Mulling over Rene Laederach to Steve Asher 10 Aug 2003

SA> to automatically generate road usage tolls, speed fines, demerit points,
SA> revocation of licence etc, together with an audit trail of where the
SA> vehicles are at any given time. Naturally, biometric interlocks will
SA> be needed to access and start motor vehicles, to "prevent"
theft &
SA> use in subsequent crimes - ram raids, hold-ups etc.

 RL> Another way to do it. But since it's quite difficult to keep track
 RL> of  millions of guns (just look at Canada and their gun 
 RL> registration failure), it's far easier to ban them. And also, 
 RL> with hysterical newscasts, you can sure make the sheeple snitch 
 RL> on their neighbor who kept a single-barrel 12-gauge behind the 
 RL> door.

Here's a novel concept. Why don't the governments and the courts 
simply ensure that the multitude of existing laws are enforced, and 
the prescribed penalties are imposed when someone is convicted?

The government here has suddenly found that students (and parents)
assault school teachers, which means that, rather than making use
of existing laws against assault causing actual bodily harm etc,
they need a new set of laws to "protect" teachers, police on duty,
firemen etc from aggravated assault.

Digressing, I'm just hearing news from the Northern Territory that
legislation has been passed forbidding the use of still or motion
pictures of Uluru / Ayers Rock etc without paying a permit for the
privilege. A bit like travelling to London & finding that you can
look at the Tower Bridge, but forget about taking pics of it.

You are better off shooting someone in the head & blinding him in 1
eye & getting a $110 good behaviour bond than using an unapproved
image of Ayers Rock & facing a $50,000 fine. Words don't fail me, 
but they are largely unprintable. :)

SA>  RL> With 9/11, I'm slowly asking myself "Cui Bono?" - who drew
SA>  RL> advantages? The islamic terrorists?

SA> I don't think so. While we may never know who the architect of
"9/11"
SA> was, the beneficiaries seem to be those intent on entering a never
SA> ending war on terror, at the expense of personal liberty.

 RL> I don't think it was directly the US gov't who orchestrated 9/11
 RL> but it's not unlikely they let it through for the reasons described
 RL> above. 

Same with the Anthrax. There is evidence that the White House went on
Cipro beginning September 11, 2001, when the first Anthrax "attack"
wasn't reported for nearly another month. "Judicial Watch" is asking
"What was known, and when?"

Cheers, Steve..

---