"A SYDNEY mother is in a Kuwait prison cell after a bizarre incident at the country's international airport.

Nasrah Alshamery, 43, is facing the archaic charge of insulting the nation's ruling Emir after rowing with airport security officers over Saddam Hussein versus John Howard and George W. Bush.

"My mother didn't even name the Emir. She doesn't know who he is," her distraught daughter Wasa Alshamery, 21, said yesterday. "One of the police said something like, 'Saddam Hussein, he made you (look) human'. My mother said 'Thanks to George Bush and John Howard, they gave you the freedom'."

Under Kuwaiti law, the Emir - Sheik Sabah IV Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah - does not have to be mentioned by name and under Article 25 of Kuwait's constitution, the offence carries a five-year jail term.

The Department of Foreign Affairs last night confirmed an Australian woman had been denied bail while being investigated for insulting the Emir. She will reapply for bail on January 21.

Her sons, Abdulaziz, 22, and Abdulrahman, 18, have been freed on bail but cannot leave Kuwait after being charged with assaulting government officials on December 23.

The row occurred when Mrs Alshamery, her husband Solomon, 43, six sons and daughter flew into Kuwait from Syria as part of their return to their homeland, which they left 10 years ago..........."


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24905605-952,00.html



For beginners, she is not an aussie mum. She is a Kuwaitian, who lives in sydney.
You think she would have more common sense than to go back there and argue with "authorities".  Troublemaker.

I heard on the radio she demanded her rights - hahahahhahahaha
In a muslim country !! You have the right to be jailed and beaten.

She's a 'Kuwaitian' is she?  ;D

Yes she should have known better.  I heard one of her sons this morning and his accent was very thick, so they may not have been in Australia for very long.

We expect others to adapt to our values and customs, although we have a freedom here to state almost anything we believe in, but when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Even as a born and bred Aussie - I would have shown them respect and been cautious, regardless of them trampling on an Australian symbol.  Shows how much we are loved overseas.

The story in the Courier mail is different to the one her son told on radio.

Quote:

Yes she should have known better.  I heard one of her sons this morning and his accent was very thick, so they may not have been in Australia for very long.

She didn't insult the Emir, its a trumped up BS charge that happens in the Middle East a lot.

I imagine that when the Emir finds out she was criticising the guard for praising Saddam, he will tell them to cut her loose.

Also, its bs that we give all these passports and then call them 'Aussies'.

In my ideal state - I'd bring in the 'Citizenship Revocation Act'.

Get everyone made a citizen between a certain period to swear allegiance to a secular state and the separation of church and state, and loyalty to Australia and its people and their defence above persons of any other faith or country. Anyone who refused, snip snip on the ol passport.

Quote:

regardless of them trampling on an Australian symbol

What did they do?

calenan - that'ld be a fair request for aussie citizenship.

That's what I would expect of every citizen of Aussie

mantra-

Quote:

Even as a born and bred Aussie - I would have shown them respect and been cautious, regardless of them trampling on an Australian symbol.  Shows how much we are loved overseas.

Yes she should have erred on the side of caution surely...

Calanen-

Quote:

She didn't insult the Emir, its a trumped up BS charge that happens in the Middle East a lot. I imagine that when the Emir finds out she was criticising the guard for praising Saddam, he will tell them to cut her loose.

Yes that very well may be true..could have been a language miscommunication?

Even 2 English speakers can be using the exact same language and still be totally confused and how many disjointed noses have we seen arising from that?.

Cross purposes.

Calanen wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 9:47am:

Also, its bs that we give all these passports and then call them 'Aussies'. In my ideal state - I'd bring in the 'Citizenship Revocation Act'. Get everyone made a citizen between a certain period to swear allegiance to a secular state and the separation of church and state, and loyalty to Australia and its people and their defence above persons of any other faith or country. Anyone who refused, snip snip on the ol passport.

Although it would be hard to expect them to defend Australia from persons of any other faith, given a secular state does not recognise any religion as established.

Surely it was wrong translation. The guard probably asked for a bribe and she refused to pay.

Quote:

Although it would be hard to expect them to defend Australia from persons of any other faith, given a secular state does not recognise any religion as established.

Not in this state, but in other warring states, that we may war against - they do.

That you will not have loyalty to an enemy that is of a particular religion over and above your loyalty to Australia and its defence.

Quote:

What did they do?

I came in on the interview, but apparently the guards opened a bag and threw a T-shirt or something on the ground, trampled on it and started laughing saying "that's what we think of your beloved Australia, we're stomping on your emu & kangaroo your national symbol".  Or words to that affect.

I'm not sure how the family reacted, but they were angry.

It sounds more comical than threatening. The best thing to do in that situation is to get out a pen and start writing stuff down, starting with their names.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 6:06pm:

It sounds more comical than threatening. The best thing to do in that situation is to get out a pen and start writing stuff down, starting with their names.

No, this is what you do:

http://www.youtube.com/v/BSSyGic17B0

In the Middle East, it would be very easy for a guard at an aiport to shoot you in the head and say in the official report 'Suspect suddenly reached for my gun, in struggling to retain my firearm, it discharged once and fatally wounded the suspect.'

the tale continues ...........


"...Wasa Alshamery said the family was on its first holiday in a decade, when an airport guard shouted at her 12-year-old brother.

When her father, Soliman, told the officer to be polite, he was assaulted, she said. "He pushed my dad and my dad fell on the ground," Ms Alshamery said.

"The other security came running and punched my dad in his head."

At this point her six brothers became involved and the family was soon surrounded by 35 police and airport guards.

Ms Alshamery said when her mother threatened to seek diplomatic assistance, the security officers laughed and proceeded to insult Australian women, the Australian government and the nation's soccer team.

"(A guard) threw her passport on the ground and he stepped on it and he goes, 'Who's going to help you now? The emu or the kangaroo?'," she said.

Ms Alshamery said the family was taken to a nearby police station where her mother and two brothers were jailed.

The rest of the family were forced to wait in a holding room for days without food or water before being allowed to leave the country.

Nasrah Alshamery was denied bail and will reapply on January 21.

Her sons, Abdulaziz, 22, and Abdulrahman, 18, have been freed on bail but cannot leave Kuwait after being charged with assaulting government officials.

Another of her adult sons, Ahmad, said his mother's condition had deteriorated since her detention. "We heard she's not eating or drinking from the jail and she's really, really sick," he told Sky News on Tuesday.

"She needs a lot of help."

Mr Smith said consular officials were doing all they could to help the family.

"We have been providing consular assistance to those Australians including visits to the places where they were detained," he said.

"We have also ensured, in accordance with our usual processes, they have access to legal advice; we've also been giving and rendering consular assistance to the family members in Australia."


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24909234-954,00.html

Calanen wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 9:47am:

Also, its bs that we give all these passports and then call them 'Aussies'. In my ideal state - I'd bring in the 'Citizenship Revocation Act'. Get everyone made a citizen between a certain period to swear allegiance to a secular state and the separation of church and state, and loyalty to Australia and its people and their defence above persons of any other faith or country. Anyone who refused, snip snip on the ol passport.

Instead of a citizenship test there should be a more detailed oath along these lines. It would be incumbent on all to learn and understand the meaning of the details before they take the oath of citizenship.  Those who subsequently perjure themselves should be persecuted and punished, including being stripped of their citizenship in serious cases. Same for permanent residents.
It is not too much to ask to respect the laws and customs of your hosts. Anyone who says it is too much should seek hospitality elsewhere. It is the proper price for the right to participate in the life of the country, including the right to contribute to the making of the laws of the land.

I hope you're not implying that this particular woman doesn't deserve to be an Australian.

Are you suggesting another 'tier' of citizenship, or are we all at risk of being sent overseas to whatever country will accept Australian rejects?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

I hope you're not implying that this particular woman doesn't deserve to be an Australian.

No, I am not. I am commenting a propos granting and revoking citizenship.


Quote:

Are you suggesting another 'tier' of citizenship, or are we all at risk of being sent overseas to whatever country will accept Australian rejects?

Yes, I am suggesting that citizenship is a right only when certian obligations are met. I realise that being native born does not make one a model citizen but there are other ways than through citizenship to deal with such people.

Citizenship is a suitable instrument, however, for those who had another citizenship before they became Australians. After all, Australian citizenship is not only a matter for the individuals who are naturalised but at least as importantly, a matter for the Australian polity that accepts them and confers the citizenship.  Citizenship is not only a legal matter, it is also about something mutual, something of the heart and the mind.
To paraphrase Job, it should always be a case in relation to acquired citizenships: "Australia giveth, Australia taketh away, blessed be Australia."

So there should be second class citizens who are at risk of getting turfed out? What if the country they used to be a citizen off refuses to let Australia dump our criminals on them? Should we drop them off at the embassy, ring the doorbell, then run away?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

So there should be second class citizens who are at risk of getting turfed out? What if the country they used to be a citizen off refuses to let Australia dump our criminals on them? Should we drop them off at the embassy, ring the doorbell, then run away?

Not second class. Naturalised people are given citizenship in return for a promise, an oath. If they break their promise, their citizenship should also be 'broken'.

And no need to run, just ring the bell, say g'day and hand over the perjurer. Yeah, maybe there'd be a few people living in airports for a while but airports are good, they smell of adventure.

soren - hahaha, excellent


Quote:

maybe there'd be a few people living in airports for a while but airports are good, they smell of adventure.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:25pm: So there should be second class citizens who are at risk of getting turfed out? What if the country they used to be a citizen off refuses to let Australia dump our criminals on them? Should we drop them off at the embassy, ring the doorbell, then run away? Not second class. Naturalised people are given citizenship in return for a promise, an oath. If they break their promise, their citizenship should also be 'broken'. And no need to run, just ring the bell, say g'day and hand over the perjurer. Yeah, maybe there'd be a few people living in airports for a while but airports are good, they smell of adventure.

It may work with multiple citizens but not with those who have none that's why I advocate single citizenship only as prerequisite for being an Australian.
Besides it is a security risk to have criminals living in airports.

Quote:

there'd be a few people living in airports for a while

Until they died? You want to turn out airports into jails, so that you can pretend you sent immigrant criminals home?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 3:06pm:

Quote: there'd be a few people living in airports for a while Until they died? You want to turn out airports into jails, so that you can pretend you sent immigrant criminals home?

Who said anything about our airports? Revoking your citizenship means that you are cleared for departure by immigration.

If keeping your word is too much to ask, don't apply for citizenship. It's not compulsory.

Quote:

Who said anything about our airports?

You did.


Quote:

Revoking your citizenship means that you are cleared for departure by immigration.

Departure to where? Christmas Island?

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 2:17pm:

......Naturalised people are given citizenship in return for a promise, an oath. If they break their promise, their citizenship should also be 'broken'.

On the point, about persons deceiving us, to gain residence / citizenship.....

A person insulting, disrespecting and deceiving ISLAM, err Australia ?

If a person, a muslim, comes to Australia, with no intention to integrate.
....a person who has every intention to reject the authority of our laws.

When it can be demonstrated [and clearly proved] that such a person, a devout muslims comes with the intention to 'Jihad' against Australia [i.e. to undermine, and destroy the culture, the institutions, and society of Australia],
....we should perhaps consult Sharia?



How is a person [the muslim and non-muslim] punished within a Sharia jurisdiction, who insults, disrespects, and deceives ISLAM / Allah???

Would determined muslims within Australia complain, if the same Sharia punishments were put upon themselves [rejecting the authority of OUR laws], for their disrespect of our host culture ?






Those who disrespect and insult Allah, die [at the hands of muslims] having no protector.

Koran,

"....those who reject (Allah),- for them is destruction, and (Allah) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).
....those who reject Allah have no protector."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008
v. 8-11


"Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.034





Google,
kill those who insult ISLAM
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=kill+those+who+insult+ISLAM&btnG=Search&meta=




++++++++




Psalms 9:16
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 3:42pm:

Quote: Who said anything about our airports? You did.

Now, now. I did not.
No need to be a fantasist. Lestat should not be your role model.


Quote:

Revoking your citizenship means that you are cleared for departure by immigration.

Quote:

Departure to where? Christmas Island?

Don't tell me that everyone given citizenship was a stateless person before. You understand the principle yet treat a minor detail (a very occasional stateless refugee) as if it was the pinciple itself.  The principle is that if you break your promise, you lose what was given you on the basis of that promise.
There is no need to be oscurantist and to pretend that the principle is somehow incomprehensible.


If there is nowhere to send perjurers then Christmas Island will have to do.
Or an airport outside Australia, if you insist.

Quote:

Now, now. I did not.

Yes you did, right here:


Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:25pm: So there should be second class citizens who are at risk of getting turfed out? What if the country they used to be a citizen off refuses to let Australia dump our criminals on them? Should we drop them off at the embassy, ring the doorbell, then run away? Not second class. Naturalised people are given citizenship in return for a promise, an oath. If they break their promise, their citizenship should also be 'broken'. And no need to run, just ring the bell, say g'day and hand over the perjurer. Yeah, maybe there'd be a few people living in airports for a while but airports are good, they smell of adventure.

Quote:

Don't tell me that everyone given citizenship was a stateless person before.

No, but they will be if you deport them and their old country doesn't want them back. Tell me, how do you think England would feel about us taking in a heap of Emglish immigrants, then returning all the ones that turn out to be criminals? This is the bit you fail to grasp. Other countries don;t particularly want our muderers, rapists, thieves etc. Once they have Australian citizenship, they are our problem.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 8:04pm:

Quote: Now, now. I did not. Yes you did, right here: Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 2:17pm: freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:25pm: So there should be second class citizens who are at risk of getting turfed out? What if the country they used to be a citizen off refuses to let Australia dump our criminals on them? Should we drop them off at the embassy, ring the doorbell, then run away? Not second class. Naturalised people are given citizenship in return for a promise, an oath. If they break their promise, their citizenship should also be 'broken'. And no need to run, just ring the bell, say g'day and hand over the perjurer. Yeah, maybe there'd be a few people living in airports for a while but airports are good, they smell of adventure. [quote]Don't tell me that everyone given citizenship was a stateless person before.

No, but they will be if you deport them and their old country doesn't want them back. Tell me, how do you think England would feel about us taking in a heap of Emglish immigrants, then returning all the ones that turn out to be criminals? This is the bit you fail to grasp. Other countries don;t particularly want our muderers, rapists, thieves etc. Once they have Australian citizenship, they are our problem.[/quote]


Sometimes the simplest thing is insurmountable...

Knock, say g'day, hand over the perjurer - so they can book the flight because the perjurer has been cleared for departure, that is, has become an 'unlawful non-citizen', to use Ruddock's immortal words.

I am sorry if I indulge in the occasional ellision. I feel it is condescending to spell everything out for ostensible equals.


I was not talking about returning any or every criminal, although the possibility should be available. Breaking a solemn promise is not the same kind of thing as breaking a nose.

I was talking about revoking citizenship for perjury, lying under oath. This would apply to people who take an oath, covering the kind of details raised by calanen - accepting the principles of Australian society. Jailing them would be also good but the possibility of revoking citizenship should also be available.
Bebrinka and his bearded students would have to go.

I would not make citizenship available to anyone who cannot prove continuous employment for last 5 years. And would make citizenship revocable for for crimes commited in the first say 10-15 years of citizenship if they carry more than a certian minimum penalty (anything over, say, 5 years).

Gaining citizenship is an increasingly corrupt process. It shoudl be made less bent. As to how England would feel if criminals were returned? They would welcome the precedent, believe me.i

For some reason you keep failing to address the issue of whether the country they originally came from would take them back.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 9:37pm:

For some reason you keep failing to address the issue of whether the country they originally came from would take them back.

It is an issue for the country they come from and so it is not for Australia to draft policies for other countries about how they should treat their nationals or ex-nationals.

The citizenship oath is a matter between the individual and Australia and is not determined in any way by how other countries treat their citizens. The country they come from has no relevance. If they don't let them in then it's their issue.

The couintry they came from is relvant because your policy is a white elephant without some other country to accept them. You cannot deport people to no-where. It's simply not possible. You were closer to the mark the first time with filling airports with criminals so you can pretend you have solved the problem.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:09pm:

The couintry they came from is relvant because your policy is a white elephant without some other country to accept them. You cannot deport people to no-where. It's simply not possible. You were closer to the mark the first time with filling airports with criminals so you can pretend you have solved the problem.

As long as they are not Australian airports, I'm happy.

You can depart, noone cares whether you have a visa for your destination. Once there, haggle with them. These people would have fooled Australia, they can have a go with their own or third county.

Right. Great idea. Next thing you know countries will not accept flights out of Australia because they are full of criminals with no return ticket. Or they will simply send them back. Whatever. It's a stupid policy.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:

Right. Great idea. Next thing you know countries will not accept flights out of Australia because they are full of criminals with no return ticket. Or they will simply send them back. Whatever. It's a stupid policy.

Now it's planes full of perjurers? well, if we have planeloads of the buggers then its a long overdue policy.

What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath?

Quote:

What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath?

I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong.

Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:

Quote: What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath? I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind.

But changing your mind about being faithful to your new country is ok? What does our justice system say about breaking your citizenship oath?

Soren - would that be tantamount to treason ?

http://th705.photobucket.com/albums/ww56/Niqua10023/Shikamaru/th_Shikamaru-7.jpg
You know, as much as I bitch about America, looking at you guys makes me glad I get to take for granteed little things.

Like being able to have an opinion, even a hostile opinion.
Or being able to vote cause I want too, not cause I have too.

America's got alot to learn, mostly alot to re-learn. But it's good to know that my country isn't the only one that seems to be afraid of freedom.

Especially around airports. My fricking God, one terrorist attack and suddenly airports are the most policed poo on the planet. And you know why? Because they can. Airports are a monopoly.

They may not be a monopoly in the strict sense of the word, but they are a monopoly morally because we can't get from X to Y in a car, on a bus, or on a boat. Planes are a practical way to travel long distances, and as such, they abuse their power.

This is why terrorism needs to happen more. The little pompus bitch at the front desk needs to learn to just shut the hell up, punch her little buttons, and get me aboard my coach level plane where I'll have to sit next to a sweaty crackhead and a four hundred pound guy because I'm too poor to avoid upper class seats.

I don't think anyone quite gets that. That we suffer enough, like we need some asshole telling us to shush when we're pissed off? Hell no! You're lucky I don't cut your throat for looking at me wrong!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hate to bring up Godwin's theory, but Adolf Hitler himself, who everyone pisses and moans was so evil, was just a guy. He was a guy, with a hardknock life, and the only person that loved his ugly ass killed themself.

Well you immagining being in poverty, tyranny, and the only person that you fealt comfortable with smacking died. You'd lose your mind and think "I want commit genocide too!"

All of us are just one bad day away from becoming Hitler.

People would do well not to make that bad day come sooner. That's all I'm saying lol. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GpWWUIK8bw

I had to post this youtube cause it's not very often you can make yourself laugh thinking about you and Hitler singing gangsta' rap.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:

I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means.

FD,

Problem seems to be, that many of us in the West today, and many of the people we welcome into our [host] countries with open arms, all seem to be a bunch of 'selective' morons.

We all seem to know what the word 'citizenship' means.

But nobody seems to [want to] know what the word 'sedition', or 'treason', means.





Dictionary,
citizen = = a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth.


Dictionary,
sedition = = conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or monarch.


Dictionary,
treason = = (also high treason) the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:

Quote: What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath? I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means.

In the US yes, but, apparently not here according to the High Court.
You could easily pass legislation stripping persons of their citizenship if they refused to take the loyalty oath.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

I hope you're not implying that this particular woman doesn't deserve to be an Australian. Are you suggesting another 'tier' of citizenship, or are we all at risk of being sent overseas to whatever country will accept Australian rejects?

I dont know what this woman's circumstances are. For all I know her patriotism for this country may be what got her into trouble.

But during the 1980s and 1990s, our passports were handed out like complimentary confectionary, probably to many people that are not loyal to this country at all.

The mistake of so readily giving out citizenship, may mean that we need to have a review of who is here, and who is committed to being here, and who is not. The farce of 20,000 or so 'Australians' being evacuated from Lebanon during the 2006 war, people who have Australian passports and move back to Lebanon, but are 'Australian' whenever they need our navy to get them out of trouble.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 10:40pm: Quote: What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath? I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means. In the US yes, but, apparently not here according to the High Court. You could easily pass legislation stripping persons of their citizenship if they refused to take the loyalty oath.

Is it possible to attain citizenship and not take the loyalty oath? Surely you only need to take the oath of loyaly once?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

Calanen wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 9:27am: freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 10:40pm: Quote: What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath? I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means. In the US yes, but, apparently not here according to the High Court. You could easily pass legislation stripping persons of their citizenship if they refused to take the loyalty oath. Is it possible to attain citizenship and not take the loyalty oath? Surely you only need to take the oath of loyaly once?

Yes if you were born here. The current oath is bs anyway. It needs to be tightened up, a LOT.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 9:31am: Calanen wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 9:27am: freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 10:40pm: Quote: What would you do with people who break the tenets of the citizenship oath? I would treat them as any other citizen. I would submit them to our justice system, if it thought they did anything wrong. Once you grant them citizenship, it's a bit late to change your mind. that's what citizenship means. In the US yes, but, apparently not here according to the High Court. You could easily pass legislation stripping persons of their citizenship if they refused to take the loyalty oath. Is it possible to attain citizenship and not take the loyalty oath? Surely you only need to take the oath of loyaly once? Yes if you were born here. The current oath is bs anyway. It needs to be tightened up, a LOT.

So if naturalisation requires that you take the oath of loyalty (and it need only be made once) without which you cannot attain citizenship, why would we need more legislation to ensure loyalty to the state?

Because the current 'oath' is not really an oath, and is meaningless:


Quote:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Lot's of wiggle room in that oath. Especially for the masters of wiggle room.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 10:48am:

Because the current 'oath' is not really an oath to anything of importance today (being the Queen), and is therefore meaningless: Quote: I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD! Lot's of wiggle room in that oath. Especially for the masters of wiggle room.

What I would suggest is the following:

'I solemnly and truly swear allegiance (holding the Holy Book of my true nominated religion) to the Commonwealth of Australia, and pledge to defend its borders against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and will be loyal to the government of Australia, the Constitution as may be amended, democracy, secularism, the rule of law and the separation of church and state, with such principles I pledge a commitment to as a citizen to uphold and preserve, as being fundamental to the Commonwealth and its integrity.

I will provide assistance to the limits of my ability, in the defence of this country against any enemy of the Commonwealth, regardless of my personal sympathies or prejudices,  or the identity of that enemy, and I herefore swear loyalty to the Commonwealth to defend it against any attack by foreign forces. I will act only in the national interest, and will both act always in the best interests of and prefer the interests of the Commonwealth of Australia, to those of any other person or country, so help me God.

Let's see some of the passport carriers swear that loyalty oath. I'd swear it right now.

What about atheists?

I don't think you can define duties as rigourously as you are trying. Our duties to 'the commonwealth' only go so far as we support what the government is up to. It has always been the case that people defend Australia because they like what the country has given them, not because they signed a contract to get in the door. You are trying to put a heap of legalese around something that doesn;t need it. Howard was right in that immigrants should agree to support our values (democracy, freedom etc), not stand on the shore and shoot people.

Oaths past and present:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn20.htm

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 1:10pm:

Quote: What about atheists? Atheists and agnostics get to solemnly declare and affirm. [quote]I don't think you can define duties as rigourously as you are trying. Our duties to 'the commonwealth' only go so far as we support what the government is up to.

I think we can.


Quote:

It has always been the case that people defend Australia because they like what the country has given them, not because they signed a contract to get in the door. You are trying to put a heap of legalese around something that doesn;t need it. Howard was right in that immigrants should agree to support our values (democracy, freedom etc), not stand on the shore and shoot people

But they need to be prepared to do so if ordered to - otherwise they are just tenants, not citizens.

Calanen you cannot expect people to do something you wouldn;t so yourself. I would not swear to that absurd oath. I would reserve the right to think for myself.

Calanen,


Quote:

Let's see some of the passport carriers swear that loyalty oath. I'd swear it right now.

What about Aussies who don't agree with it? Deport them to England?

Also since you just believe Muslims are liars and deceivers who just practise 'al-Taqiyya" anyway, then the oath would mean nothing to them, they could just say it, and not mean it at all, right?

That is so true...  spoken by someone who'd know eh Abu...
I mean about lying and deception etc, etc, etc...

With the attitude you lot have against Muslims - all it's going to do is encourage fair minded people (of which we are the majority) to sympathise with their cause.

Half these arguments aren't even reasoned - they're just blatant attacks to put Islam down.

Quote:

Also since you just believe Muslims are liars and deceivers who just practise 'al-Taqiyya" anyway, then the oath would mean nothing to them, they could just say it, and not mean it at all, right?

Not if it was on the Koran habibi.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:36pm:

Calanen you cannot expect people to do something you wouldn;t so yourself. I would not swear to that absurd oath. I would reserve the right to think for myself.

I just said I would swear to it.  

Quote:

Not if it was on the Koran habibi.

So 'al-Taqiyyah' can't be performed on the Qur'an?

Shows how much you know. A Muslim may even desecrate the Qur'an to save his life.

You really need to come to terms with what Taqiyyah _actually_ means, it merely means denying your faith (even to an unjust Muslim ruler) to save your life. Not lying to infidels to deceive them.

Most of us are aware ABU just how dishonourable and dishonest a Muslim can be.

Sooo  not apology yet?  Retored my post yet?  retracted youur lie?

mantra wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 6:53am:

With the attitude you lot have against Muslims - all it's going to do is encourage fair minded people (of which we are the majority) to sympathise with their cause. Half these arguments aren't even reasoned - they're just blatant attacks to put Islam down.

mantra

More than anyone else,
.....ISLAM puts itself down!


Atrocious things happen [to muslims and non-muslims] in nominally Sharia jurisdictions.

But the best ppl like abu can come up with is,
....."These people [countries] are not muslims."




Total cop out.

If abu, was a true muslim, he would be living in a nominally muslim country, trying to improve circumstances there.

Trying to produces an ISLAMIC state worthy of its name.

But instead, ppl like abu, come to functioning societies, and try to take them back 1400 years, because Allah is Great!

"Allah Akbar!    Allah Akbar!    Allah Akbar!"




Allah is redundant!

Muhammad was a land based pirate, a brigand.

And,
ISLAM, is a death cult.

I don't understand Yadda.  There are many different religions in Australia practising their religion to the best of their ability.  Why should they go back to another country predominantly practising their religion?

If that's the case - send the Jews back to Israel and the Buddhists back to Tibet, the Hindus back to India and anyone else that doesn't conform to our so called "high standards" of christianity.  What a joke Christianity is?  So many of those who profess to be true Christians are such hypocrites - yet they are so self righteous.  They need to practise what they preach.

the other beliefs are happy living under Aussie law, their goal is not to make us all "wiccans or whatever."

they pose no threat.

mantra wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 10:04am:

I don't understand Yadda.  There are many different religions in Australia practising their religion to the best of their ability.  Why should they go back to another country predominantly practising their religion?

mantra,

Because muslims themselves, when they are being candid, declare that ISLAM and other systems of law [like, for instance, Democracy] are incompatible.


Where ISLAM is, where muslims are, their pride and vanity compel them to believe that they have the right to become dominant.

Not to co-exist.

To become dominant.

Subjugating all other cultures and ppl.


ISLAM  = = unending war with 'unbelief'

Period.




http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200508/r54561_147958.jpg
"Abu Bakr says he rejects assessments that he poses a threat to Australia's security.
"I am not involved in anything here," he told ABC Radio's PM program.
He says he cannot discourage his students from going to Afghanistan or Pakistan to train in terrorist camps.
"It will have nothing to do with me," he said. "Myself, I tell them what Allah said...."
Abu Bakr says he does not accept other religions.
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.
"The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, is...
Islam."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1430551.htm

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 4:23am:

Also since you just believe Muslims are liars and deceivers who just practise 'al-Taqiyya" anyway, then the oath would mean nothing to them, they could just say it, and not mean it at all, right?

The point of making the oath more detailed and specific would be precisely to punish anyone perjuring themselves (perjury - English for taqiyya before the law). You break your word, you lose what was given to you on your word.. On top of the punishment for the crime that proves that you have broken your word.

Native born Australians would receive the punishment but as they were not granted citizenship on the basis of an oath, obviously their citizenship is not affected.

Revoking citizenship for perjury would be on the same general principle that confiscates the fruits of crime, perjury being the additional crime for natuarlised citizens.

She's not even an Australian so who gives a rats arse. :P

Soren it is not possible to take away citizenship once it has been granted. That's what citizenship means.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 11:23am:

Soren it is not possible to take away citizenship once it has been granted. That's what citizenship means.

No it is constitutionally possible. Current legislation permits citizenship revocation only in the event that you lied to get citizenship. That could be changed however.

Citizenship is given too freely.

Calanen wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 4:23pm:

No it is constitutionally possible. Current legislation permits citizenship revocation only in the event that you lied to get citizenship.

Really!!!:) Hey that means 95% of all Arabs, Asians, Islanders, Indians, Black Africans have to be deported!!
Why? because to get citizenship you need to pledge allegiance to the country and none meant it as they are still loyal to their old lands.
So therefore they all lied and that means citizenship of these animals should be revoked!

Quote:

Why? because to get citizenship you need to pledge allegiance to the country and none meant it as they are still loyal to their old lands

No you don't. Did you see the oaths above. You just have to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty. How meaningless is that, plenty of room for Al Taqiyya in that oath.