rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 13
th, 2014 at 7:49am:
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
Aussie wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 6:45pm:
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 6:38pm:
Aussie wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 6:26pm:
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 5:57pm:
I wonder what morrisons punishment will be then.
Do tell
For what? Acting illegally?
Yep, when are the arrest warrants be issued by this "international court" of which you speak.
I can't recall mentioning an 'international court.' Do you reckon Morrison has breached our obligations under that UNHCR Agreement?
when you say "our ' obligations, are you implying that everyday aussies have some sort of obligation to the UN.
The Australian government has a legally binding obligation to Conventions it is signatory to. Such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
i dont think anyone has an obligation to the UN.
The Australian government has a legally binding obligation to Conventions it is signatory to. Such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
its a bit like saying we have obligations to the vatican.
its a bit like saying , morrison upset the pope and he had obligations to the papacy.
Is Australia signatory to any legally binding Conventions with the Vatican?
The Australian government has a legally binding obligation to Conventions it is signatory to. Such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
No leader of any country cares what the UN says. Its like a sort of "think tank" .
The Australian government has a legally binding obligation to Conventions it is signatory to. Such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
Russia is on the security counsel and they are about to annex a bit of the ukraine (good for them) You think vlad cares what the UN says
![Wink Wink](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
China is on the UN security counsel too. They enslaved tibet and kicked out the dalai llama.
Try to stay on topic
The Australian government has a legally binding obligation to Conventions it is signatory to. Such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
aquascoot wrote on Mar 12
th, 2014 at 7:34pm:
You really think scotts losing any sleep over the UN
If he is unable to ensure that Australia can comply with the legally binding obligations of the Conventions it is signatory to, such as the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - then he is failing in his Ministerial duites and should be sacked.
And we are still waiting for an answer from you. Why doesn't Tony simply withdraw Australia from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees? Then he can set up all the gulags he wants.
Come on - use this vast knowledge of international relations you seem to possess and try to answer that question for us. Could you do that?
I think you went to school with peccker
![Cheesy Cheesy](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/cheesy.gif)
.
Theres all this legally binding mumbo jumbo and then theres the real situation.
the real situation is this.
The UN is a toothless tiger.
If abbott and scotty have broken some law, are they facing some penalties for doing so.
Is vlad
The UN should stick to having pheasant and truffles in 6 star hotels and scott and tony should stick to tending to australia,
This is what i expect of them as a tax payer , a patriot and a voter/shareholder in AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
If the UN come after my CEO (mr abbott) i will happily pay taxes to ensure he gets the very best legal representation.
As his deputy scott has saved us taxpayer $8 Billion, he should be able to afford quite a legal team and his defence based on the saved lives is quite compelling