Australian Politics Forum - The High Court overreaches

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32549
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #105 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:23am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:18pm:

I think the problem here is on the other side of the coin.

It is Australian law that is wrong.

A child born to an Australian mother and Father who will go on to live their life in Australia should be an Australian naturally without application. For many countries this is the case as it should be here.

Both these criminals were born overseas.
This sums up what the High Court has done & the stupidity of their decision.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/02/love-and-thoms-this-isnt-closing-the-gap-bu...

Quote:

Think about it this way. I am of Italian descent. My parents migrated here and were naturalized. I was born here and I am an Australian citizen. I have a strong connection to Italy – most of my family lives there and that connection grows stronger every time a €1 double espresso lands in front of me or Fendi releases a Spring Summer collection. Grin

If this decision operated in the Italian context it would mean that I could reside in Italy without being a citizen, commit a crime, and Italy would be unable to deport me to Australia. Should my descent or my connection to Italy be enough for me, as a non-citizen, to impose myself on the Italian people? Sound curious? Isn’t it just?

Quote:

The fact is, people of Australian indigenous heritage are no more ‘connected’ to Australia than any other indigenous race is to their own respective nation. There are indigenous cultures all over the world and nowhere else would we consider it acceptable to have supra and subclasses of persons based on race.

Quote:

as every prospective deportee furiously fossicks through their family tree to locate an indigenous ancestor so as to evade deportation. The reality is, it sets indigenous Australians apart; it’s ethno-nationalism frocked up as progress. We are struggling to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as it is, and I don’t see how highlighting our differences is going to aide cultural and social unity.

The GAP widens.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32549
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #106 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:27am

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Dwayne wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 11:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:18pm:

I think the problem here is on the other side of the coin.

It is Australian law that is wrong.

A child born to an Australian mother and Father who will go on to live their life in Australia should be an Australian naturally without application. For many countries this is the case as it should be here.

You are right - a minor has no say and if parents are of a certain citizenship, the child should automatically be of the same citizenship. Makes sense to me - but that's not the way things are.

The parents of these blokes could have applied or they themselves could have applied... there is no grey area that any court can play with, and certainly no Indigenous 'right' to overturn Law.

What a bucket of worms... obviously that was the intent of this 'court' - my question is - were they acting under orders and are we being flim-flammed about the whole thing? We've seen clear proof that the AFP act under direct orders of government... why not court members stacked by parties?

Leads one to think the whole thing is a facade and nothing more - just showmanship to cover up the real agenda.

Is our entire government apparatus one big fraud dedicated to developing and maintaining a system of governance that benefits a few over the many?

I'm beginning to feel like Truman in the movie.. the Truman show.... slowly realising all is not what it seems.

I can live with a ruling that Aboriginal pre existing laws which are recognised in Australian legislation and their connection with the land is sufficient to make a positive ruling in this very rare case. Aboriginals are by definition Australians, they were even before our country was Australia. Aboriginals have a predefined right to be here.

I understand you arguments and they are fairly strong, I would agree in any other case.

Why are Aboriginals considered different to anybody else who was born in Australia?

Born in Australia = Australian. End of.

Really? And the children born to Australian visa holders whilst in Australia?

Anchor babies don't count.

If you had ever traveled whist pregnant & had to give birth OS .... & you had every reason to return to Australia & continue your life would you claim your child was a foreign national?

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 36313 Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #107 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:28am Has to make the top 50 of ridiculous arguments i've heard, like, ever.. At least it didn't claim apartheid. That was hilarious.
Back to top	If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning. IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36313
Gender: female

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #108 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:29am

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:27am:

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Dwayne wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 11:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:18pm:

I think the problem here is on the other side of the coin.

It is Australian law that is wrong.

A child born to an Australian mother and Father who will go on to live their life in Australia should be an Australian naturally without application. For many countries this is the case as it should be here.

You are right - a minor has no say and if parents are of a certain citizenship, the child should automatically be of the same citizenship. Makes sense to me - but that's not the way things are.

The parents of these blokes could have applied or they themselves could have applied... there is no grey area that any court can play with, and certainly no Indigenous 'right' to overturn Law.

What a bucket of worms... obviously that was the intent of this 'court' - my question is - were they acting under orders and are we being flim-flammed about the whole thing? We've seen clear proof that the AFP act under direct orders of government... why not court members stacked by parties?

Leads one to think the whole thing is a facade and nothing more - just showmanship to cover up the real agenda.

Is our entire government apparatus one big fraud dedicated to developing and maintaining a system of governance that benefits a few over the many?

I'm beginning to feel like Truman in the movie.. the Truman show.... slowly realising all is not what it seems.

I can live with a ruling that Aboriginal pre existing laws which are recognised in Australian legislation and their connection with the land is sufficient to make a positive ruling in this very rare case. Aboriginals are by definition Australians, they were even before our country was Australia. Aboriginals have a predefined right to be here.

I understand you arguments and they are fairly strong, I would agree in any other case.

Why are Aboriginals considered different to anybody else who was born in Australia?

Born in Australia = Australian. End of.

Really? And the children born to Australian visa holders whilst in Australia?

Anchor babies don't count.

If you had ever traveled whist pregnant & had to give birth OS .... & you had every reason to return to Australia & continue your life would you claim your child was a foreign national?

So, not "end of" then?

Gonads to the rescue! Poor Dwayne.

Oh, and bonus points to you for making actual people 'not count'. It's always impressive when people pull that one. Leads to all sorts of interesting places. Places i'd sooner not go .. but well, it is what it is.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32549
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #109 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:33am

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:04am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:59am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2020 at 11:02pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 14^th, 2020 at 9:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 14^th, 2020 at 8:08pm:

Quote:

The traditional laws and customs that regulated the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders prior to Australia's colonisation by the British ("customary Aboriginal law"). Although colonisation wrought social changes upon the Aboriginal people, customary Aboriginal law continues to regulate the lives of many Aboriginal Australians.

The now dominant, English-derived legal system, which was brought to Australia with colonisation, which includes the common law and enacted laws ("Australian law").

Only Australian laws are enforced directly in Australian courts. Native title is not a concept that forms part of customary Aboriginal law – rather, it is the term adopted to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by Aboriginal Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system.

Its only a Wiki but good enough.

This is saying that pre existing aboriginal law regarding access to their lands and waters are respected under Australian law in native title legislation.

In this case a member of an aboriginal group has a right to access their land irrespective of place of birth supported by Australian law. I suspect if this person left Australia he may have a problem re entering but he cannot be deported because he has protection under Australian law.

So now 'traditional law' - never codified or common such as Common Law across the land and never exercised as Common Law nation-wide, but which was restricted to each individual small nomadic group and even the partially-settled ones - supercedes Federal, State and Constitutional Law of this nation?

Is that what you're saying?

Open the gates for Sharia then... and every other sect's laws.. let every individual make his or her own mind up about what constitutes law... and then choose to accept or not the Common Law of the Nation.

What WAS the High Court high on at the time they thought this one half-way through?

This should take about ten seconds to overturn.

Quote:

Open the gates for Sharia then.

You think that Sharia law in Australia pre dated Australia's settlement by the british ?

The fact that gives traditional aboriginal law weight is the fact that it was in place before settlement. It has then gone on to sit originally beside common law and then Australian enacted laws. Does not seem unreasonable.

Tell me what has traditional Aboriginal Law done in regards to the problems & criminality in Indigenous society in the past 50 years?

SFA.

Actually, plenty. On a case by case basis.

More at least than massive budgets swallowed up by corporations before they reach their targets and serve only to create a resentful populace have done anyway.

Feeling resentful, Gonads? Helps when you can channel that towards people you feel superior to, as opposed to those you feel dis empowered by.

It's how One Nation gets votes.

Surely you're not whinging about that?

You seem fine with groups keeping 20 to 25 % commissions on multi $million dollar donations?

I don't vote One Nation ... they are just Tories in disguise.

Resentful of the progressive/woke rulings that don't bridge the GAPS just widen them.

And with all the strife in communities Australia wide .... traditional Law is also failing them.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32549
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #110 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:36am

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:29am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:27am:

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Dwayne wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 11:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:18pm:

I think the problem here is on the other side of the coin.

It is Australian law that is wrong.

A child born to an Australian mother and Father who will go on to live their life in Australia should be an Australian naturally without application. For many countries this is the case as it should be here.

You are right - a minor has no say and if parents are of a certain citizenship, the child should automatically be of the same citizenship. Makes sense to me - but that's not the way things are.

The parents of these blokes could have applied or they themselves could have applied... there is no grey area that any court can play with, and certainly no Indigenous 'right' to overturn Law.

What a bucket of worms... obviously that was the intent of this 'court' - my question is - were they acting under orders and are we being flim-flammed about the whole thing? We've seen clear proof that the AFP act under direct orders of government... why not court members stacked by parties?

Leads one to think the whole thing is a facade and nothing more - just showmanship to cover up the real agenda.

Is our entire government apparatus one big fraud dedicated to developing and maintaining a system of governance that benefits a few over the many?

I'm beginning to feel like Truman in the movie.. the Truman show.... slowly realising all is not what it seems.

I can live with a ruling that Aboriginal pre existing laws which are recognised in Australian legislation and their connection with the land is sufficient to make a positive ruling in this very rare case. Aboriginals are by definition Australians, they were even before our country was Australia. Aboriginals have a predefined right to be here.

I understand you arguments and they are fairly strong, I would agree in any other case.

Why are Aboriginals considered different to anybody else who was born in Australia?

Born in Australia = Australian. End of.

Really? And the children born to Australian visa holders whilst in Australia?

Anchor babies don't count.

If you had ever traveled whist pregnant & had to give birth OS .... & you had every reason to return to Australia & continue your life would you claim your child was a foreign national?

So, not "end of" then?

Gonads to the rescue! Poor Dwayne.

Oh, and bonus points to you for making actual people 'not count'. It's always impressive when people pull that one. Leads to all sorts of interesting places. Places i'd sooner not go .. but well, it is what it is.

I never said "end of".

And I'm not rescuing Dwayne

how did I make people "not count"? Anchor babies ... children used by illegal immigrants to strengthen their claims to remain in Australia.

Same as the question I posed of you.

piss poor deflection.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36313
Gender: female

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #111 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:39am

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:36am:

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:29am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:27am:

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Dwayne wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 9:02am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 11:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:18pm:

I think the problem here is on the other side of the coin.

It is Australian law that is wrong.

A child born to an Australian mother and Father who will go on to live their life in Australia should be an Australian naturally without application. For many countries this is the case as it should be here.

You are right - a minor has no say and if parents are of a certain citizenship, the child should automatically be of the same citizenship. Makes sense to me - but that's not the way things are.

The parents of these blokes could have applied or they themselves could have applied... there is no grey area that any court can play with, and certainly no Indigenous 'right' to overturn Law.

What a bucket of worms... obviously that was the intent of this 'court' - my question is - were they acting under orders and are we being flim-flammed about the whole thing? We've seen clear proof that the AFP act under direct orders of government... why not court members stacked by parties?

Leads one to think the whole thing is a facade and nothing more - just showmanship to cover up the real agenda.

Is our entire government apparatus one big fraud dedicated to developing and maintaining a system of governance that benefits a few over the many?

I'm beginning to feel like Truman in the movie.. the Truman show.... slowly realising all is not what it seems.

I can live with a ruling that Aboriginal pre existing laws which are recognised in Australian legislation and their connection with the land is sufficient to make a positive ruling in this very rare case. Aboriginals are by definition Australians, they were even before our country was Australia. Aboriginals have a predefined right to be here.

I understand you arguments and they are fairly strong, I would agree in any other case.

Why are Aboriginals considered different to anybody else who was born in Australia?

Born in Australia = Australian. End of.

Really? And the children born to Australian visa holders whilst in Australia?

Anchor babies don't count.

If you had ever traveled whist pregnant & had to give birth OS .... & you had every reason to return to Australia & continue your life would you claim your child was a foreign national?

So, not "end of" then?

Gonads to the rescue! Poor Dwayne.

Oh, and bonus points to you for making actual people 'not count'. It's always impressive when people pull that one. Leads to all sorts of interesting places. Places i'd sooner not go .. but well, it is what it is.

I never said "end of".

And I'm not rescuing Dwayne

how did I make people "not count"?

piss poor deflection.

Yet you answered for Dwayne.

Why is it you never follow the thread of communication? You just drop you Gonad bombs randomly and end up insinuating yourself in the middle of stuff you've no understanding of, then you get all pissy when you're called on it.

I think it goes at least some way to explaining why you are always so very hostile.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32549
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #112 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:41am

mothra wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 10:39am: