Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 16^th, 2022 at 12:30pm:


Jews have lived through history without the protection of international rule of law...like the rest of us. 

Quote:


Unjust laws? What about laws to engender  the collective wellbeing, as defined by the UNUDHR. 

But your delusional, instinctive,  irrational "freedom" ideology ("Libertarian") prevents it; your false "force" narrative is moot...and responsible for the chaos in the world. 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 16^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:


Correct; and that is OK for laws which deal with a nation's internal affairs.

Quote:


..and the limitations of national sovereignty are all too evident in the external (international) arena.

Jurists tried to get around the problem in 1946 by creating the (absurd) concept of legal "defensive" war, but history since 1946 shows every nation has its own idea of "defensive" war....   

Quote:


...but nations do just that all the time.

Quote:


You blind instinctive irrational "freedom" ideologue, sickeningly talking about "force", while instinct and chaos rule the world.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 16^th, 2022 at 6:11pm:


No point at all made there...  think again.

Ten question by Yes voters answered by Warren Mundine:

1 Why aren’t Indigenous people and the voice important enough for constitutional ­inclusion?
Indigenous people are in the constitution like every other Australian. Every part of the constitution is about us and how we’re governed.
The voice will be about Indigenous Australians and no one else. And if it won’t improve Indigenous lives, it’s not important enough to be in the constitution or anywhere.


2 What’s wrong with having constitutional provisions about race?
I believe it’s wrong to demarcate a system of government on racial grounds. Race-based constitutional rights don’t work.
Look at Fiji. Native title and recognition of treaties are not about race but about pre-colonial sovereignty and property rights. Australia’s constitution has two provisions referencing race: Section 51 ­bestows commonwealth power to make laws about the people of any race, and section 25 prevents states excluding people from voting on racial grounds and then counting those people towards its population entitlement to lower house seats (which actually punishes the state).
These may be ­archaic but are not special provisions applying to one race of people.

3 Why does the definition of ­Indigeneity matter?
If a group gets special rights, it matters if someone is genuinely part of that group.

4 Why are we talking about the constitutional amendment, not the surrounding legislation?
We’re talking about the amendment because we’ll be asked to vote on it. I’d like to talk about the legislation, but the government won’t publish it until after the referendum.

5 How could the voice be a third chamber of parliament (noting it only has influence)?
The bait and switch is that the voice is “conservative” because it’s just advisory. So the voice is essential because Indigenous people have no voice but safe because government can ignore it. Yes, there other influential bodies like lobby groups and unions, but none is constitutionally enshrined.

6 Why do Indigenous parliamentarians invalidate the need for the voice (noting they represent all constituents not ­Indigenous people exclusively)?
Here’s where voice advocates are ignorant of (or deliberately ignoring) Aboriginal cultures. No Aboriginal person can speak for another country, only their own. Where’s the proposal for a constitutional voice for the Bundjalung people (my country on my father’s side) or the Gumbaynggirr or Yuin people (my countries on my mother’s side)? The voice won’t, and can’t, represent Indigenous people as a group.

7 Why would the High Court run amok with the voice (noting it didn’t with the “1967 referendum insertions”)?
The 1967 referendum removed words from the constitution that excluded Aboriginal people. There were no “insertions”. Activist judges read between the lines. Including new provisions that ­require reading between the lines provides more space to run amok. This could be tested by having senior counsel review various scenarios where government ignores or defies the voice, or changes its structure or funding, and devising the arguments in support and defence of a challenge. Publish the opinions and let us see.

8 Why does ATSIC’s failure mean the voice won’t work?
We’ve had many Indigenous bodies, including four failed elected bodies. But government can prove this wrong. Legislate the voice ­tomorrow and show us.

9 Why are we sure the voice won’t make a difference on the ground?
No one is sure. But if it will make a difference, why wait to put it in the constitution? Legislate now so ­Indigenous people start benefiting right away.

10 What happens if the referendum fails (breaking ­Indigenous souls)?
I didn’t notice broken Indigenous souls in 1999 when a constitutional preamble honouring and recognising Indigenous people failed. Maybe most didn’t care.  I’m not convinced many Indigenous people care about the voice. Most I speak to say they ­oppose it, don’t understand it, or think it will just cement the influence of Indigenous people who have been around forever while building a huge and ­expensive ­bureaucracy that will fix no problems.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/voice-referendum-a-vote-for-what-we-support-not-oppose/news-story/5b9e4321dfba791a54957d21c3b210ef

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 17^th, 2022 at 7:15am:


"No point", because you are blinded by instinct and hence rendered incapable of rationality.

eg, just as individual sovereignty and "freedom" must be subject to national law, to avoid chaos among individuals within the nation; so national sovereignty must be subject to international law, to avoid chaos among the community of nations.

Simple, irrefutable, unassailable logic.

But logic is not the business of your reptilian-brain- driven thought processes.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 17^th, 2022 at 11:45pm:


Waffle; you can't begin to critique the irrefutable logic I presented.

eg, you confusedly differentiate between "sorts of international law"; when only one system of international law dealing with dispute settlement between nations is required.

As to "imposed": news flash, for all to be free, all must submit to rule of law.

Quote:


Of course, an insane man can't see his insanity, by definition. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 17^th, 2022 at 10:30am:


A state imposes laws on individuals and enforces them through the judicial system - police, courts, jails etc.

There is no supra-national 'state' or authority WITH the power to enforce its will within various sovereign borders.

What is the authority ABOVE the CCP that the CCP is prepared to submit to?