Peter Hume, I tried your quiz. Fascinating stuff, but you did not reply to my comments about "the alternative left/right dichotomy". Did you try the links i put into that article? Read the book etc? Are you a member of the LNP, or the LDP, or one of the many other new parties popping up all over the place at the moment? I must say the LDP, interests me, if they have any meetings coming up, i would like to check them out.

Also did you read all my comments on this article or the other one on the euthanasia debate? What do you think of the distinction i drew between "tolerating", or not "oppressing minorities" as opposed to "fawning all over them", promoting them to be the "new majority" as the red/green/getup/labour coalition does?

How about my suggestion to ALGOREisRICH, about an Australian "Tea Party" movement?

Btw, your quiz said i was a libertarian but at the bottom of the box, next to the centrist box. Having then read their descriptions of all the other political types i would describe myself as essentially a centrist with a bit libertarian, conservative thrown in. The conservative in me says you should try to do the medical Hippocratic oath. First do no harm, by rushing change too hastily & upsetting apple carts, like throwing the stock market into a spin by rushing into the RSPT at this time of already spooked stock markets.

C J Morgan, my political views are, if anything extremely, moderate, main stream stuff, i get agreement on almost everything i say, almost everywhere i go, from almost everybody. The only exceptions to that rule are from people like yourself "online" whose comments clearly display a hard left flavour that would resonate with less than 4% of the population.

i have also been witness to the spin style of the loony, left for decades, which in essence is telling deliberate, premeditated, lies, over & over & over again till your "blue in the face" & start believing your own drivel, just like Adolf towards the bitter end.

TRIBUNALS... RRT or HREOC are exactly at PETER Hume describes them.

But in one case they work 'against' his cherished victims (rrt) and in another the CEO Helen Szoke says "Some of my best workers are gay"....

You can work out the prejudice/bias level on that yourselves.

Peter.. you seem to enjoy undermining Austalia's sovereignty.. Are you one of those lawyers who tries to continually claim our law must be subject to UN declarations/conventions?

You should know that there are plenty of proviso's in those conventions which allow for governments to take 'good order' into account and being signatories to them does NOT change that.

It all boils down to a subjective assessment of the type of behavior in question.

But by promoting International Law.. you simply show you are either a gullible proxy for Maurice Strong and Al Gore and their Global Governance ambitions, or plain ignorant. I doubt you are ignorant.. so perhaps re-read the conventions again ?

ALGOREisRICH,
<<a gullible proxy for Maurice Strong and Al Gore>>??
Proxy will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

*smile* :)

Formersnag: << my political views are, if anything extremely, moderate, main stream stuff, i get agreement on almost everything i say, almost everywhere i go, from almost everybody. The only exceptions to that rule are from people like yourself "online" whose comments clearly display a hard left flavour that would resonate with less than 4% of the population. >>

You probably don't go around the place in real life babbling about the "red/green/getup/labour coalition" or the "paedophile femanazis" that you're always on about here. There's nothing moderate or mainstream about your comments at OLO.

Also, as you seem to be unaware of what you write, there's nothing moderate or mainstream about the US 'Tea Party' movement either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I hope this helps.

Formersnag
Sorry, my internet connection has been difficult or impossible and I stopped following that thread a while back. Both left and right wing think aggression against others is fine, so long as it’s for whatever purpose they arbitrarily approve. We libertarians are the only ones consistent across the spectrum in defending freedom against arbitrary power.

AlGOREisRICH
&#61656; Peter.. you seem to enjoy undermining Austalia's sovereignty.. Are you one of those lawyers who tries to continually claim our law must be subject to UN declarations/conventions?

It’s not a question of undermining Australia’s sovereignty. Australia signed a convention undertaking not to return people to their home states if they meet the definition of refugee. People are entitled to apply for that protection under Australian law. Applying for the grant of a visa is not “undermining Australia’s sovereignty” – is it?

I am personally against our law being subject to UN conventions; as I think the UN is very bad for various reasons, and has no moral primacy. However in a refugee application, that is not the issue. I represent the client’s claim to protection under Australian law, not my personal opinion. Australia having signed the convention, the question is whether the applicant is entitled to a visa under current law. Australia could just as well, and in my opinion should, recognise refugee status without the UN convention.

&#61656; You should know that there are plenty of proviso's in those conventions which allow for governments to take 'good order' into account and being signatories to them does NOT change that.

There is no proviso in the Refugees Convention allowing for governments to refuse an otherwise meritorious application on grounds of ‘good order’ or suchlike.

Can you prove such a proviso applies?

You seem to be suggesting that treaties can be just interpreted to enable the signatory to escape from their obligations, claiming everything is just a matter of interpretation. This is incorrect, and would go against good faith in the interpretation of treaties.