Australian Politics Forum - The High Court overreaches

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14079
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #90 - Feb 15^th, 2020 at 10:28am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 10:06am:

chimera wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 8:20am:

Special rights to own Australia were given to English above Indonesians or Chinese. . Aboriginals agreed to everything as they had no vote and worked for special slave rates at Vestey the Pommy cattle landlords.

That's always been the way things work worldwide ..... try to move on some time this century.

World governments chartered ships to bring in one race? That's OK but slave wages of 1966 are too ancient to be discussed as law? Hey , how's about the G-G leading a battle charge by his soldiers , Graps ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89611
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #91 - Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:00pm

chimera wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 10:28am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 10:06am:

chimera wrote on Feb 15^th, 2020 at 8:20am:

Special rights to own Australia were given to English above Indonesians or Chinese. . Aboriginals agreed to everything as they had no vote and worked for special slave rates at Vestey the Pommy cattle landlords.

That's always been the way things work worldwide ..... try to move on some time this century.

World governments chartered ships to bring in one race? That's OK but slave wages of 1966 are too ancient to be discussed as law? Hey , how's about the G-G leading a battle charge by his soldiers , Graps ?

Indeed they did - though many sent armed forces to occupy territory. You may DISCUSS things past - what you cannot do is seek to apply those to the current day - 1966 - that's 54 years ago - nobody under those conditions is working now.

He should lead a charge... the concept of the G-G Militant didn't die out with Gordon at Khartoum... the sun has not yet set on the Empire! Cool

I'm a republican meself - had Peter Consandine stay at my place one time while he was out campaigning. We need a Presidency (not necessarily one single President - one of his ideas is a Triumvirate, with each taking the reins for one year in every three - the rest doing the glad-handing work...) that is a REAL Presidency, not a titular one elected by the majority of vote in the House alone... a Popularly Elected President with balls and powers.

Jeez - even during the American War of Independence Congress wanted to restrict Washington's manpower so that he didn't constitute a threat ... to them.. stuff the British...

Politics, politics - all is politics...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 61058 Here Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #92 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14079
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #93 - Feb 15^th, 2020 at 12:23pm

Of course I didn't say there are slave wages today or Ten Pound Poms today or Anzacs following their King against the wogs. It's a precedent for laws for a race. Which country chartered ships to bring in 1 race Graps? Atlantis ? Darth Vader's Empire ? Resch's Brewery ?

The king brought in one race. The suffragette who was fatally injured at the Epsom racecourse during the Derby 100 years ago under the hooves of the king's horse has been saluted by some as a brave martyr and attacked by others as an irresponsible anarchist. Now detailed analysis of film footage of the incident has shed new light on the contentious moments on 4 June 1913 that were to go down in the history of political protest.

Despite the fact that film technology was in its early days, the incident was captured on three newsreel cameras and a new study of the images has shown that the 40-year-old campaigner was not, as assumed, attempting to pull down Anmer, the royal racehorse, but in fact reaching up to attach a scarf to its bridle.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 15^th, 2020 at 3:23pm by chimera »

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89611
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #94 - 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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14079 Armidale Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #95 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 5:51am It's all good. The G-G today stands ready with the tank regiment to follow Graps the forward scout and hold the high ground.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89611
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #96 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 7:31am

chimera wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 5:51am:

It's all good. The G-G today stands ready with the tank regiment to follow Graps the forward scout and hold the high ground.

Nah - don't waste good troops - just send in the tanks. The High Court Anti-Tank Verbaliser is a paper tiger... you wouldn't want your best Troopers hit with a paper missile, would you?

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 89611 Proud Old White Australian Man Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #97 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 7:33am
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14079 Armidale Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #98 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 7:58am Military dictatorship is great and is our last gasp against the Aboriginal Space Force of North Korea and High Court . Seize Kakadu uranium land-rights while we still have the tanks.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 89611 Proud Old White Australian Man Gender:	Re: The High Court overreaches Reply #99 - Feb 16^th, 2020 at 8:34am chimera wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 7:58am: Military dictatorship is great and is our last gasp against the Aboriginal Space Force of North Korea and High Court . Seize Kakadu uranium land-rights while we still have the tanks.
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61058
Here
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #100 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dwayne

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 126
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #101 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36342
Gender: female

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #102 - 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?

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: 32711
Gender: male

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #103 - 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.

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: 36342
Gender: female

Re: The High Court overreaches
Reply #104 - 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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged