Australian Politics Forum - The conversation about revoking Australian citizen

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21661
A cat with a view

The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
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 ?????

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen Reply #1 - Jun 9^th, 2015 at 11:42am The formatting......my eyes!
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

\|dev\|null Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4434 Gender:	Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen Reply #2 - Jun 9^th, 2015 at 12:27pm Another religious persecution thread? Really? Is it necessary?
Back to top	"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013. "we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions." Freediver, 2007. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #3 - 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).

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21661
A cat with a view

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #4 - 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

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #5 - 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:

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #6 - 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.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21661
A cat with a view

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #7 - 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-countr...

.

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-isla...

.

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.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #8 - 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:

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.

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.

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...

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.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #9 - 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:

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.

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.

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! Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #10 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen Reply #11 - 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?
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95416
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #12 - 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:

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).

Exile them.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95416
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #13 - 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:

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The conversation about revoking Australian citizen
Reply #14 - Jun 11^th, 2015 at 7:42pm

polite_gandalf wrote 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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged