Problem is Australia is in a defacto state of war against Australians who fight for IS in Iraq and cross border Syria.

Since when did Australia have to have court cases for enemy soldiers at the battle front of have court cases for prisoners of war?

Kuranda, the clause of the Magna Carta that you cited invalidates your argument. Didn't you read it before posting your article?

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, EXCEPT BY the lawful judgement of his equals or by THE LAW OF THE LAND."

The Magna Carta itself "turned the law on it's head", Kuranda Seyit. Perhaps we need another "baronial revolt" to make people like yourself realise that we are now at war with Islam, and the old laws which made perfect sense within a socially cohesive society need to change to reflect the new reality that a large section of the "Australian" population wishes to destroy the very civilisation which they chose to immigrate to.

The concept that dual nationals who fight for a foreign state at war with Australia can be stripped of their Australian citizenship has been in force since 1947. It is a perfectly sensible law which everybody outside of the legal profession, academia, and Islam supports. The only difference that Tony Abbot is proposing is that the wording be changed to conform to the new reality of private armies within unrecognised states who clearly state their hostility to Australia and all that we stand for.

Of course that fool Obama pretends that we are not at war with Islam. How many times do we hear that same refrain every time some Muslim chops off somebody's head while screaming "Allah akbar!" If they were screaming "Heil Hitler!" you would probably get it straight away.

The official, written instructions of the German Nazi Party in 1935 was to exclude Jews from the economy and to encourage them to leave Germany forever. Oddly enough, many German Jews refused to believe that the Nazis were really that hostile to them and Goebbels himself bemoaned the slow pace of Jewish migration out of Germany. Hitler himself even supported the idea of a Jewish state in "Palestine" to get rid of the Jews.

Today, it is infidels like Kuranda Seyit who can't get it through their heads that although they do not want to be at war with Islam, Islam most definitely wants to be at war with Kuranda Seyit. Like the Jews in Germany, you had better figure out who's side you are on, girlie. And also that no law is absolute, every law has evolved to reflect the realities of the time.

LEGO, you don't stand for any of the things that I regard as fundamentally Australian.

You're simply a hateful fear-monger too cowardly to even use your own name to spout your vile.

Whatever you have to say about this or any other subject should be seen as a good guide to how not to think about that subject.

JKJ, the author's point was that the law of the land is being reset to reduce the role of the judiciary - the body that provides the "judgement of his equals" - and that as a result the intent of the Magna Carta, which was to reduce arbitrariness in the application of the law by ameliorating the power of the monarch, is being undermined.

What is the surprise, the Judiciary decided it could get into Policy by being "Progressive" and making law. Well the Government can get into Law by excluding the biased Judiciary.

Lefties are sowing what they reap.

Thanks for providing an excellent summation of the reason that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers came to be regarded as indispensable, cackle.

Funny how the toughest talkers are all crowded into the coward's castle of anonymity...

Also who needs a Court Case when the decision is made to use an Australian Super Hornet in Iraq to drop a large laser guided bomb on some Australian Islamic State guys in Iraq?

Are you advocating the use of laser-guided bombs in Australia, Pete?

How strange...

Durr Craig

I said Iraq old chap.

Time to have your pill, your morning nap and a bib.

It's strange to have a Muslim citing the Magna Carta. Nothing could be more different from Islam.

Magna Carta allowed the wresting of power from despots (English Kings) and placed power in the hands of the people (or, at least, some of the people). No such luxuries with Islam.

An example of the ability to make laws for the good of the people (and their safety from despots) is the current move against terrorism by parliament. There is difference of opinion in detail, but all agree with the principle.

And this is what sticks in the craw of peope like Kuranda Seyhit, a councillor of the Sydney PEACE Foundation, and Director of the Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations.

Like President Obama - whose approach to a clear and present danger he prefers to that of our own PM and politicians - Kuranda Seyit is in denial of the fact that the West is at war with Islam. He refers to Obama as saying that the Islamic terrorists' claim that they are fighting a war to protect Islam is a lie.

It is Obama who is the liar. The terrorists are doing exactly as the Koran and Mohammed demand of them. They, at least, are honest about Islam.

All the rubbish about illegal entrants, domestic violence and equality written by Kuranda Seyhit are merely a blind to his real purpose. He is anti-West, and is preaching nonsense that people who act like animals against other people should receive the same consideration as that enjoyed by decent people.

Craig Minns

Your argument was lost in the 17th century, so it's a bit late. The doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament disposes of both your and the author's argument, or rather assumptions.

Au contraire, JKJ, you misunderstand the nature of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Parliament can make as many laws as it wishes, but the judiciary retains its role in determining both the scope of applicability of those laws and their compliance with precedent, legislative good practice and constitutional limitations, as well as principles of natural justice in some cases.

Parliamentary sovereignty freed the Parliament from obligate compliance with the demands of the Monarch, nothing more. It was an extension of the process begun with the Magna Carta.

The author's case remains intact.

and yet boatloads of muslims and others still pay smugglers and risk their lives getting here. Could not be to bad. Puzzles me how people come here, get brainwashed with victim mentality but refuse to leave.

I agree with JKJ. And where the Magna Carta backs him, is where it states that no man shall go against the law of the land.

And if the law states that going to a proscribed area, means the automatic loss of your Australian citizenship, then that's what should happen; but particularly where the infringement is supported by irrefutable documented evidence!

Moreover, ignorance of the law has never been an acceptable defense.

And folks who want to go and do unspeakable things to innocents; because the law is ignored; should not be allowed to return, unless it's feet first and in a pine box?

I see no such thing as unequal treatment before the law!

What I do see is a lawless element leaving these shores to murder rape and pillage; and commit treachery and or treason; which according to the law of the land; sees your rights as a citizen entirely withdrawn, including that citizenship!

If it's worth having then it's worth keeping, and indeed, complying with the law of the land in order to retain the privileges it confers; along with the responsibilities that having rights confers!

What did you expect? A slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket?

Every action comes with some consequences!

And if you're not willing to cop them sweet, then just don't take the contemplated action!

If a barbaric ISIL respected the Magna Carta or human rights or just common civilized behavior!

Those arguing against automatic loss of citizenship might have a leg to stand on.
Rhrosty.

And so there are some in this thread who would have:

Australian forces capture the odd 40 or so Australian dual national IS terrorist-fighters after few years of IS murder and mayhem in Iraq-Syria

- pay the airfares or more likely private prison jets of these IS dual nationals to return to Australia

- put them on trial using evidence sources-methods that are mostly back in the Middle East

- evidence sources-methods issues that could endanger good people if evidence were produced in Court

Then make a decision whether these IS dual nationals should lose Australian citizenship when these dual nationals are already back in Australia!

- making nationality decisions moot, irrelevant, useless and expensive.

Those advocating the return of IS dual nationals under these conditions should think through these issues.

These IS dual nationals have renounced the Western legal system for another system, have frequently violently rejected Western ideals and therefore have no interest in the Magna Carta.

ISIS fighters may not have much respect for Magna Carta, but I thought we who enjoy living in a free society which has traditionally observed the rule of law might.

Some of the basic tenets of our democracy are based on the idea that no one (not the king, not the PM) is above the law. Justice is supposed to be blind. All are treated equally.

However under our new draconian counter terrorism legislation, some people, namely terrorist SUSPECTS are below the law.

I don't expect ISIS suspects to be flown back on private jets.
However if and when they return to Australia I expect them to feel the full force of the LAW (ie trial by a judge and jury), not the arbitrary wrath of a Minister with no trial to test the evidence against them.

I don't think most of us would trust politicians to run a chook raffle never mind act as prosecutor, judge and jury all in one, especially on an issue as important as citizenship.

It is time to stop drinking the kool aid - we are destroying our values in order to fight an ideology - ie terrorism. This doesn't make sense.

Yes we all want to protect the innocent, but our draconian laws only weaken our rights and liberties, but they do not make us any safer.

As our PM said, these days all a terrorist needs is a knife, a phone and a victim, in these circumstances the chances of stopping a determined terrorist are close to zero.

Our laws already have sanctions against foreign fighters and those who murder. Terrorists are not superhuman. We need to stop freaking out.

We can save many innocent lives by better funding the health system but this is being defunded by nearly $2 billion by the federal government. While at the same time, we are handing over extreme powers of surveillance, interrogation and detention to agencies with very little if any oversight - does that make sense?

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

Craig Minns

Au contraire, it is you who don't understand Parliamentary sovereignty.

What you have said applies to every statute that vests discretion in the hands of the executive. If this were not so, the entire administration would land in the lap of the judiciary.

Judicial review is to determine the validity of executive action; but your and the author's objection is to legislative action. You simply don't like the law that the elected government intends to make. But that does not justify the author's ridiculous hyberbole that it somehow undermines the rule of law; or at least, no more than all other laws you agree with. You're contradicting yourself.

As to the validity on constitutional grounds, the Constitution provides the Commonwealth Parliament with power in respect of:
"...immigration and emigration;
... the influx of criminals;
.... external affairs".

It is obvious that this confers the power to revoke citizenship. Not even the judiciary maintain that their authority outranks Parliament where the Constitution clearly confers the relevant power. No constitutional question arises that the Parliament lacks the explicit power.

The proposed laws are no more inconsistent with Magna Carta than any of the other laws you support and which involve the Parliament deciding what the law is to be, and authorising executive officers to apply it in particular cases. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.

I also find it bemusing, to say the least, to have a Muslim talk down to Australians about the rule of law, a concept that is totally foreign to Islam.

Kuranda, why didn't you spend the time that you have wasted writing this article explaining to your co-religionists tthat it's not okay to kill, rape, enslave, behead, and crucify people for disagreeing with your religious and sexual opinions?

Tell us, exactly what active steps have you taken to do that?

JKJ,

Your sharp and shiny comment is an excellent one to complete this conversation. It would be nice if a certain person apparently studying for his kindergarten entry exams allowed you to have the last word.

Too late, ttbn. In a fantastic example of recursive irony you've already made your own comment redundant.

JKJ:"Judicial review is to determine the validity of executive action; but your and the author's objection is to legislative action. "

Once again, JKJ, you misunderstand. The Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, but it is in the execution of those laws that the devil lies.

You shoot your own argument down in your quoted extracts. This is not an issue of immigration if the people involved are Australian citizens. It is not an issue of criminality unless a court has found that criminality is proven and it is not a foreign affairs matter, except to the extent that there may be implications for the relationship with other states, once again because these are Australian citizens in question.

The power to revoke citizenship may well be constitutional to the same extent that the power to grant it is, but it is most certainly not a summary power and should be treated with proper judicious attention to the details of the law. The potential for uncomfortable precedent is large and must be considered.

You're right to say that my personal liking for a particular law is not relevant; this is the whole point of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and in fact of the Magna Carta and Parliamentary Sovereignty. I'm glad we see eye to eye on the undesirability of allowing laws to be made based on personal preferences, such as, for example, your obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic.

CM
"The Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, but it is in the execution of those laws that the devil lies..."

You're contradicting yourself. If the Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, then it can enact how it is to be executed. That disposes of all your objections.

"The power to revoke citizenship may well be constitutional to the same extent that the power to grant it is, but it is most certainly not a summary power and should be treated with proper judicious attention to the details of the law"

The question is only what is the constitutional status of a law "most certainly" enacted by Parliament, if Craig Minns "most certainly" disagrees with it?

"This is not an issue of immigration if the people involved are Australian citizens."

It's an issue of immigration if it involves non-citizens coming in to the country, and the effect of the proposed laws is to revoke citizenship, remember?

So either they're non-citizens, and you lose the argument that Parliament lacks the power under the immigration power; or they are citizens, and you lose the argument under the naturalization and aliens power.

"It is not an issue of criminality unless a court has found that criminality is proven and it is not a foreign affairs matter..."

You're back to arguing that the opinion of Craig Minns, a pseudonymous poster on the internet, is legally supreme over a law enacted by the Parliament. You are wrong, that is all.

"obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic."

Ho hum, Craig Minns' self-contradictions being pointed out, he descends straight-away into personal abuse as usual.

Craig, I've got more Muslims refugee status since 1993 than you've had hot dinners.

JKJ, your argument is fatuous. You seem to be advocating for a form of "Parliamentary Despotism", in which the rule of law devolves to the leader of the most numerous party of the day.

I wouldn't have picked you as an anarchist.

You do seem to be a slow learner though:"You're right to say that my personal liking for a particular law is not relevant; this is the whole point of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and in fact of the Magna Carta and Parliamentary Sovereignty. I'm glad we see eye to eye on the undesirability of allowing laws to be made based on personal preferences, such as, for example, your obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic."

All
Notice how Craig Minns ignores the fact that he's just been disproved on every point he's tried but failed to defend, and instead tries to divert the discussion into his mind-reading, pseudo-psychologising, personal abuse, falsely assuming he's more concerned about Australia than anyone else, and just endlessly re-asserting that his opinion determines the constitutional validity of law in Australia?

Craig
Try some argument at your own intellectual standard.

Your hateful cowardly bigotted fear-mongering bile-spouting, and your obvious dislike for Australians only shows your sociopathic tendencies, and your fatuous despotism marks you out an anarchist.

There. Your own standard satisfies your intellect I take it?

To quote you: "Whatever you have to say about this or any other subject should be seen as a good guide to how not to think about that subject."

Kuranda
What active steps have you taken to publish your opinion that Mohammed was completely wrong in teaching that it's okay to commit murder, rape, and slavery against people who don't agree with Muslims' religious opinions?

That *is* your opinion, isn't it?

What steps have you taken to publicly criticise and condemn your co-religionists who are guilty of so many abuses throughout the world ever day?
http://www.barenakedislam.com/category/beheadings-graphic

Please provide proof so we know you are not lying.

//Notice how Craig Minns ignores the fact that he's just been disproved on every point he's tried but failed to defend, and instead tries to divert the discussion into his mind-reading, pseudo-psychologising, personal abuse, falsely assuming he's more concerned about Australia than anyone else, and just endlessly re-asserting that his opinion determines the constitutional validity of law in Australia?//

Great rebuttal there mate. I think it's fairly safe to assume that JKJ was never picked for his school's debating team.

Oh look, JKJ is a sock puppet of LEGO. Does GY know you're using two accounts, you naughty little sausage?

That is a very good point. Plantagenet.

The Australian RAAF may drop a 500 kilo laser guided bomb on "Australian" dual nationals fighting for ISIS or Al Qaida, but we must not strip them of the citizenship because that is seen by some as unfair.

Hi Lego,
If someone is killed while fighting for ISIS, they were ISIS fighters and that is war. We can debate whether we should be taking part in that war, but that is another topic.

If someone goes to an area that is deemed a foreign combat zone but doesn't participate in military activities but is stripped of their citizenship by a minister without any testing of evidence just because they are suspected of being an ISIS fighter - that is wrong and an anathema to our so called ideals of freedom and of the rule of law.

Our laws traditionally assume people are innocent until proven guilty. This law reverses that - people will be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Even with the best will in the world, our intelligence agencies make mistakes. The minister will make his decision based on the information from intelligence agencies, and this will probably be in secret due to national security concerns.

Nothing is more certain, without proper checks and balances, mistakes will be made, and this will have significant negative impacts on the individuals involved.

Is this the society we want to be? Where people can be stripped of their right to citizenship on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing? For many Australians, it seems to be yes. They are so afraid ISIS is coming to get us, they will give away any liberties that our forbears fought and died for.

We need to take a chill pill. Our government is bringing in draconian laws that strip us of our privacy and freedoms because they want to save innocent lives? This is nonsense. I say let us keep our freedoms and the rule of law, and if you want to save innocent lives, reverse the nearly $2Billion in health funding cuts outlined in the last budget.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamen Franklin.

Sorry I have to add, the 2015 budget cuts to health were even worse. The $1.8 Billion cuts are immediate over 4 years. Then you have the $57 Billion in health funding cuts to the states over the next 10 years. Think how many innocent lives could be saved with that money?

However, while health funding is slashed, we can spend billions on new spending in militarism, dodgy fighter jets, Japanese submarines,and the mass surveillance of the entire population.

If you think they care about us think again. Have you noticed the increase in homelessness lately? Have you noticed the cuts to services helping the needy lately?

People go on about the nanny state - this has nothing on the surveillance state that is being built.

We need the Magna Carta and the rule of law to keep us all safe. If we let these freedoms go, there is no guarantee we will get them back.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" Thomas Jefferson

Once again, well done JKJ. I obviously don't know this Minns person or where he sources ideas, but he presents himself as a very young, unworldly person flexing his developing muscles to the adults. I might be wrong of course, but there is no other way of making a judgement than by what he says, and he certainly, to me, puts himself across as a young smart alec who isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

A quick google will do it for you, old fella. Ask someone to do it for if that's beyond you, as it apparently is.

For some of us aging is an adventure, with the advantage of experience to guide us in taking the most interesting, exciting path on the great downhill slide of life.

For others, it's simply a miserable trudge along the deeply-rutted spiral path worn by the chains and balls of regrets, resentments and discarded dreams they drag along.

Bjelly, there has been an increasing tendency over the past few decades to reverse the onus of proof in statutes and even, in some cases, to make it illegal to do things that are not formally regulated. The Bligh Government, for example, introduced the notion of the "Unregulated High-risk Activity", which a couple of years ago saw some young men prosecuted for climbing a tree!

It's just another form of the Marxian managerialist approach that seeks to control outcomes by limiting actions to a small and ever-diminishing suite of options. It suits those who have limited imaginations, such as the LEGO/JKJ/ttbn sock-puppet clone, since they can't imagine anybody ever wanting to do something extraordinary.

Unfortunately though, it makes doing extraordinary things extraordinarily difficult so we end up with a stale pudding of a culture, topped with a thin rancid crust of rules, all contained under a tight lid of enforcement.

Thanks LEGO.

Why are the BJellys and Craig Minns of this thread defending people like Tareq Kamleh? I suppose every terrorist needs sympathisers.

Read and weep over an article ABC Online has just posted June 21, 2015:

Headline - Australian doctor helping Islamic State in Syria, Tareq Kamleh, has 'no concern' if passport is cancelled

"A former Australian doctor now helping Islamic State (IS) in Syria has responded to moves to arrest him, saying he no longer considers himself a citizen and the prospect of his passport being cancelled does not concern him.

A warrant for Tareq Kamleh's arrest was obtained by the Australian Federal Police at a closed hearing of the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Thursday.

In a post on Facebook this morning Kamleh, 29, said he had "no concern" about any moves to cancel his passport or registration as a doctor.

"I no longer consider myself an Australian," he said.

"I anticipated an arrest warrant, hence why I left in secret."

see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-21/australian-doctor-tareq-kamleh-responds-to-arrest-warrant/6561600

Hi Plantagenet
Please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not defending terrorists. I am saying terror suspects or indeed any of us deserve to have charges made against us tested in a court of law.

Even "radicals" like Barnaby Joyce and Senator Cory Bernardi think that doing away with courts and leaving decisions regarding citizenship to a minister is a bad idea. Since when did we all start thinking ministers were infallible? Most Australians rate them less trustworthy than used car salesmen.

Hi Craig,
Yes - as you say, many ordinary everyday activities are becoming more difficult or even illegal. Even organizing a street party or a lemonade stand for kids is a bureaucratic nightmare.

We are slowly losing our freedoms and no one seems to care. It is bigger than a left or right issue. Both major parties do it.

I suppose that is why we are seeing the rise of minor parties and independents. It gives me hope - the 2 major parties and the Murdoch media rail against it - so it must be a good thing for democracy.

I took up the challenge and Googled 'Craig Minns'... LOL

There a few but the first Craig Minns to come up is a paedophile in Tasmania. I'm going to give our Craig the benefit of doubt that this can't possibly be the man we read hear.

I wonder if Craig or BJelly would supply us with a list the "many ordinary everyday activities are becoming more difficult or even illegal".

Surely no one applies to their local Council for a permit (presumably for their child) to have a lemonade stand. Got anything real to add to your list Jelly Baby.

You're right, CH, the person you refer to is not even a relative to the best of my knowledge. I live in Qld and have never lived in Tassie.

BJelly, I don't have a problem with the major parties, but I would like to see more effort made to find proper compromise solutions to problems rather than the pandering to the weak of mind and trembling of lip that seems to be the order of the day. The Parliament is meant to be the place in which our elected representatives set aside their personal issues and strive to come to the best possible decisions on matters that affect us all, with due and proper consideration of all the facts and implications. That includes representatives of all sides and parties.

Peter Coates, I have not mentioned the person you refer to and have no particular interest in him, other than to point out that prosecuting a doctor for practising medicine seems slightly weird. You might like to note however, that the story mentions that the police are seeking orders through the Court, which is somewhat at odds with your preferred option of "just drop a bomb on the nearest Mosque and she'll be sweet".

Craig Moons' desire to:

"drop a bomb on the nearest Mosque and she'll be sweet"

should be of concern.

Are you suggesting it for which Australian mosques - in Melbourne or Sydney?

B Jelly,

"Our laws traditionally assume people are innocent until proven guilty. This law reverses that - people will be considered guilty until proven innocent."

That is so in theory but not in practice.
There was wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the Greens, in NSW, frothed at the mouth when the Shooters' Party (as it then was) successfully brought a Bill to Parliament, that the onus of proof be put upon the prosecution where persons were claiming self defence.
The Greens called it a licence to murder; needless to say none of their dire predictions came about.
In practice one is guilty unless one has the money for an expensive defence.

"I wonder if Craig or BJelly would supply us with a list the "many ordinary everyday activities are becoming more difficult or even illegal"."

Well, in some country towns it is no longer possible to breed one's hens as the keeping of a rooster is illegal.
Seems that some of the retired people from the cities don't like the sounds of the country.
The northern NSW town of Glen Innes was founded in 1852 and in 2012 the Rooster Ban came into effect; 160 years of crowing gone for nowt.

Hi Craig Minns

I'm willing to call a truce and let bygones be bygones if you are.

Regards

Pete

I love your "reasoning", BJelly. Australia's enemies are not ISIS, Al Qaida, Jemaah Islamiah, or Boko Haram, the real enemies are Tony Abbot and his Immigration Minister.

It is not against the law for an elected government minister to either bestow or take away the citizenship of dual nationals. He already has that power and he need not ask a court for permission. The stripping of citizenship for dual nationals fighting with an enemy state against Australia is automatic and already law. I am tired of explaining to you that the only difference today is that private armies in countries who's rulers are not recognised, do not legally met the definition of a "state." If you are a Muslim who left Australia and went to an ISIS or Nusra Front area, then you did not go as a tourist to view the Roman ruins at Palmyra.

You must be thinking of applying for membership of the bar if you think that Australia should be governed by the judiciary. I see that one ISIS recruiter in Australia who has been charged with terrorism offenses is already taking his case to the High Court. Shades of Man Haron Monis who did the same thing and was granted legal aid by the bureaucrats who just love throwing away taxpayer money defending terrorist loonies. I wonder how many millions in legal fees this is going to cost us? The lawyers would support your proposal to the hilt. 130 "Australian" terrorists in Syria ringing up their lawyers and getting legal aid to fight their cases for having their citizenship revoked. And you support them?

The society I want to live in is a fee society where I don't have to worry about being blown to bits on a bus or a train, or having my head sawn off by some imported religious nutter screaming "Allah Akbar!" One group of arrested terrorists in Australia had been planning to behead a random victim in Martin Place, at the same time that I was going through there every morning to go to work.

Hi conservative Hippie,
To answer your questions:I wonder if Craig or BJelly would supply us with a list the "many ordinary everyday activities are becoming more difficult or even illegal".

"Girl's lemonade stand shut down by WA council over health and safety concerns"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-23/bunbury-girls-lemonade-stand-closed-by-council/5985992

"Single mum faces $200,000 fine over kids' cubby which need 'planning approval'"
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/single-mum-faces-200000-fine-over-kids-cubby-which-need-planning-approval/story-fnhocxo3-1226690332078

"Dad forced to apply for approval from Mitcham Council to keep kids’ cubby house"
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/east-hills/dad-forced-to-apply-for-approval-from-mitcham-council-to-keep-kids-cubby-house/story-fni9lkyu-1227234514314

"A Parkinson woman fined by Brisbane City Council for parking in her driveway is fighting back"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-parkinson-woman-fined-by-brisbane-city-council-for-parking-in-her-driveway-is-fighting-back/story-e6frg6n6-1226768146038

"Adelaide councils ban car 'For sale' signs"
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-councils-ban-car-for-sale-signs/story-e6frea83-1225864047471

There is more, but you get the idea.

Hi Lego,

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of spending half of my posts correcting your deliberate misrepresentations of my position. It is wrong of you to frame my views in such a dishonest way.

I'm tired of the rudeness and condescension in your posts.

I'm tired of the endless ad hominem attacks.

When I see you treating other posters with the respect they deserve, I will start replying to your posts.

There is enough negativity in this world. You bring fear, hatred and discord with your posts. And I'm not going to participate in that.

That is good to read, BJelly.

Please refrain from commenting upon my posts because if you do, you can bet I will return fire.

En guarde.

Yeah, BJelly, watch out! LEGO might spout more crap.

Craig

Since you don’t understand what you’re talking about, I’ll explain it to you one more time.

In judicial review of *executive* action, the courts only look at whether the executive action was lawful. There is nothing unlawful about the Parliament vesting decision-making discretion in an executive officer. They do it all the time: it’s standard practice in any statute you care to mention, including all the ones you are in favour of.

Even where the courts find executive action unlawful for breach of a common law rule, for example the requirement of procedural fairness, the question is still only ever whether the *Parliament intended* to require procedural fairness.

As for judicial review of *legislative* action, this is not intrinsically required by the rule of law. For example, the courts in the UK do not claim or exercise any power to declare Acts of Parliament invalid. Our courts do it only because we have a written Constitution: the courts have the job of determining the limits of shared power as between branches of the federal government, and as between the feds and the States.

In determining whether an Act is constitutional, the courts will only look at whether the impugned law is properly characterised as within a head of legislative power conferred on the Parliament by the Constitution. In this case, they will only ask whether the Parliament had the power to revoke citizenship under any power conferred by the Constitution.

Not even you have denied that they have this power.

Your objection to the proposed law goes only to your political opinion, not to its constitutionality.

But once the court finds that the actions of the executive are authorised by the statute, and the statute is authorised by the Constitution, they will not substitute their personal political opinion for the Act of Parliament, which is all your lame-brained argument amounts to.

Neither the legislature, the judiciary or the executive have ever claimed that the rule of law intrinsically requires that every administrative action must be judicially reviewable.

If turdy self-opinionated circularity was constitutional law, you’d be a Chief Justice.

Apparently I do understand, JKJ.

"Tony Abbott's plan to use ministerial discretion to cancel the citizenship of dual nationals suspected of terrorism activities - without trial or conviction - has proved unconstitutional"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-laws-on-terrorism-could-be-retrospective-for-dual-nationals-20150623-ghvf07.html

You do understand, don't you, that what determines the constitutionality of a proposed law is not articles in the Brisbane Times?

The Brisbane Times, as a journal of record, is quite good at reporting the events of the day, such as the Government of the day choosing to act on advice that their proposed course of action was unconstitutional. As I said it would be shown to be.

Never mind old chap, I'm sure you're awfully good at conveyancing and serving notices to quit and that sort of thing.

My impression is that the point made earlier that the changes to the law are primarily dealing with the enemy someone may be fighting with not being a recognised state is correct - is there serious rebuttal of that point which I've missed?

The other broader part of this debate seems to resolve around the use of Australian courts to determine the guilt or otherwise of those suspected of fighting with an enemy group.

My broad position is that rules of evidence and due process should always apply and I have grave reservations when governments have the ability to circumvent those processes. Having said that I also have grave reservations about the practicality of proving to appropriate domestic standards events which occurred in a foreign war zone, where many of the witnesses will be dead and where the combatants appear to be fond of wearing face coverings. Where does that lead, aquittal through lack of evidence or lowering the burden of proof with a possible flow on to the burden of proof required in other situations?

I don't think that there is a credible case for believing that trial by jury on Australian soil to prove involvement in fighting with groups such as ISIS in the middle east is a practical way of dealing with this situation.

The simple solution for those who don't want to get caught in this is to stay out of relevant war zones unless they are there in a recognised capacity.

I do think the government should put in place some form of independent review process for decisions made on this issue to reduce the risks of partisan decisions being made regardless of what powers ministers have held in the past.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,
As I understand the amendment being proposed by the Government, the purpose is to make some proscribed organisations equivalent to a foreign state for the purposes of determining the status of individuals who choose to act on behalf of those organisations. I don't see a lot wrong with that, since there are already well tested processes in place, with my only quibble that there must be properly available evidence that can be examined independently to prove that such actions have taken place and that the accused individual intended to do so, or was recklessly imprudent in knowledge of the consequences.

I think there needs to be some serious consideration given to the definition of what constitutes a relevant war zone as well and whether the individual is acting in a way that threatens national security, rather than simply exercising his conscience in supporting a cause that he feels is just in a way that does not abrogate his allegiance to Australia. It seems to me that there is some danger in our nation showing too much willingness to loosen our own allegiance to our citizens, since it may well lead some to feel their own allegiance to the nation can be loosened.

It doesn't do anyone much good to rescind the citizenship of people who commit terrorist acts after the event, so the main purpose of any government actions should be to reduce the chance of people being radicalised. Zaky Mallah made the point, which I've made previously, that the young men who are most likely to become radicalised may well be inflamed by this. If so, it's a very counter-productive course of action.

There was actually a couple of clauses in the Magna Carta to do with Usury (Interest) that were removed by private banks.

I'm not well informed on the facts, but I heard that the clause prevented Jewish money lenders from charging more than 6% interest, and that the penalty for doing so was that the lender was fined 2 or 3 times the excess interest he (or she) unlawfully charged.

I think it would be great if a law were passed that no loans could ever be charged at more than 5 percent interest.

The biggest problem in the world today (above our so-called democratic politicians that allowed it to happen) is private central banks issuing the public currency at a loan with interest... that compounds year upon year..

Interest bearing currency.

Don't people realise that under this system we are all enslaved?

New money is only ever created as a loan (against a bond)
The bond may be repaid but this lowers the amount of money in circulation, but the interest continues to accumulate.

I'm no economist or money manager, but does this not mean that the debt WILL ALWAYS be greater than the amount of money in circulation and that eventually the size of the debt will become greater than the entire economy itself?

And that all this money that we pay interest on, the majority of which was never even printed, -is just numbers on a screen.

"that the young men who are most likely to become radicalised may well be inflamed by this. If so, it's a very counter-productive course of action."

That seems to often be the case with government intervention. They often aggravate situations rather than reducing the risk.

As is often the case though there does not seem to be neat answers to this. It becomes a lesser of evils.

Anybody willing to support ISIS, actively fighting or not has in my view crossed a line that makes them a serious risk to others. ISIS itself publishes enough of it's evils online that there is no risk of their character being misrepresented enough to make a difference. I'd rather tolerate the risk that we may not have accurately determined the danger an ISIS supporter poses than place others at risk.

The bigger issue in my view is accountability for those making the decisions so that the power is not allowed to be abused behind a screen of secrecy.

R0bert

Never mind old chap, your opinion that the Brisbane Times is the highest constitutional authority is not just wrong but very stupid, and you're contradicting your own theory that rights are whatever the government says they are, but I'm sure you're awfully good at playing in the sandpit of your kindergarten, throwing temper tantrums and that sort of thing.