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


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

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

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



Yadda hysterical? What gave it away?

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



LOL


Such is life.

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


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. 

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



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.

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.

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


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.

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.