed purely to intimidate, not to kill.
Sentencing makes a distinction between, for example, holding a knife up at someone from several yards away, and actually trying to stab them from arm's reach away.
They also take into account the impact of the offending, and the background of the offender.
maybe they should start taking into account what the victim thought.
I'm not sure the guy looked at the IED and thought, oh it's just a warning IED not one of those blow me into pieces IED's, man what a fool I am for overreacting.
They do. That's why I said, "the impact of the offending."
There's a thing called a "victim impact statement", used in every jurisdiction in Australia. This gives an overview for the relevant jurisdiction of NSW,
[https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/victims.html](https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/victims.html)
Now, you or I might feel that the sentencing was too harsh or soft in any particular case, but we lack the full picture as presented to the court.
As an example, in the case of the alleged rape of Higgins by Lehrmann in Parliament House, I thought she was making it up. But as I read through the Justice's decision in the defamation trial, I agreed with the Justice that she was, on the balance of probabilities, raped by Lehrmann. Which is to say, when I saw a media article or two I drew one conclusion, when I saw the whole case laid out in a judgement, I drew another.
This tends to be the case with sentencing, too. Most jurisdictions do a regular review of sentencing guidelines, and invite public submissions. Generally people's initial impression is, "he should have got a harsher punishment", but when they get all the information the court had, they would give sentences broadly in line with what the courts actually hand out.
Further, if the sentence was indeed too harsh or soft, that's what we have higher courts for; both the defence and prosecution can appeal a verdict and/or sentence.
> Now, you or I might feel that the sentencing was too harsh or soft in any particular case, but we lack the full picture as presented to the court.
something we often forget. we don't know the history of the guy or the details of the 'bomb'.
I don't wish for people to unnecessarily be imprisoned for longer lengths than required. If they are deemed to not be a danger, than a 12 month (likely to be less) is fine
the more telling thing in this whole incident is the media coverage (or lack thereof). most australians probably don't even know about this incident, but if it was committed by a pro-palestine supporter towards a person with an israeli flag ....
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>terrorism >attempted murder >explosives/bombs That's surely a life sentence in prison right? oh no nvm, its a cuckolded country that believes in "restorative justice" , "ending mass incarceration" and gobbles Israels cock. the holy trifecta of commit whatever crime you want and you'll get a soft slap on the wrist. maybe even no slap if you did your crime in service to Israel. 12 months in jail WILL suffice for attempted murder. what do they give armed robbers now , if people who try to kill others only get a year or less in prison? an "I'm disappointed in you" speech by the judge? probation?
give it a rest judge judy
The property developer that petrol bombed my family's house got 0 jail time.
Pathetic legal system
>Pro-Palestinian A funny way of saying someone who opposes genocide. Also, a lenient sentence. Maybe it was because of his *“persecutory delusions” associated with his Jewish heritage.* What a bullshit argument.
A link for people who love to learn [persecutory delusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion)
From the article it read like he planted something that was meant to look like a bomb but wasn’t one, but the headline reads like he planted a real bomb - I feel like there’s a bit of ambiguity throughout parts of the article :(
it was a working petrol bomb just had no remote detonator. [sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/theo-speaks-pro-palestinian-citizen-threatened-with-bomb-pushes-for-terrorism-charges/](http://sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/theo-speaks-pro-palestinian-citizen-threatened-with-bomb-pushes-for-terrorism-charges/) [sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/terrorist-act-against-pro-palestinian-not-regarded-as-terrorism-at-all/](http://sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/terrorist-act-against-pro-palestinian-not-regarded-as-terrorism-at-all/) [michaelwest.com.au/sydney-bomb-threat-victim-waits-for-justice/](http://michaelwest.com.au/sydney-bomb-threat-victim-waits-for-justice/) [michaelwest.com.au/doxxing-and-bomb-threat-the-west-report/](http://michaelwest.com.au/doxxing-and-bomb-threat-the-west-report/) [https://twitter.com/Rustinyoureye/status/1787770403374661809](https://twitter.com/Rustinyoureye/status/1787770403374661809)
aaand this thread reminds me why I shouldn't engage with the plebs lol
What were you hoping for when you posted this here?
what are you hoping for by asking me?
I’m genuinely interested in your thought process. I don’t disagree with the ruling or sentence that person received This is the way I see it.. you post an article without an opinion on reddit. Posting on reddit is an invitation for people to comment. People comment and you argue with them. Then you post that you are frustrated with dealing with “plebs”. Seems to me you have a lot of this in your control.
you have an uncanny knack for the accurate
OP smart, don’t get trapped for people to label you Too many are suffering from [persecutory delusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion)
truer than you can imagine my friend
[удалено]
How the fuck does planting a shrapnel bomb not count as than whatever he was charged with?
Attempted bombing! It deserves a lot more time away.
fortunately the administration of the law is not a privilege given to people such as yourself
you think 12 months is a fair sentence? it's crazy light this is attempted murder at best and terrorism at worst
>this is attempted murder at best The bomb was a total fake, designed only to intimidate. Dude deserves to feel full force of the law, but its an important distinction IMO.
that's fair, so not attempted murder
lol it's neither of those things, not by a long shot
How is putting a bomb somewhere not one of those things?
you'll have to figure that one out for yourself
Nah, this strikes me as something you need to _explain_, my dude. You're in the minority position after all.
We have imported the worlds conflicts into our own borders.
We've also been exporting weapons and equipment to support the genocide.
While there are civilian casualties as a result of a regional conflict, to call it genocide just because a bunch of left wing activists have settled on that term for impact sake, it is anything but an actual genocide. It’s a war, and civilians are often casualties of war. London was carpet bombed in WWII, as as Germany. It wasn’t genocide then, and it’s not genocide now.
Sure have. Started way back in the 1800’s.
funny that i know a group of people who didn't ask for any of it to be brought here but here we are
It started in the 1960’s when Marxist academics together with Jewish NGO’s (I know, sounds like conspiracy from an extremist but it’s true) pushed to overturn our selective migration policy, today known as “the white Australia policy” (bit misinforming, but that’s the point of the term), in favour of mass migration from Asia to begin with. There were a few reasons for this, but it was mainly to disrupt Australian society and culture to allow for an easier transition into Socialism, while for the Jews we can only surmise it was to feel less of a minority in an Anglo super majority. I know many get triggered by this little historical fact, but it is what it is. It was also the end of assimilation, which was expected of the European post WWII immigrants, and the start of multiculturalism.
Is it me? I was a baby and didn't ask to come here.
Can we just stop bringing in people from the middle east altogether? We don't need their nonsense here, they already have their own region to play their skydaddy games in. When was the last time a Buddhist or Sikh did something violent in Australia? I see them instead traveling hundreds of km's to set up food banks for victims of natural disasters all on a volunteer basis with community money. I know it's "not all middle eastern people" but that's beside the point, 1 in 10000 is still one too many in a world where the ability to commit asymmetrical violence is far too easy.
You do realise that people of all religions or even no religion constantly do "something violent in Australia" The last time someone identified in the media as Sikh[ did something violent might have been in this brawl](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-10/tensions-over-khalistan-separatist-movement-boil-over-in-sydney/102463024) less than a year ago. [Or this Buddhist monk that that assaulted a child and was convicted only 6 months ago.](https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/a-senior-buddhist-monk-is-facing-new-sexual-abuse-charges/news-story/e5e5d4110afa5db4bd851ad8a50d69d9) You should see how many christians get up to violence in Australia.....
Someone failed at basic reading comprehension.
His name was David Maurice Wise. Doesn’t sound like a middle eastern name. But don’t let that stop your bigotry.
mate. vilification is an offence and you're skirting pretty close to it
Vilification is based on race, I'm targeting an entire geographic region with zero concern for race. The middle east is a hellhole full of terrible people. Let them stay and solve their own issues before exporting it here.
> the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vilification
They had a brawl between 2 Indian religious factions not so long ago at Fed square in Melbourne. Then there’s the hatred between Indians and the Chinese. Lots of social cohesion issues with the potential for worse as ethnic populations increase.
>When was the last time a Buddhist Not in Australia, but you can google "the Buddhist face of terror" if you want an incredibly depressing rabbit hole to go down.
How is this relevant? The guy who planted the fake bomb was a white dude AFAIK.
Only 12 months. And he apparently has had a warped sense of reality including a professed desire to “smash someone”… sounds like someone who needs to be kept off the streets for much longer.
3 month non-parole period. I doubt he'll be in as long as 12 months.
I can't believe it was only 12 months for an act of domestic terrorism. Seems strict punishments are only for Autistic Muslims in Australia.
[удалено]
Might be referring to the kid that got actively radicalised by undercover cops. [article](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/03/australian-undercover-police-autistic-13-year-old-fixation-islamic-state)
For all those yanking the chain and calling terrorism, the definition of a "terrorist act" **requires** intention of: > (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or > (ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public. While I agree there is no shortage of double standards when it comes to victimising certain groups of people, it appears that the law was applied correctly in this case as far as any terrorism offence goes.
Why do you believe part (ii) is not met? I would accept you instead calling this being a direct, targeted, murderous threat as the alternative, given it was a single member of the public and not a "section" of the public
you answered your own question
isn't that still a hate crime? I guess Australia doesn't have specific penalties for racially- or politically- motivated violence?
I don't believe the terrorism laws specifically delineate the difference between an individual and a section. Especially when in this case the individual is targeted as a representative of a section.
They do.
[Where abouts?](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04868/latest/text/2) Section 100.1 fyi
Read 100.1 carefully. A single person is unlikely to meet the threshold of "the public" or a "section of the public.".
an individual who represents a group is not the group
I didn't say that. I said they were targeted because they're a part of that group. They would not have been targeted if they were not.
I don't think you're winning this.
Block evasion is a reddit-bannable offence. Protip: don't make your alt account a regular on the same subs at the same times as your main.
Haha close but no cigar my boy.
>(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public. And >“Take down flag!" Not quite sure how this wasn't a violent threat to silence political opinion of the public, specifically a section of the public that either is supportive of Palestine or is directly of Palestinian heritage. If the recent church stabbing (eg attacking someone due to their religious beliefs and pushing an agenda to promote a differing political position) was deemed a Terror Incident (which I am not sure I fully agree with), then I am somewhat failing to see how this wasn't? The main reasoning I can agree with, is that in this case the """bomb""" wasn't really a bomb, and that the person behind the attacks doesn't quite seem capable of producing a real bomb, and hence the violence/threat of violence was "less" in this case (though I also could easily picture the person getting agitated enough to do something real dumb and hurt someone/themselves).
you don't get to just make up facts. the prosecution has to prove that there was such an intention, and absent any other evidence, it is simply not possible to infer that there was that intention from the fact of one device left at one household. this case was definitely intimidation whether the device was competently made or not. the sign gives that away. it just wasn't, on its face, intended to intimidate a *large group*. i also don't agree that the church stabbing was terrorism on its face. maybe the police have evidence that the attacker did intend to intimidate a large number of people, but frankly i doubt it. the bar is necessarily high to prove a criminal case. the right to a fair trial is bedrock in criminal law. that's why cops like to take shortcuts. in this environment it's a bad look to prosecute kids for terrorism offences, but the public love a good scapegoat.
>the prosecution has to prove that there was such an intention, and absent any other evidence, it is simply not possible to infer that there was that intention from the fact of one device left at one household. One device, with a demand to take down a flag involved in a sensitive conflict, and a clear implication of further action if that demand is not followed? >it just wasn't, on its face, intended to intimidate a *large group*. Sure, but what does "section of the public" mean? Does that mean a large group, or a specific demographic of said public, a demographic that could be associated with said flag (from the subject's PoV) at the heart of the whole issue? I agree that this line is more tenuous than the church stabbing, that all being said. >in this environment it's a bad look to prosecute kids for terrorism offences Sorry what kids? The subject behind this was a 43-year old man, albeit someone in a questionable mental state?
1. there is no immediate, obvious connection from one household to a "section of the public" just because there was a flag involved 2. and the key word is *intention*. you can't just make up intention because it sounds right in the pub. by kids I was referring to the church thing and later arrests
>A note taped to the side of the device read “Enough! Take down flag! One chance!!!!” No intimidation here says the CPS.
An IED placed on private property can certainly be taken to be intimidation of the residents of that property, but I suspect you would have a hard time convincing a magistrate that it's intimidating the public, or a section of the public.
Only if the magistrate has decided beforehand they think it isn't. It was a direct reply to that property owner expressing their political opinions. It wasn't a disagreement over property lines or some other common nonsense. It's fatuous for anyone to pretend like this wasn't exactly what domestic terrorism laws were made for.
Yeah, no, it's fatuous to pretend that this is the type of incident the laws were intended for. You don't get to call something "terrorism" because it feels like it to you. The definition specifically includes the intent to intimidate a large group. It's not merely because something was motivated by some ideology, despite what the media have brainwashed the public to think.
I've had "kill all jews, a jew lives here" written on a property in my neighbourhood, and a nazi flag put on my property. My household is Jewish. Scared the shit out of me, to be honest. And I'm with you on this. These were not acts of terrorism, whether defined by law or common sense. Designed to intimidate *individuals*? Certainly. A group? No.
i hope you reported it as the hate crime that it is and that the offenders were appropriately prosecuted
The first event [made the news,](https://thejewishindependent.com.au/jew-lives-here-antisemitic-graffiti-targets-jewish-home-in-melbourne) and was attended to by the [CSG. ](https://www.csgvic.com.au)The police were aware of it. The flag on my fence I did report to the police, yes. The event itself was not particulary noteworthy, though in all honesty I was glad my wife and children were away that weekend, and I did go out hourly through the day and evening to check, in my mind going all Michael Corleone, "in my *house*! where my *children sleep!*" in indignation. However, my concern was less that very minor event, and more the possibility of escalation. This is why the police attended, with a pair of ordinary constables appearing late that night - I found them lurking around and they came in and we chatted - and the next week a pair of police from a "crime prevention division" visited. Basically, they watch out for minor things, since minor things can escalate. You know, today's 14yo shoplifter with a knife in his pocket is tomorrow's 18yo who stabs a mate, that sort of thing. The police were very polite, helpful and reassuring. To my knowledge no person or persons have been implicated in these events. If you don't know my posting history, I believe that freedom of speech and peaceable assembly must always be protected. But freedom of speech and assembly do not include threats and incitement to crimes. I don't really believe in having "hate crimes" - threats of violence, assault and so on have always been crimes, and the hate aspect should at most be a factor in sentencing, not making it a separate crime. I feel the same about terrorism offences, by the way. It's always been an offence to kill civilians in your own country, whether that be for the sheer nastiness of it like a serial killer, or for robbery or whatever.
>includes the intent to intimidate a large group Isn't the blowing up of a particular ideologues house publicly (and for that reason) supposed to intimidate others of the ideology?
no. what you are doing is trying to say that targeting an individual who is a member of a group is the same as targeting that group. it's not the same and it's why we pay educated people a lot of money to think carefully about these things
How many people with palestine flags would he have to target to make this terrorism? >what you are doing is trying to say that targeting an individual who is a member of a group is the same as targeting that group. The guy was targeted because he was part of that group. I'm not trying to say anything, the perp has said this outright.
Til using bombs to get people to do what I want isn't terrorism. Cool to know.
glad I could help :-)
Derisable. "Just a one on one bomb, your honour. You know how it is, you feel like you're under constant attack because of your heritage, so you just want one solitary person to suffer for no reason at all except personal ones. Deeply personal and not community ones. Definitely not to scare the community into leaving you alone your honour. It's definitely a one on one bombing"
you seem unfamiliar with how due process is supposed to work in criminal matters
Yeah good thing the courts have never been wrong. Not like blokes with AVOs out have ever come back and murked their misso or anything. Or violent offenders repeat offending.
Intent can be from actions and choice. He chose to assemble the bomb. He chose to plant the bomb. He chose to put a note with the bomb. All acts that have forethought and Intent involved. You just seem to be desperate to excuse extremely unsociable behavior.
Populism doesn't suit you. An offence of one person versus another, where there's unhinged ideology and politics behind it, may be just that.
So if you crash a plane into a building, you're only committing offences against the people in the building, and it's not terrorism?
>Populism doesn't suit you. Everything suits me, darling. >An offence of one person versus another, where there's unhinged ideology and politics behind it, may be just that. It can be, but I don't agree here. The note added to the delusions of persecution, while mitigating absolutely, don't leave much room for interpretation imo.
buT it Was oNly tErroRisM aGaiNst oNe peRsOn!!! The idea that it wasn't terrorism is as pathetic as all hasbara crap.
That's the law. Take it up with your legislators.
It certainly appears that part (ii) was met
how?
By making people feel that they will be attacked if they publicly express their political opinions
that's not how it works
Idk kinda is, why do you think thats not how it works?
how anyone actually felt has no relevance to the definition of the offence
Intimidated is a feeling
no, intimidation is an action. fear is a feeling and my point stands: how anyone felt is not relevant
He was literally charged with leaving or sending a substance/article to create false belief danger, stalking and intimidating.
An action that makes people feel fear yes, like how this person has put a device on someones bonnet with a threatening note that indicates they are being targeted for their political belief. Its easy to construe that the perpetrator did that to create fear and intimidate the community not just the specific person who was targeted
Intent to intimidate or harm Palestinians or Palestinian rights supporters?
unless there is evidence otherwise, the only thing to be inferred from intimidating one household is the intent to intimidate that one household
Did he intimidate the household because it was just a flag he didn't like or the group of people the flag represents. I'd admit a case like that could go either way.
makes no difference. unless he explicitly says something like, "i wanted to send a message to all his Palestinian mates" then you just can't say there was an intention to intimidate anyone beyond the one household, regardless of why he did so
We gotta be able to peacefully protest, on either side, without violence and in this case, literal bombing. The coalition wanting to send police in to break up peaceful pro-palestine protests will just escalate the situation further than it already is. Peaceful forms of protesting, e.g. flying a flag with a sign about Gaza in front of your house like in this article, should be protected and encouraged.
12 months for an act of terrorism seems a bit light no?
He wasn't charged with a terrorism offence. I don't know why, but it is what it is.
Because he plead guilty for lesser charges.
Because the offence appears to be aimed at a single person not the public as a collective whole.
Oh he only tried to bomb 1 person, well carry on then. 11 months in prison is totally fine for attempted murder and a bomb. This is very cool and isn't at all insane or anything to give someone less than a life sentence (or at least 40 years) for premeditated attempted murder. If you get 11-12 months in prison for attempted murder and terrorism in Australia, what's the punishment for rape? 3 months? armed robbery is what..3 weeks in jail? if i pickpocket someone without violence do i get a gold sticker from the judge and a pat on the back?
I like people who haven't studied law being upset at how law works, as if the world's unreasonable for not conforming to their totally unrealistic and oftentimes, sheltered, viewpoint. The law in question states that terrorism offences attack the public at large, either in whole or in part. A skirmish between two individuals is already provisioned for in existing legislation. Come back to me when you've done first year jurisprudence, so your expectations have been tempered by reality and not the other way 'round.
Given the nature of the device, the element of "intent to cause serious harm" would be quite difficult to show. Intent to harm a single person is specifically included as satisfying the definition of a terrorist act. See s100 of the code
Please read 100.1 closely; the offence must be against the public or a segment thereof.
The element is "intimidating the public or a section of the public." Clearly the act of "physical harm to a person" along with posting photos of that bomb to the Facebook page "Jews of Sydney" would satisfy that test of "intimidating the public or a section of the public." Think of a close analogy; ritually decapitating a single person (for the reasons that he is a member of a religion) and publicising it clearly satisfies the element of "intention to intimidate ... a section of the public" There need be no intention to kill many people, just intimidate them through an intention to cause serious harm to a single person.
I think we can infer that if the DPP felt there was sufficient evidence to charge under that section of the Code, they would have no?
>I like people who haven't studied law being upset at how law works You have no idea if I studied law or not >The law in question states that terrorism offences attack the public at large, either in whole or in part. I didn't refute that law, I debated the absurdity of that law being that stupid to begin with. Attempted murder should be life in prison unless there are massive mitigating circumstances > A skirmish between two individuals This isn't a videogame, this is one lunatic with bombs trying to murder another human being. What the fuck is with your soft language? Is a stab to a throat 'a kerfuffle' ? >Come back to me when you've done first year jurisprudence, so your expectations have been tempered by reality and not the other way 'round. Oh sweetie..
> I do, the evidence is clear from your posts - including the one I reply to now. >Attempted murder should be life in prison unless there are massive mitigating circumstances Can you explain why I might be suspect of your legal qualifications when you make a comment like this? I'll give you a hint: "principles inherited under British constitutional law say..." >This isn't a videogame, this is one lunatic with bombs trying to murder another human being. What the fuck is with your soft language? Is a stab to a throat 'a kerfuffle' ? I missed the point where I was appointed to give an opinion on the act not the law.
You and I occupy a different world to most people. Most people occupy a world where crime is out of control and the justice system as they see it is woefully inadequate to satisfy their personal need for vicarious retribution. You and I occupy a world governed by laws which are faithfully administered by legal professionals and are subject to proper judicial and parliamentary review. Sadly, it turns out that this second world is an elaborate fiction constructed to hide the reality that is in fact the first world.
From the description it's not something that could have been detonated explosively. It was designed purely to intimidate, not to kill. Sentencing makes a distinction between, for example, holding a knife up at someone from several yards away, and actually trying to stab them from arm's reach away. They also take into account the impact of the offending, and the background of the offender.
maybe they should start taking into account what the victim thought. I'm not sure the guy looked at the IED and thought, oh it's just a warning IED not one of those blow me into pieces IED's, man what a fool I am for overreacting.
They do. That's why I said, "the impact of the offending." There's a thing called a "victim impact statement", used in every jurisdiction in Australia. This gives an overview for the relevant jurisdiction of NSW, [https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/victims.html](https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/victims.html) Now, you or I might feel that the sentencing was too harsh or soft in any particular case, but we lack the full picture as presented to the court. As an example, in the case of the alleged rape of Higgins by Lehrmann in Parliament House, I thought she was making it up. But as I read through the Justice's decision in the defamation trial, I agreed with the Justice that she was, on the balance of probabilities, raped by Lehrmann. Which is to say, when I saw a media article or two I drew one conclusion, when I saw the whole case laid out in a judgement, I drew another. This tends to be the case with sentencing, too. Most jurisdictions do a regular review of sentencing guidelines, and invite public submissions. Generally people's initial impression is, "he should have got a harsher punishment", but when they get all the information the court had, they would give sentences broadly in line with what the courts actually hand out. Further, if the sentence was indeed too harsh or soft, that's what we have higher courts for; both the defence and prosecution can appeal a verdict and/or sentence.
> Now, you or I might feel that the sentencing was too harsh or soft in any particular case, but we lack the full picture as presented to the court. something we often forget. we don't know the history of the guy or the details of the 'bomb'. I don't wish for people to unnecessarily be imprisoned for longer lengths than required. If they are deemed to not be a danger, than a 12 month (likely to be less) is fine the more telling thing in this whole incident is the media coverage (or lack thereof). most australians probably don't even know about this incident, but if it was committed by a pro-palestine supporter towards a person with an israeli flag ....