The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia's Constitution: the referenda we need to have > Comments

Australia's Constitution: the referenda we need to have : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 3/11/2017

Parts of Australia's Constitution clearly are either inappropriate, out-of-date or simply don't work.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
You wouldn't be a constitutional lawyer by any chance would you klaasvaak?

About the only people likely to benefit from any constitutional change apart from recent blowins, & some members of the aboriginal industry, would be the legal fraternity.

They would have legal challenges going on for decades, challenging interpretations made by other of the legal fraternity.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 3 November 2017 1:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi ttbn,

>>The purveyors of mass immigration and multiculturalism certainly have a lot to answer for. Critics of our Constitution are juvenile whingers with developmental problems.

Agreed. And if we want a glimpse of Australia's future under the influence of the multi-culti Left, here it is - Australia now is a microcosm of what is ALREADY HAPPENING in Merkel's Germany:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11264/germany-refugee-shelters

That is how "diversity" works. The only way to punish the Merkels of this world is to wish more "diversity" on them.

Foxy,

So you're proposing that we allow people holding dual (or multiple) citizenships to become Members or Senators? And what happens then, when, say, North Korean, Chinese, Yemeni, or Afghan Members or Senators make it all the way to Cabinet, where they will, as a matter of course, have access to Australian Eyes Only security documents? Just trust people with, at best, divided loyalties, because we mug Australians might think it impolite to do otherwise?

I accept that many migrants are not a risk. But too many are risks we don't need and the idiot who runs ASIO is in denial about that in his evidence to Senate committees.

The framers of the Constitution were right and nothing has changed.

Why should we accommodate within our political system, people who hate us and everything we value? Why should we accept the higher crime rates which have followed directly from unwise immigration policies? Why should we accommodate calls for Sharia law, for example? Why should we continue to allow immigration from people who have not the slightest interest in integration, who join the black economy and Middle Eastern bikie gangs? And why should Australian taxpayers be expected to pay for all the downsides of such moronic arrangements? And why allow immigration from anyone who wants all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of Australian citizenship?

Hasbeen is correct: our approach to legal immigration, economic invaders who arrived illegally on boats and "refugees" should be a lot more discriminating.
Posted by calwest, Friday, 3 November 2017 2:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further thoughts on "diversity" from the American journalist and blogger Fred Reed:

https://fredoneverything.org/anti-togetherness-the-virtues-of-disunity/
Posted by calwest, Friday, 3 November 2017 2:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beware klaasvaak. He is a retired academic probably looking for something to meddle in. He has appeared on Q&A. Immediate trigger warning. His suggestion that the Constitution needs a complete rewrite is bizarre. He revealed his name on OLO a short time ago, if you can be bothered looking for it. None of our crappy elites could be trusted to rewrite the Constitution.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 3 November 2017 3:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
calwest,

I'll tell you what 'diversity' means: it means fewer white people. Any white person championing diversity is like a turkey looking forward to Christmas.

Implementation of mass immigration, the homosexualisation of society, and cheering the 'other' is not diversity: it is identarian ideology. The current mob of 'diversity' pushers do not really want diversity: they want 'sameness of views', disguised in a myriad of foreign faces, tattooed females with crewcuts' and the 'forever young', with no 'pale stale males' in sight. Diversity is their cover for societal destruction.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 3 November 2017 3:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get rid of the states and then start again.
Posted by ateday, Friday, 3 November 2017 4:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy