Australian Politics Forum - Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38820 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #30 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:34pm greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: In Qld, an oath must be taken with hand on Bible, and that is probably the case in the ACT. When you say "in QLD", are you talking about parliament, or QLD in general? In general, but that would apply in Parliament.
Back to top	IP Logged

The Heartless Felon Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2869 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #31 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:40pm What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional? What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.
Back to top	IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #32 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:51pm

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:40pm:

What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional?

What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.

She took an Affirmation if my memory serves correctly.

In any case, those starting the headlines didn't realise Husic was previously sworn in using the Koran when he first joined Parl't in 2010 ?????? What's new??? (apart from the position into which he's now been sworn)

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #33 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:52pm

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:40pm:

What book did our recent atheist PM use? If not the bible, then was her PM-ship unconstitutional?

What a load of rubbish...but it proves once again that Australia isn't short of idiots.

Why are you the only person replying who has never heard of an affirmation, which we have all acknowledged, but determine was not applicable in this case as opposed to the previous PM.

Thanks for coming.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #34 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #35 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #36 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.

But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38820 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #37 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm Quote: The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, For an Oath....it seems, yes a Bible is meant to be involved. For an Affirmation.......(just as effective and 'legal' as an oath).....no Bible needed. You can hold whatever you want in your hand.
Back to top	IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #38 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:17pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Quote:

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else,

For an Oath....it seems, yes a Bible is meant to be involved.

For an Affirmation.......(just as effective and 'legal' as an oath).....no Bible needed. You can hold whatever you want in your hand.

Yes you can hold anything you want in you hand during and affirmation but you cannot swear upon that object during your affirmation.

If you are going to swear and oath in must be on the bible according to the act and if you are going to affirm you must affirm and not swear on anything.

You cannot ask to affirm and then demand to affirm on say the Origin of the Species, even thought you are a rabid atheist. I actually asked to swear on a dictionary once, instead of a bible; oddly enough this request was denied.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #39 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:19pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.

But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

Did you read alinta's post #28??

Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible:
The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.[44]

In September 2010, Ed Husic, Member for Chifley (NSW), became the first Muslim to be sworn into the federal parliament. The Age reported that:

For the first time an MP, Labor’s Ed Husic, took the oath while holding a Koran rather than a Bible. The Koran belonged to his parents, immigrants from Bosnia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_L...

Wink

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #40 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:20pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.
But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

It's not the relevant piece of legislation.......

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 138739 Gender:	Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ? Reply #41 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:24pm BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm: The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void. That's not Commonwealth Legislation.
Back to top	IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #42 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:26pm

Alinta wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:20pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.
But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

It's not the relevant piece of legislation.......

Any chance you want to post the correct piece of legislation so we can all read the federal oaths and affirmations act; or should we just take your word for it.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #43 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I believe the whole point of swearing on a bible is to "somehow" promise "God" you will tell the truth, do your best etc.
Your not promising any old one but God.
Seeing both the Koran and the bible are "God's" word, just brought to you by different reporters, whats the fuss?
I'm pretty sure Muslims swear on the Koran in court, where's your outrage with that?

try using a Bible in on of their courts and see how it works out!!

anyhow, the question was if it was legal or not. Apparently it is.

Or the law has just been ignored to meet a political outcome, not the first time this has happened.

The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else, so if this is the piece of legislation needed to be complied with, then oath is pretty much null and void.

But I doubt whether legal compliance matters much to a politician since the howard era.

No - The ACT oaths and affirmations Act is NOT pretty adamant it is a bible to used and nothing else.

You are misrepresenting it by selectively quoting from it. If you bothered to read further to Section 21:

Alternative form and manner for oath
Subject to sections 6A and 15 but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a person who is required or permitted to take an oath states, in the presence of the person before whom the oath is to be taken, that an oath taken in a form and manner other than the form and manner specified in this Act would be binding on him or her, the oath may be taken in that form and manner.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1984-79/current/pdf/1984-79.pdf

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38820
Gender: male

Re: Ed Husic - unconstitutional act ?
Reply #44 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:27pm

Quote:

Yes you can hold anything you want in you hand during and affirmation but you cannot swear upon that object during your affirmation.

The word 'swear' is not part of an affirmation.

Quote:

If you are going to swear and oath in must be on the bible according to the act and if you are going to affirm you must affirm and not swear on anything.

Correct. (Or whatever other religious book floats your boat.)

Quote:

You cannot ask to affirm and then demand to affirm on say the Origin of the Species, even thought you are a rabid atheist.

Incorrect. In an affirmation, you can hold your appendage if that pleases you.

Quote:

I actually asked to swear on a dictionary once, instead of a bible; oddly enough this request was denied.

You are one confused puppy, aren't you!

Cheesy

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 2:37pm by Aussie »

IP Logged