Frank wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 9:28am:


It depends, is the reason to check because of a legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing, or Obama-style birtherism?

Given it's people like you making the claim and pushing this, it's pretty clear what the motivation is.

If she holds dual citizenship, then she's ineligible for the Senate and should be removed, like Ludlam and other people from the past.

But someone with your history can't pretend to be able to hide the motivation behind this, especially after you've been parroting Hanson's racist slurs towards her.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 10:07am:

Six senators and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce MP, known as the "Citizenship Seven", were referred[a] to the High Court between August and September in 2017.

In October 2017, the High Court unanimously determined that five were ineligible to be elected as dual citizens at the time of nomination. In November 2017, three more senators resigned after recognising their dual citizenship, including Senate President Stephen Parry, as did John Alexander MP. His resignation briefly cost the Coalition government its lower house majority, until Joyce and Alexander regained their seats in by-elections.
Wiki

Section 44(i) of the Constitution states:

44. Any person who –

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power
...
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.



Wacist constitution!

Anything critical of a non- white person is automatically wacist and triggered.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 11:26am:

How Islamophobic! And wacist.

Frank wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 10:35am:


That's not what I said, but it's the safe space you need to craft to continue to feed your victimhood.

What I said was,

ProudKangaroo wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 10:03am:


To date, we have an unsubstantiated accusation from an individual who, in September 2022, was found to have engaged in "seriously offensive" and intimidating conduct against Mehreen Faruqi, a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. Now, this same person appears to have redirected her attention to Fatima Payman.

The question remains: does Hanson possess credible evidence to support her claim, or is this merely an attempt to deflect from the humiliation of having her own racist rhetoric thrown back at her in the Senate by Payman, a painful reminder of the judicial finding against her?

If there is evidence, it warrants a thorough investigation. Should Payman be found to hold dual citizenship, she must vacate her Senate position, as precedent dictates.

However, in the absence of such evidence, this can only be viewed as yet another instance of Hanson weaponising race to attack those who challenge her bigotry, targeting one of the very individuals she seems to disdain so profoundly.

Much like others with a fragile grasp on their arguments, Hanson resorts to personal attacks when outclassed by those she clearly cannot match in reason or dignity. 

Sounds very much like you Frank, no wonder you resonate so much with her.

Frank wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 12:05pm:


That's not how accusations work.

Before nominating for election, candidates must ensure they are not disqualified under Section 44 of the Constitution, which includes restrictions on dual citizenship.

Specifically, Section 44(i) disqualifies anyone who is "a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power."

Candidates must take "reasonable steps" to renounce any foreign citizenship before their nomination is valid.

While the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) does not verify citizenship, candidates must sign a statutory declaration and provide evidence of their renunciation.

Payman will have had to go through this same process.

If Hanson intends to make her accusations stick, the onus is on her to produce credible evidence that would justify a formal investigation.

She has failed to do this.

Instead, her response reeks of a desperate attempt to clap back after being publicly humiliated in the Senate, a knee-jerk reaction that lacks even a shred of substantiation.

Without evidence, her claims devolve into little more than a personal attack, undermining both her argument and her credibility.

One can't help but wonder about her true motivation. Is this another instance of Hanson weaponising baseless accusations to deflect from her failures? Or is it simply the flailing of a politician who thrives on controversy but falters in the face of reason?

Or something darker, yet entirely on brand?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 12:38pm: