How will Dutto bypass this Lefty High Court rubbish which is a clear threat to National Security ?  Gillard's Lefty Hi Court Plants at work ?



High court's 'alien' decision is not surprising – but it won't be the end of the story
Tony McAvoy Wed 12 Feb 2020 16.43 AEDTLast modified on Wed 12 Feb 2020 16.45 AEDT

In the absence of political reckoning over inconsistency in the Mabo decision, the prospect of more litigation is strong.

Yesterday the high court of Australia decided by a four-to-three majority that Aboriginal Australians are not capable of being “aliens” under the Australian constitution.

The constitution sets out the subject matter about which the commonwealth parliament can make laws. One of those subjects is “naturalisation and aliens”. The Migration Act 1958 is the legislation under which the government deals with aliens. That act provides that Peter Dutton, the home affairs minister, must cancel the visa of any person who is convicted of a criminal offence for which the sentence is 12 months imprisonment or more.

Brendan Thoms was born in New Zealand and is a member or citizen of the Gunggari nation, a native title holder. The Gunggari people have had their native title recognised by the federal court. Daniel Love was born in Papua New Guinea and says he is a member of the Kamilaroi nation. Both have been convicted of criminal offences and had their visas cancelled by the minister. Both were placed in immigration detention upon their release from jail. Neither had made any application to become naturalised Australians.

Love and Thoms challenged their deportation on the basis that even though they were not citizens of Australia they could not be aliens. They went to the high court and argued that the constitution did not apply to Aboriginal Australians when it referred to aliens.

The court has previously considered the term alien and its meaning in relation to the constitution and the Migration Act and found that an alien is a person who belongs to another place.

The case highlights an unresolved crevice in Australia’s legal foundations
Love and Thoms argued that they, as Kamilaroi and Gunggari people respectively, have a unique connection with their lands that comes from the continued existence of those Aboriginal nations and their laws. This means that they belong to their respective parts of Australia, even though they are not citizens of Australia under the standard definition of that term. A majority of the high court agreed with them.

The case highlights an unresolved crevice in Australia’s legal foundations. According to the 1992 Mabo decision, at the moment governor Arthur Phillip arrived at Botany Bay, the whole of eastern Australia immediately became the sovereign territory of the British crown. This meant that the crown became the ultimate law-making entity which entitled it to establish governments, police forces, and to make decisions about land and resources, among other things.


Under the British law in operation in 1788 the British could only acquire sovereignty over other people’s lands by treaty or conquest, or by “settlement” where it thought that the natives were so low on the scale of human development that the land could be treated as unoccupied. The British crown and Australian governments have to this day relied upon this notion of settlement as the legal basis for acquisition of Australia.

In the Mabo decision the high court reminded us that it could not interfere with declaration that the British had acquired sovereignty by “settlement” of Australia, because the high court is a product of that sovereignty. The Mabo decision does not explain how it is that the doctrine of terra nullius can be overturned but the acquisition of sovereignty over other people’s territories by “settlement” can live on. The two positions are incompatible.

There have been more than 400 cases where the federal court has ruled that native title exists, including the Gunggari case. Almost all the rulings have been with the consent of the relevant state or territory. In each case connection to the land by an Aboriginal society with its own legal system had to be proved.

The Love and Thoms judgment tells us that if you are an Aboriginal person who is a member of a group that has that connection, you cannot be classified as an alien who belongs to another place.

Moreover, the judgment reminds us that the high court is jammed. It cannot find that Aboriginal nations have maintained a form of sovereignty over their respective portions of the Australian lands and waters. But it appears, in its present form at least, to be unwilling to back away from making other findings that are consistent with the reality that settlement of Australia is a fiction. Love and Thoms is very much in keeping with Mabo.

The government can hardly be surprised by the decision. It understands better than anyone the inconsistency in the Mabo decision. But like coloniser states around the world, to date it has been unwilling to rectify the record.

In the absence of a political reckoning, the prospect of more litigation is strong.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/12/high-courts-alien-decision...

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2020 at 8:24am:


Apparently that's perfectly OK - there is now a desperate need for a Cashman Test of Aboriginality - you either are or you aren't by blood of a certain percentage.

This fairy floss thinking has to stop along with the politics of division and creating strife in the community to keep it off balance ... and Coonskin Wyatt must apologise to Cashman for booting her out.

juliar wrote on Feb 13^th, 2020 at 11:51am:



Regulate that upon arrest, a criminal etc non-citizen (which these two clearly remain) be deported instantly... on the black plane sonny and off you go.... argue about it later...

Watched 'Nuremburg' last night - the one about the trials - and the attitude of Goering has some merit.... detaining undesirables is not the same as exterminating them - it is like quarantine.  Sadly the only thing wrong with National Socialism was that the Nazis had first shot at it.... since most governments are, in reality National and Socialist - except they do not organise extermination as a rule etc.

Of course, clear parallels could be drawn about the treatment of Men under feminists....

There is rumor that one of the Hi Court "judges" will become redundant soon and ScoMo will take the opportunity to replace this one (Gillard Lefty Plant?) with a normal person.

And then redo the case and chuck these ratbags out of the country. Dutto will no doubt tighten up the National Security legislation to prevent this ever happening again.

juliar wrote on Feb 11^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

He has just now said that we must follow the constitution  and work with the decision.  Court ruling and constitution aren't the same thing.

He met normal people at bushfires and knew they wanted to shake his hand so he did it for them.  Left hand , back of the hand , in the normal way.

chimera wrote on Feb 13^th, 2020 at 1:28pm:


An individual example cannot be made that breaches the law of the land... that is paramount in the exercise of law.  You simply choose not to see that they are illegal aliens and criminals who should be rightly deported.

Please explain??