Sorry. I think the whole thing is bollocks. I just like that when the greens senators went down a certain number of people were rejoicing their foolishness. Now it’s serious.
If there was just the tiniest bit of consistency in what being a dual national means to your status in parliament, there would only be the shock factor.
Instead we get spin and bull for days
Yes, of course, but it does seem a tad hypocritical. (Said from the position of being a Republican).
Gotta follow the black letters of the law. Unless it’s you that’s in trouble. Then it’s “I know I’m not usually a praying man but if your up there somewhere, please save me high court!”
In the latest failed High Court challenge to the PNG detention centre, the High Court ruled that there is no constitutional requirement to observe international law or the law of another country. Does it follow that it can determine whether someone is a dual citizen on the basis of Australian law without recourse to the citizenship laws of other countries?
Or " I believe I’m not a British Citizen, & that’s good enough" … (despite the lack of empirical evidence)
1 Like
Seems the “High” Court is at the behest of the Liberals like Middleton was of the AFL …
Any constitutional lawyers out there?
Handy guide for foreign nation to remove any Australian politican. Give them “entitlements” of dual Citizenship.
For foreign readers, the Australian Parliament is undergoing the most extraordinary spectacle at the moment. Politicians have resigned after discovering that they were dual citizens of Australia and some other country — such as Britain, Canada, or New Zealand — which is a clear breach of the constitution. But this is going far beyond people who held two passports. The constitutional affliction is spreading, as more and more politicians get caught up in what will now become High Court cases. Some renounced citizenship in writing before the election but their unwanted sovereign-alternate nation didn’t necessarily acknowledge that for months (that was Malcolm Roberts case). Others never knew their mother applied for them to become a dual citizen. Some claim ignorance or inheritance may be no excuse.
Bizarrely, this could theoretically escalate to involve pretty much the entire parliamentary body.
The stakes are pretty high, given that our current government holds power by just one seat. Already the endangered list includes some ministers. People are resigning from the Senate and being replaced. In the House, no one has left yet but their continued stay will depend on the High Court. By-elections may have to be called, and government may change hands to the Labor Party.
Check out the wording of our constitution – spot the problem?
Section 44(i) of the nation’s founding document disqualifies someone from office if that person:
…is under any acknowledgment 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 a citizen of a foreign power…
How to remove every politician in Australia
Last week, David Evans (my other half) pointed out a simple method for a foreign power to get rid of any Australian politician they didn’t like. What if Kim Jong Un, say, granted selected politicians citizenship, or voting rights, or “free health care,” or the rights to some benefits in North Korea? Non-rescindable. Nothing the Australian politicians can do about it. Wouldn’t this disqualify every politician to whom this was granted? The blackmail potential is excellent, obviously.
But it gets worse. Apparently New Zealand has already neutralized the Australian Parliament. Now the only people who can run for Parliament are Australian citizens who are not Australian citizens. Figure that…
NOBODY Is Eligible To Be Elected To Parliament
Robert Angyal SC is a Sydney barrister
Much closer to home, under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don’t need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That’s right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there.
That means we’re ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand — not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting — but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there’s no doubt that New Zealand is a “foreign power” — you only have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.
What does this mean?
New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It’s not just Barnaby Joyce: It’s everyone!
It appears to be a bit of a historical anomaly — one Queen, many countries, that sort of thing.
At the time the constitution was enacted, only Senator Canavan’s Italian citizenship would have triggered the disqualification in section 44(i). Being born in Britain, Canada or New Zealand would have simply made a person a subject of Queen Victoria and therefore not a citizen of a foreign power.
The High Court decided in 1999, however, that at least since 1986, Britain is a foreign power for the purposes of section 44. Canada and New Zealand fall into the same category.
This needs a resolution pronto!
The constitution can only be changed by a referendum, but a referendum can only be initiated by legislation passed by the Australian Parliament. If the New Zealand angle is correct, then all our current politicians are ineligible to be in Parliament and therefore cannot pass the legislation needed to initiate the referendum. No new politicians can be elected without a change to the constitution by a referendum. Checkmate, Australian Go
1 Like
Oh dear. That article writer thought they were very clever, and that no one had ever thought about this topic at all…
2 Likes
I find it a big deal. I find it threatening when people come towards me with their body completely covered. I don’t have a problem if they have their face uncovered, however full cover is something I find threatening.
From the time we are born we are taught to read signals in the way people react to us. We are taught to read expressions, we are taught to read whether people are smiling, whether people are giving us their full attention. We are taught to read body language in people’s gestures and actions.
When I see a group of people walking towards me with their bodies fully covered I feel threatened and uneasy because I have no signals to read.
It’s nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fight or flight response.
2 Likes
Do you feel threatened if a group of women wearing burkas walk towards you?
Would you cross the street to avoid them?
Their gender is irrelevant even if I did know what it was.
It’s that I can’t read their faces, nor their body language.
I’ll take that as yes, and yes.
You can take it however you want.
But not exactly sure how to answer your question since there is no way I can know if they are women. And I can’t see how their gender is relevant.
And I am not sure what crossing the road has to do with anything.
In the past when walking home late at night on my own I would cross the road to avoid anyone.
But given that I am usually in large shopping centres when I have seen people completely covered it’s a bit hard to cross the non existent road.
Also, Sorfed’s source might have done a bit more homework on the decades long reciprocity arrangements with NZ, evolving from the Australia/NZ Closer Economic Relations Agreement ( of which I have some knowledge),
Kiwis don’t need visas to work here and have more or less permanent residency rights ( but not the same social welfare rights). We only re-introduced passport requirements with NZ to prevent drug crims entering via NZ under their laxer visa requirements.
All those granted residency permanent residency status in Australia enjoy certain rights but not the same rights as citizens and can’t vote here and can be deported for crimes.
By some quirk, Australian citizens can vote in the UK if they have an address there but do not have automatic rights of residence, work or social security.
It is drawing a long bow to suggest that any right or privilege granted equates to being a subject or citizen of a foreign power or under an obligation of adherence to a foreign power.
The hypothetical issue of a foreign nation automatically granting citizenship to Australians was touched on in a previous High Court case. My bet is that this could be addressed by interpretation or legislation to the effect that the imposition of citizenship without consent other than by the general international legal principles of by birth or descent ( as applied in Australian law )
would not be recognised under Australian law.
IIRC the High Court also addressed the issue where a foreign power does not permit renunciation of citizenship by applying a test of reasonable steps to renounce foreign citizenship.
PS Not a constitutional lawyer but think I am a bit ahead of the author quoted by Sorfed.
1 Like
So you are not used to seeing people covered and it feels strange to you.
Do you feel you should have a say in what people can and can’t wear or just want it on record how you do feel?
I am staying at a resort in Palm Cove full of very fat women even older than me.
I wish they were Muslim with a full covering, as around the pool resembles a scene from a Fellini movie.
1 Like
If the High court says these people, (and looks like more to come) from both the senate and lower house, surely this is grounds for a double dissolution of both houses and a new election, whereby this issue of section 44 can be addressed in a referendum to change the constitution, within the election.
It’s an absolute joke this is allowed to continue along the same path.
This LNP and Abbott government before, is everything and more a rabble that they screamed at the previous labor governments, and including Hanson making a mockery of the senate, its time for a clean out
I tend to agree with her. I find the burqa offensive as a woman. And I’m studying Islam. She is entitled to her opinion. Just as people are entitled to ignore such opinions.
I’m asking whether she believes she should have a say in what women wear. Not her opinion