Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Extremism Exposed >> The conversation about revoking Australian citizen http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1433812359 Message started by Yadda on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am

Title: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am

The conversation about revoking Australian citizenship is absolutely irrelevant [to the problem which confronts us], imo.

The logic;

Why are our parliamentarians even contemplating to take up the power to revoke Australian citizenship of some Australians ?

IMO, our executive government are suggesting that revoking Australian citizenship is a viable option, only because THEY [the executive government] see the threat [of revoking Australian citizenship] as some form of leverage against a certain group of people who live among us.

And that is all.

It is a, 'don't be a naughty boy/girl, or else!' - threat.

The threat to revoke Australian citizenship is an attempt [by executive government] to modify the behaviour of some people who currently enjoy all of the rights of being an Australian citizen.

QUESTION;
But why is such a drastic step necessary ?

ANSWER;
Such a drastic step is necessary because, YES, some persons are NOT FIT TO LIVE AMONG US.

Period!

For example, if an individual [who lives among us] goes on a murder rampage, and slaughters his/her own family, would we revoke their Australian citizenship ?

The answer is, that, in a way, YES, we would.

Because after they were convicted of those murders, that individual would be sentenced to a lengthy period in goal!

Q.
And, what are the 'circumstances', of living, and serving a long sentence of confinement in a goal ?

A.
The murderer who is imprisoned [for many years] - ACTUALLY - loses many of the rights of a citizen.

All persons who have been imprisoned, because they have been convicted of committing serious or violent crimes, become, effectively, stateless people, because they, quite rightly!, [in their confinement, they] lose many of the normal rights which a citizen would enjoy.

So should we be concerned with revoking the Australian citizenship of certain people ?

e.g.
persons like 'terrorists' ???

OR,             should we simply present the evidence in a court of law, and then when those persons have been convicted on a charge of sedition and/or of treason [or seeking to murder their fellow Australians with a bomb], simply then goal them, and 'throw away the key' ?

I think that we should,       get tough on those persons who live among us,       who 'believe' that their purpose in being, is to destroy our society, and then to 'righteously' murder us [in the aftermath of such a societal upheaval].

And yes, i am talking about moslems.

Seriously, i can't think of a better thing to do with serious/violent criminals,       than to just remove them from our society, PERMANENTLY!

.

This [proposed] government 'threat' to remove the citizenship of some ~~moslems~~ persons is, imo, just an idea of some policy maker.

The intended effect of which, is to try to cajole some moslems, away from moslem militancy, BY USING A THREAT AGAINST THEM.

This policy won't work, or, it will not at all, have the intended effect, imo.

Why not ?

Because moslems, ARE moslems.

WE DO NOT NEED TO MAKE 'SCARY' THREATS       [to try to dissuade moslems, from being moslems].

WHAT WE NEED TO DO,             is to build more prisons, so as to be able to house violent criminals, who would do us harm.

We need to put violent criminals into those prisons, and then 'throw away the key'.

We need to effectively, AND ACTUALLY, remove ALL of their rights as citizens.

.

This dictate of the moslem faith [upon every moslem], to work to destroy our [un-ISLAMIC] society,    and to then, either enslave us [infidels] or, to murder us [infidels] [during a societal upheaval]
EVEN HAS CURRENCY AMONG THE MOSLEM COMMUNITY, THAT LIVES HERE, IN AUSTRALIA!!!

Moslems living here in Australia, are teaching other moslems, from childhood, to have utter hatred for the un-ISLAMIC.

WATCH THE YT VIDEO ---------- >

Quote:

" "You're never too young to be a soldier of Kalifah."

...and [these moslem children] promise to die fighting to end Democracy in Australia"

Says one of these MONSTERS.

Watch a group of moslem children, being coached by moslem adults, to hate Australia, and Australians,
......HERE, WITHIN AUSTRALIA.    !!!!

And of course this cultural coaching of moslem children is all happening behind closed doors, and out of the public eye.

------------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia -------- > goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E

WATCH THE YOUTUBE, AND SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES,       HOW MOSLEM CHILDREN, LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, ARE ROUTINELY BEING TAUGHT [AS A PART OF THEIR RELIGION] BY MOSLEM ADULTS, TO HATE THEIR FELLOW AUSTRALIANS WHO ARE NOT MOSLEMS.

< -------------

A PERTINENT QUESTION FOR TONY ABBOTT;
Why are all of the people, who are revealed in that YouTube video, still walking our streets, and still living among us ?

Why aren't they in prison ?

TONY;       Do you remember Haron Monis ?????

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by The Outrage Bus on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:42am

The formatting......my eyes!

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Hot Breath on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 12:27pm

Another religious persecution thread? Really? Is it necessary? ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

OR, should we simply present the evidence in a court of law, and then when those persons have been convicted on a charge of sedition and/or of treason [or seeking to murder their fellow Australians with a bomb], simply then goal them, and 'throw away the key' ?

The evidence that some in the government want to act upon relates mainly to intelligence collected by security agencies, and the point is that sort of evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

Thats why they want to bypass the courts and give the minister himself the power to take preventative action on terror suspects. Presumably the minister can't be given the power to lock someone up indefinitely - so the next best thing is to give him/her the power to boot them out of the country (or ensure they can't get back in if already outside).

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:30pm

I don't believe that it is going to end well, for peace in this country, if the government of the day [and the politicians who have the authority to act against the enemies of the government and the people of Australia], squib their responsibilities,
.....if our politicians squib their primary responsibility to this nation.

Where is Tony-missing-in-action-Abbott ???
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421158879/0#0

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

The evidence that some in the government want to act upon relates mainly to intelligence collected by security agencies, and the point is that sort of evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

Bollocks. Gandy, just bollocks. Silly Hizbi bollocks. I( didn't realise you were so much out of your depth.
A court can subpoena any documents or evidence and no government can say no to it. They can only ask the court to re-consider. There may be a closed court when the evidence is presented but to say that it is 'not admissible' is just silly bvggers nonsense.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by issuevoter on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:02am

I think the OP has a hysterical tone. The announcements about revoking citizenship are not threats or an attempt to modify behaviour as I see it.
This is an action to prevent Muslim fanatics returning to Australia.
The Australian government revokes citizenship on a regular basis. Native Australians taking out citizenship in foreign countries lose their citizenship here.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 9:15am

issuevoter wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

I think the OP has a hysterical tone.

The announcements about revoking citizenship are not threats or an attempt to modify behaviour as I see it.

This is an action [revoking citizenship] to prevent Muslim fanatics returning to Australia.

issueV,

We should prevent "Muslim fanatics" from returning to Australia, while totally ignoring "Muslim fanatics" who are already resident in Australia ???

YOURS, AND TONY ABBOTTS LOGIC;

"Muslim fanatics" who are currently overseas          = = bad people, and we don't want them to return to Asutralia.

But "Muslim fanatics" who are already resident in Australia          = = are invisible to our eyes, and so long as they do not OPENLY try to harm us, they should be of little concern to us.

The truth about moslems, which we need to come to embrace, is that there are no 'moderate' moslems.

Just because a moslem who is resident in Australia does not currently possess an AK47 or an RPG7 does make him a moderate moslem!

By definition,          every moslem living in Australia, is an agent for a foreign power [the nation of ISLAM], whose declared intent is to weaken and destroy all un-ISLAMIC systems of government, and then use violence to impose an ISLAMIC system of government and ISLAMIC laws upon all Australians.

And every moslem supports this objective, of ISLAM.

Do you believe. that the fact that [most] moslems living within Australia at the moment seem impotent to openly pursue such an intent, should give us cause for comfort and complacency ?

A recent statement made by an 'Aussie' moslem community leader -------------- >

Quote:

"This nation [i.e. the moslem nation/community, the ummah, HERE IN AUSTRALIA] has been and will continue to be a nation of Jihad until Judgement day.

YT -------------- >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6B8WBzbpw

.

Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam...
...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law.
"We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html

.

IMAGE...

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami

Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior
January 18, 2012

Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong

"...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance.

When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/

.

Quote:

Use children as troops, says cleric
January 18, 2007
SYDNEY'S most influential radical Muslim cleric has been caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah.
Firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool [Australia], delivered the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series being sold in Australia and overseas.
.........Sheik Feiz says in the video.
"We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."
An Australian citizen born in Sydney who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, Sheik Feiz was exposed this week in a British documentary Undercover Mosque.
......"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," he declares in the film, before denouncing "kaffirs" (non-Muslims).

"Kaffir is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt."

......Sheik Feiz - who just two weeks ago said he felt like an "alien" in his own country - leads about 4000 followers through his Global Islamic Youth Centre in Sydney's southwest.
He also accused Australian authorities of being over-zealous in their approach to clerics like him.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21074839-2,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014863.php

.

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 10:38am

Soren wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

The evidence that some in the government want to act upon relates mainly to intelligence collected by security agencies, and the point is that sort of evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

The courts are bound by existing legislation relating to the release of evidence that may be harmful to the national interest - namely the 'Public Interest Immunity' provisions:

Quote:

The grounds of what constitutes public interest under the common law are not closed, but generally relate to the interests of central government.38 Some commonly made claims for public interest immunity include claims by the government in relation to Cabinet deliberations, high level advice to government, communications or negotiations between governments, national security, police investigation methods, and in relation to the activities of Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) officers, police informers, and other types of informers or covert operatives

http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/docs-2700-/2745_-_Inquiry_into_the_Operation_of_the_National_Security_Information_Criminal_and_Civil_Proceedings_Act_2004.pdf

There is no question that the sort of evidence that authorities rely on to identify terrorist suspects will frequently fall under this 'public interest' category. And even if some intelligence may be able to be subpoenad - its clearly a minefield for anyone wanting to get a conviction on a suspected terrorist relying primarily on classified intelligence. Obviously, simply granting the minister this arbitrary power will be an infinitely easier and more certain way of dealing with these suspects - and thats the whole point.

And besides, you also miss the point that irrespective of whether a court will be willing to admit any given intelligence as evidence - its the fact that the govenment doesn't even *WANT* this evidence released to a court that is a strong motivation for pushing for these new ministerial powers.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Hot Breath on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 11:04am

Soren wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

The evidence that some in the government want to act upon relates mainly to intelligence collected by security agencies, and the point is that sort of evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

Governments can and have claimed "national interest" to prevent the presentation of evidence. Look at the Spy Catcher trial for an excellent example of that! ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 5:59pm

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 130

Exclusion of evidence of matters of state
130 Exclusion of evidence of matters of state

(1) If the public interest in admitting into evidence information or a document that relates to matters of state is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality in relation to the information or document, the court may direct that the information or document not be adduced as evidence.
(2) The court may give such a direction either on its own initiative or on the application of any person (whether or not the person is a party).
(3) In deciding whether to give such a direction, the court may inform itself in any way it thinks fit.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 6:30pm

Yes Soren - the court *MAY* do this and it *MAY* do that. Which was precisely my point. There's far more certainty in simply handing arbitrary powers to a minister who doesn't need to go through the minefield that is the judicial system - capiche?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 3:10pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

Exile them.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 3:13pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Soren wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

The evidence that some in the government want to act upon relates mainly to intelligence collected by security agencies, and the point is that sort of evidence is not admissible in a court of law.

The courts are bound by existing legislation relating to the release of evidence that may be harmful to the national interest - namely the 'Public Interest Immunity' provisions:

Quote:

Of course they don't want to release intelligence. The Minister would much rather go off the article in the Tele.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 6:30pm:

Don't be daft. This is the evidence act, pal, not some Hizbi gathering where you can say nonsense like that.

What it means is that the court may seek whatever evidence it sees fit to satisfy itself that a case of public interest against disclosure exists. It doesn't mean that the court has no access to the info or that the info can be withheld from a court. The executive (ie a minister) cannot direct the judiciary.

Separation of power, pal. Look it up. It will shock you - there IS a separation of the powers of the legislature (parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (court), it's not all up to the caliph and Mohammed's successor and all that backward shite.

This stupid Muslim victimhood mongering at the slightest sniff of non-sharia system is tedious and laughable.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 8:10pm

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 6:30pm:

Oh, I know, dear boy. You Huns lack a certain separation of powers yourselves, no?

Muhammed’s successor and all that backward shite, innit.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 11:17am

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

What it means is that the court may seek whatever evidence it sees fit to satisfy itself that a case of public interest against disclosure exists. It doesn't mean that the court has no access to the info or that the info can be withheld from a court. The executive (ie a minister) cannot direct the judiciary.

No, genius, the judiciary directs itself - according to the legislation it is bound by :P

Now stop fapping.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by mothra on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:13pm

issuevoter wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

I think the OP has a hysterical tone.

Yadda hysterical? What gave it away?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by double plus good on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:18pm

I don't understand why this issue has become a muslim thing? It targets security risks of all races.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

mothra wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

I think the OP has a hysterical tone.

Yadda hysterical? What gave it away?

LOL

Such is life.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:42pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

No, genius, the judiciary directs itself - according to the legislation it is bound by :P

So the executive does not determine whether there is or is not a judicial review of its decisions.

So your whole hand-wringing while bed-wetting about 'no judicial oversight' is a ludicrous Hizbi agit-prop.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by issuevoter on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 1:05pm

mothra wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

I think the OP has a hysterical tone.

Yadda hysterical? What gave it away?

What gave it away? Well, for one thing the overall style of varied fonts and magnitudes. A bit like a spruker outside Silly Sollie’s discount store.

And I take exception to the assertion that my logic is that of T. Abbott PM. I oppose his policy of Muslim appeasement here in Australia, and his waste of Australian troops in the Middle East in an unwinnable minor campaign in the overall war against Islam; the war they declared in the 1990s.

However, I am in accord with most of Yadda’s content. Moderate Islam is a total myth. You either believe Mohammed was the messenger of God and infallible, or you do not. Those who do are dangerous fanatics and are what we call Muslims.

Many Muslims, especially those who live in the West, adopt a facade of Western post-Enlightenment reason. It is of course a cover for their true Mohammedanism which we have seen comes to the surface as opportunities arise.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 2:17pm

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

No, genius, the judiciary directs itself - according to the legislation it is bound by :P

I don't even know what you are arguing S - you entered this thread to rather bizarrely criticise me for claiming the proposed ministerial powers of citizenship was a vastly more efficient way of thwarting terrorists.

Have you forgotton that?

Just mindless fapping.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 6:55pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

No, genius, the judiciary directs itself - according to the legislation it is bound by :P

Is there another Gandalf here? Your first post on this thread:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Two massive Hizbi propaganda howlers.

'inadmissible in court' - you have no idea what you are talking about. Too much TV, obviously.

The executive (government) cannot bypass the court without the legislature (parliament) - but even the decision of the legislature is subject to judicial review if contrary to the constitution - so you can always take a legislation to the high court and the court will decide.

No government can block the courts.

It is called the separation of powers - you are obviously unfamiliar/hostile to the the notion, being an ummah kinda guy.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 8:24pm

Intelligence can absolutely be inadmissible - as determined by the court itself. I demonstrated that perfectly.

But thats not the point - the whole point of this is to bypass the courts - otherwise the government wouldn't be trying to come up with a way to strip citizenship that doesn't involve proving something in court now would it? Think about it Soren, use your noggin. If you still want to fap about this - at least do me a favour and before you do - ask yourself why the government wants to do this, and if you can't come up with an answer that doesn't include "avoiding having to prove something in court" - then best to just be quiet.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 8:31pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

You are talking crap.You are ignorant of what you are talking about.

Crappity crap.

There is no 'bypassing the courts' by the executive in the Westminster system, bozo. Separation of powers.

I don't know what it will take for it to sink in. We are not in Ummah-land any more, Toto.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by gandalf on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 7:52am

bypass, avoid, avert, circumvent - do any of those verbs satisfy your fapping S?

You're not making any point, there is no disputing that the whole idea of these proposed ministerial powers is to reduce relying on the courts.

As Peter Dutton said "thats the whole point".

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 1:18pm

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 8:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

Oh, old boy, your knowledge of the separation of powers is rather Teutonic, to say the least.

All that has to happen to bypass the courts is legislation, which is what courts rule on. The only form of law that can’t easily be changed by politicians is the constitution, which requires a referendum.

We don’t have an "executive" branch in the Westminster system. You’ve been watching too many episodes of the West Wing. Australia is still a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. We have a quaint old thing called the Crown.

The separation of powers is simply about the division between these powers, not their application. There are ministerial powers for a whole range of government functions, many of which can’t be contested in court - or which won’t necessarily be heard by a court if a civil claim is lodged.

Dutton is seeking to bypass the courts, as G asserts. All that needs to happen to do this is legislation passed by both houses and the signature of the Queen’s representative.

This is one reason why the US has found it impossible to pass similar laws to the UK, which has passed legislation to cancel the citizenship of dual nationals. The US does not use the Westminster System and has much stronger constitutional protection for its citizens.

Best to stick to civilisation and your contents, dear boy.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 1:47pm

On another note, ASIO required a whole host of powers when it was established after WWII. It was initially funded by the US under the five eyes agreement. ASIO was created to come under US influence and reduce the former Anglo influence on Australian foreign and domestic policy. ASIO was given unprecedented powers during the Cold War. These were relaxed in the 1970s and 80s, and strengthened again by Howard in the climate of the War on Terror.

ASIO is excluded from.a whole range of criminal and civil laws, and this was the intention of the US when it was established as an.outpost of the newly created CIA.

Unlike the US, the lack of a Bill of Rights in Australia makes these powers much easier to administer than in the US.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 1:59pm

Mmm, I've always understood that ASIO was the branch office of MI5 downunder. My father always maintained that the two key attributes to an ASIO officer was that he was British and could ride a bike, from his period as the deputy Project Manager at Woomera. ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:27pm

The establishment of ASIO, with all its Cold War powers, was crucial to the ANZUS alliance. The US weren’t willing to deal without it. One of the reasons the CIA worked covertly with the National Party during the Whitlam years, was the unprecedented raids on ASIO offices when Labor came to power. This, and the anti-Pine Gap sentiment in Labor ranks, is a key reason the CIA turned on the Whitlam government and secretly plotted to remove it from power.

Separation of Powers, innit.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:29pm

You may be seated. PB.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

We don’t have an "executive" branch in the Westminster system. You’ve been watching too many episodes of the West Wing. Australia is still a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. We have a quaint old thing called the Crown.

The Australian Constitution
Table of Provisions
View the Constitution as a single document (PDF 92KB)

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]
(63 & 64 Victoria - Chapter 12)
Preamble
Chapter I. The Parliament (s. 1 to 60)
Part I - General (s. 1 to 6)
Part II - The Senate (s. 7 to 23)
Part III - The House of Representatives (s. 24 to 40)
Part IV - Both Houses of the Parliament (s. 41 to 50)
Part V - Powers of the Parliament (s. 51 to 60)
[url]Chapter II. The Executive Government (s. 61 to 70)[/url]
Chapter III. The Judicature (s. 71 to 80)
Chapter IV. Finance and Trade (s. 81 to 105A)
Chapter V. The States (s. 106 to 120)
Chapter VI. New States (s. 121 to 124)
Chapter VII. Miscellaneous (s. 125 to 127)
Chapter VIII. Alteration of the Constitution (s. 128)
The Schedule

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/separation-of-powers.html

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

Dutton is seeking to bypass the courts, as G asserts. All that needs to happen to do this is legislation passed by both houses and the signature of the Queen’s representative.

The courts have the full power to make judgements about the law, made by parliament, and about the lawfulness of the executive ( yes, PB, there is an Executive) which includes Ministers.

There is no endless judicial review of the granting of citizenship. If you meet certain criteria and perform certain actions, you become a citizen and no court needs to review it. Similarly, if you meet certain other criteria and perform certain other actions, citizenship should be taken away from you.
In both cases the law will determine what the criteria and the performed actions must be. No need to over-lawyer everything.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:46pm

Good show, OB. I stand corrected. Ministers serve in the executive role.

But as I understand it, citizenship can’t be taken from you without a change to the Constitution. Dual nationals perhaps, people born here impossible. Shurely.

As a dual citizen, how do you feel about laws that could weaken your residency?

I’ve talked to people online who were rejected from the US for very minor crimes - people who had grown up there and didn’t speak the language of the country they were sent to. This also happens in Australia at the executive decision of the Minister of Immigration. Appeals are heard by the department itself.

Citizenship offers additional protection to a residential visa - an Australian passport.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:59pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

I am not a dual citizen.

More importantly, citizenship is not just about the protection of the person - it is also about the community of other citizens.

If you live here all your life and still can't be fagged to become a citizen but still cling on to the citizenship of a country you left when you were 3 and whose language you do not speak - but can be fagged to commit crimes here that are serious enough to get you deported - well, whose bloody fault is that?? It is far more important to protect Australians from you than to protect you from your own stupidity and villainousness. If you can't be bothered to commit to the place then have the decency to stay within the law.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 4:21pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

I am not a dual citizen.

But you'd be elligible for a Danish passport if you gave up your Australian one. Given you've made this commitment (citizenship), how would you feel if you had it revoked? How would you feel if the Customs van popped up to your house and took you to Villawaood?

They may not even tell you what for - the current practice when ASIO don't like you.

The point here is that you don't have to commit crimes. A crime is something that is proven in a court. You just have to be accused of committing a crime (or supporting or funding a crime).

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by greggerypeccary on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 4:25pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

If you live here all your life and still can't be fagged to become a citizen but still cling on to the citizenship of a country you left when you were 3 ... but can be fagged to commit crimes here ...

Yes, Mr Abbott.

And you too, Abetz,

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 4:35pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

I am not a dual citizen.

Nonsense. I have one citizenship, Australian. They couldn't take me to Villawood just because I could apply for Danish or British citizenship. They couldn't take me to Villawood even if I DID have dual citizenship, Australian and another or even if I had only permanent residency in Australia. In all these cases they would arrest me for committing a crime and charge me and keep me in remand.
They could only take me to Villawodd if I had only a temporary entry permit and my only misdeed was in relation to that visa - ie in relation to my permit to be onshore. If I committed a serious crime, I would be arrested and kept in remand until my court appearance and then if found guilty I would be sent to jail. I would only end up in Villawood upon my release from jail, waiting for deportation.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 9:51pm

Shurely shome mishtake. We're discussing the proposed changes to the citizenship act - which defers citizenship to immigrants.

As a citizen right now, you could not possibly be deported for being suspected of participating in foreign wars. You might not have the right to not be offended, but you have the right to not be deported. You are, in a nutshell, one of us.

And here you are arguing that the laws should be changed to make you less a one of us, merely for suspicion, at the whim of a minister.

The proposal Peter Dutton took to cabinet - a proposal the Tele reported the following day had already been approved - was so vague as to include those without the possibility of dual citizenship.

In other words, those who would have to be detained in immigration prison for the rest of their lives.

The proposal which passed cabinet includes only dual citizens, citizens (or ex-citizens) who would have somewhere to be deported to.

I believe you fit firmly into this category, and as such, are subject to the proposed changes. It also looks like Labor will pass this law.

What never ceases to amaze is that you will support, time after time, such changes that will cheapen your own rights. Not only that, but you will accuse those who defend them as Hizbis (i.e, pre-rule of law). You will advocate a Clash of Civilisations, and in so doing, comfortably erode the architecture of your own civilisation. Your end-goal is that backward tribalism you feign such camp, limp-wristed opposition to, and you're quite happy to take the rest of the place down with you.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 10:10pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 9:51pm:

Shurely shome mishtake. We're discussing the proposed changes to the citizenship act - which defers citizenship to immigrants.

As a citizen right now, you could not possibly be deported for being suspected of participating in foreign wars. You might not have the right to not be offended, but you have the right to not be deported. You are, in a nutshell, one of us.

And here you are arguing that the laws should be changed to make you less a one of us, merely for suspicion, at the whim of a minister.

The proposal Peter Dutton took to cabinet - a proposal the Tele reported the following day had already been approved - was so vague as to include those without the possibility of dual citizenship.

In other words, those who would have to be detained in immigration prison for the rest of their lives.

The proposal which passed cabinet includes only dual citizens, citizens (or ex-citizens) who would have somewhere to be deported to.

I believe you fit firmly into this category, and as such, are subject to the proposed changes. It also looks like Labor will pass this law.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Citizenship, .....smidleship.

Moslems [residents/citizens of Australia] who are convicted in Australian courts, and found guilty of treason or actively 'preaching' sedition against the government and people of Australia, imo, then they [those convicted] should be sent to a 'super-max' prison, for the rest of their natural lives.

No release, ever.

THE WORDS OF 'AUSSIE' MOSLEMS

Jihad is lawful.

Jihad is virtuous.

ISLAM's own doctrines clearly spell out, that Jihad = = 'righteously' murdering those who reject ISLAM

--------- >

Quote:

" "You're never too young to be a soldier of Kalifah."

...and [these moslem children] promise to die fighting to end Democracy in Australia"

Watch a group of moslem children, being coached by moslem adults, to hate Australia, and Australians,
......HERE, WITHIN AUSTRALIA. !!!!

And of course this cultural coaching of moslem children is all happening behind closed doors, and out of the public eye.

------------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia -------- > goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 10:13pm

Thanks for standing up for the rule of law, Y. Most civilised of you.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 1:16pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 9:51pm:

What a load of bollocks.

Stripping citizenship will happen if you fight with or support a proscribed terrorist organisation - not just because you are a dual citizen.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 9:51pm:

What a load of bollocks.

Stripping citizenship will happen if you fight with or support a proscribed terrorist organisation - not just because you are a dual citizen.

So far, cabinet don’t support this, and Brandis has said it would be unconstitutional.

I can’t see the population going with an Australian born citizen getting the flick, even if it were legal to do so. It certainly came round to David Hicks.

This legislation is aimed squarely at new citizens like yourself. As you point out, who even becomes a citizen if they don’t bring a level of committment? Passports aside, citizenship is a symbolic gesture. You don’t need to do it.

The foreign fighters we seem to be dealing with here are first generation Arab kids. They are not subject to the government’s (revised) proposed changes.

Cheated? You bet. The person this legislation applies to is you.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

You’re right though. As the proposal stands, it may not apply to you - if Denmark and Australia don’t change the rules.

But you’d love to apply it to all foreigners, no? You’re just begging to be rogered.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

You don’t have to do a thing, old boy, they just need to put an article in the Tele saying you did.

Remember Hanif? He gave his brother a SIM card. Remember Cornelia Rau? She was mentally ill. If dual citizens, such suspects would be subject to the minister’s whims under the proposed legislation. There would be no right of appeal.

Executive powers, old chap. You pointed this out yourself.

It is quite forseeable that you could be caught up in some sweep - mistaken perhaps, but where there is smoke there is fire. If a dual citizen, it’d be back to the old country for you.

Better not grow a beard, old boy - just to be on.the safe side.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

Bollock, PB, on stilts.

Show me ONE person who was unlawfully deported. Hanif and Rau was a lawyers' picnic with huge compos. No minister got his way in those cases.

So gissa case where your scenarios actually played out.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:36am

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

All in good time, dear boy. The legislation is yet to be writ.

And when it is, I guarantee you’ll get a nice Muslim dual citizen struck off the books to crow about. I promise you this.

Meanwhile, I advise you to keep shaving.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:07pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:36am:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

All in good time, dear boy. The legislation is yet to be writ.

So Hanif and Rau are irrelevant for now.
That's one of your fastest comedowns. (Or is it godowns?)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:00pm

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:36am:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

All in good time, dear boy. The legislation is yet to be writ.

So Hanif and Rau are irrelevant for now.
That's one of your fastest comedowns. (Or is it godowns?)

No speaka the Danish, old chap. If I may ask - are you in favour of legislation that cancels citizenship? Should there be any limits on such legislation?

I'm curious.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:36am:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

All in good time, dear boy. The legislation is yet to be writ.

So Hanif and Rau are irrelevant for now.
That's one of your fastest comedowns. (Or is it godowns?)

No speaka the Danish, old chap. If I may ask - are you in favour of legislation that cancels citizenship? Should there be any limits on such legislation?

I'm curious.

The legislation will define the circumstances in which the minister may act. They will be fairly narrow circumstances and will focus on what used to be called treason and similar offences relating to membership and support for proscribed organisations. A separate legislation manages what those proscribed organisations and activities are.

The oath of allegiance requires that those who receive citizenship by conferral uphold the laws of Australia. If you break your oath by breaking relevant laws, your citizenship should be revoked. Even if you have only Australian citizenship, your rights can and should be curtailed even though you are not rendered stateless.

How things are now:

If you became a citizen by application you can have your citizenship taken away if you are found to have committed a serious criminal offence prior to gaining citizenship. Australian citizenship can be revoked if:

you have been convicted of making a false statement or representation in relation to your application to become an Australian citizen
you are convicted of a serious criminal offence at any time prior to becoming a citizen involving a sentence of 12 months or more
your approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of migration-related fraud
your approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of third party fraud; for example, fraudulent conduct by a migration agent in the citizenship application
it would be contrary to the public interest for you to remain an Australian citizen.
An Australian citizen by birth cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked. Similarly, a person conferred citizenship, after fully disclosing all relevant factors, cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked.

People who have their citizenship revoked can be removed from Australia.
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/losing_citizenship/

These parameters will be broadened by the new legislation.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

The oath of allegiance requires that those who receive citizenship by conferral uphold the laws of Australia. If you break your oath by breaking relevant laws, your citizenship should be revoked. Even if you have only Australian citizenship, your rights can and should be curtailed even though you are not rendered stateless.

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Sir Bobby on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 8:03pm

Karnal,

Quote:

Meanwhile, I advise you to keep shaving.

Anyone with a beard & also a towel around their head will be deported.

There will be no judicial process.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 12:11am

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:36am:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

The person this legislation applies to is you.

I am not a dual citizen, nor am I fighting with or support Islamic terrorists.

How the hell would it apply to me?

Ministerial discretion can apply to any dual citizen. Again, no one needs to be convicted of anything.

Nonsense. You have to support proscribed terrorist organisations. The fact of your dual citizenship alone is not enough.

All in good time, dear boy. The legislation is yet to be writ.

So Hanif and Rau are irrelevant for now.
That's one of your fastest comedowns. (Or is it godowns?)

No speaka the Danish, old chap. If I may ask - are you in favour of legislation that cancels citizenship? Should there be any limits on such legislation?

I'm curious.

You’re comparing the current proposal to telling porkies on your citizenship application?

Oh, old boy, what a bore. Even for you.

You can’t possibly know what the "narrow circumstances" of this legislation is. All that exists is a hastily written seven page discussion paper.

But of course you’d go for it. Civilisation and its discontents, innit.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 12:13am

Bobby. wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

Karnal,

Quote:

Meanwhile, I advise you to keep shaving.

Anyone with a beard & also a towel around their head will be deported.

There will be no judicial process.

Will a beard and a safari suit do?

We’ll evict the old boy.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 10:07pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

Dare I suggest you are a moron? A f Vckwit? A complete bloody idiot?

Choices, choices, choices.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 2:18pm

Soren wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

Dare I suggest you are a nice person? A f Vckwit? A complete bloody idiot?

Choices, choices, choices.

Resorting, as per usual to ad hominem attacks, Soren... ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

How so, Brain?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 7:00pm

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

How so, Brain?

You have potentially offended Muslims, Soren... ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 8:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

How so, Brain?

You have potentially offended Muslims, Soren... ::)

Not a terribly difficult thing to do these days... You draw a cartoon and they are off, offended. Muslim offence taking is a tremendous growth areas.

And with what have I offended them?? Not endorsing their religious and political views?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 9:36pm

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 8:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 7:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Dare I suggest that you could be deported as you appear to have, prime facie broken Section 18c of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, Soren? ::)

How so, Brain?

You have potentially offended Muslims, Soren... ::)

It is not your "not enorsing their religious and political views", Soren but rather your open willingness to attack and condemn at every opportunity... ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:36pm

Quote:

It is not your "not endorsing their religious and political views", Soren but rather your open willingness to attack and condemn at every opportunity... ::)

What?? Do we HAVE TO like some aspects of Islam? Which ones? What about communism? Fascism? Scientology? Voodoo? Any other ideology or religion?
Why can't one condemn Islam completely? After all, Islam is ONLY A SET OF IDEAS, Brain. That some people hold them very dearly is neither here nor there. Still only a set of ideas. No need to endorse or accept any of it, it is perfectly OK to reject it completely.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:44pm

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Quote:

It is not your "not endorsing their religious and political views", Soren but rather your open willingness to attack and condemn at every opportunity... ::)

Make your condemnation, Soren and move on. We'll all understand. The problem is you keep repeating your condemnation, you keep repeating your criticisms. We've heard it all before from your keyboard, numerous times. When are you going to directly tackle this massive problem that you perceive? When are you going to Mecca to preach in the Grand Mosque? Mmmm? ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 25^th, 2015 at 8:50pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:44pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Quote:

It is not your "not endorsing their religious and political views", Soren but rather your open willingness to attack and condemn at every opportunity... ::)

When Muslims shut up, I will too.

But it is stupid - yes, stupid - of you to expect ME to stop bagging Islam and not, at the same time, insisting on Muslims also stopping to bang on about the caliphate and infidels and all the rest.

I can't believe you are this thick and tendentious. You do not seem to perceive anything remotely reasonable or rational. SO when Muslim and their excusers and supporters stop agitating for Islam, I will stop agitating against Islam. Fair enough?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 12:26am

Soren wrote on Jun 25^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:44pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Quote:

It is not your "not endorsing their religious and political views", Soren but rather your open willingness to attack and condemn at every opportunity... ::)

Oh, by all means attack the Islamists as much as you like, Soren! I'm talking about your continued and continual attacks on ordinary, mainstream Muslims and Islamic beliefs. All you need to do is make a differentiation between the two groups and the differences in their beliefs and I'll ignore you, Soren. ::)

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Yadda on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:48am

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 12:26am:

Oh, by all means attack the Islamists as much as you like, Soren!

I'm talking about your continued and continual attacks on ordinary, mainstream Muslims and Islamic beliefs.

All you need to do is make a differentiation between the two groups and the differences in their beliefs and I'll ignore you, Soren. ::)

brian,

Which - 'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs - are you referring to ?

We all know about the "ISLAM is a peaceful and tolerant faith." claims.

But which - authentically ISLAMIC - 'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs are you referring to ?

And what are the authentically ISLAMIC sources, for these 'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs which you are referring to ?

e.g.
Is ISLAM tolerant of democracy ?

Does ordinary, mainstream ISLAM, allow a democratic form of government [i.e. a form of government which takes to itself, the authority to formulate laws for a society of people] ?

Does ordinary, mainstream ISLAM, allow moslems to peacefully co-exist with [such] a democratic form of government ?

Quote:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html

brian,

Why does this moslem [above, Mr Hanif], believe that 'democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims' ???

Is Mr Hanif mistaken ?

Is Mr Hanif misrepresenting the lawful dictates of ISLAM, concerning 'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs relating to democracy ?

.

QUESTION;
How can Australians ever have a peaceful relationship with 'Aussie' moslems, when the moslem community in Australia, hides a malevolent intent towards all Australians who are not moslems ?

brian,

'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs.

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17

Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains].

SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ;

---------- >

brian,

'ordinary' ISLAMIC beliefs.

Why do moslems, today, still believe that murdering those who reject ISLAM, is permissible and a lawful act, for a moslem ???

THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06

ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Soren on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:57am

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 12:26am:

You are talking tosh again, Brain.

I don't criticise people, I criticise a religious ideology. If you believe in that ideology then by all means feel criticised.
If you don't believe in it then you would obviously not feel criticised.

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by BachToTheFuture on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 11:01am

Soren wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:57am:

You are talking tosh again, Brain.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 12:26am:

attacks on ordinary, mainstream Muslims and Islamic beliefs. All you need to do is make a differentiation between the two groups

Are you seeking to distinguish "ordinary mainstream Muslims" from "Islamic beliefs"? Sounds like tosh to me, as was nicely debunked by Yadda:

Yadda wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:48am:

"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Karnal on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 3:00pm

Soren wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:57am:

I don't criticise people

Only when the anal dilator is placed in too hard, eh?

Title: Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Post by Brian Ross on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 3:07pm

MumboJumbo wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

Soren wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:57am:

You are talking tosh again, Brain.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 12:26am:

attacks on ordinary, mainstream Muslims and Islamic beliefs. All you need to do is make a differentiation between the two groups

Are you seeking to distinguish "ordinary mainstream Muslims" from "Islamic beliefs"?

No, I am not. ::)

Quote:

Sounds like tosh to me, as was nicely debunked by Yadda:

Yadda wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:48am:

"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

You actually read what Yadda says? I am amazed... ::)