J.O'n.

You didn't try to discuss the issue in terms of international law.

You gave your unqualified opinion that Australia is operating outside the law and its international obligations. When I asked you to cite authority you didn't, while still not resiling from what you couldn't defend. When I asked again, you still didn't supply any authority for your contention. Then when SM showed that what you were citing is not legally binding on Australia, you reply to the effect that everything's just a matter of opinion.

But it's not just a matter of opinion, that's the whole point. You're wrong. What you're saying is wrong, it's been repeatedly explained to you, and you won't give away a bad egg. You keep citing things which do *not* establish a legal obligation, as establishing a legal obligation.

There's every reason why you should be called on this technique, because if it's not intellectually dishonest, what is it? What do you call saying something that's not true, when you know it's not true, and it's been pointed out to you why it's not true, and you just keep saying it?

Has it ever occurred to you that when the Labor party sent people to Manus Island, they (Labor) knew they were lying to you about caring about the Convention? But according to you, by your own actions you prove, you think that's fine: it's okay to bullsh!t if you think you can manipulate people into doing what you want based on lies. How is that any different from what you've just tried on with us?

Jayb
The provisions of the Convention, of themselves, are not law. But they are law to the extent that the Australian Parliament has incorporated them into Australian law, which they have with the refugee definition.

JoN,

Australia legally has to abide by the terms of the UNHCR, however, some of the terms are open to interpretation such as "arbitrary" arrest and detention.

Arbitrary means:

"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. or unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority." As the detention was clearly not whimsical, the judgement then falls to the appropriate use of authority.

As Australia does not acceed to the UNCHR the decisions are made by the Australian High court, and the UNCHR is at best a reference.

All
Why is it not a solution to your concerns for Australia to withdraw from the Convention?

JKJ: The provisions of the Convention, of themselves, are not law.

Aha, now we are getting somewhere.

JKJ: But they are law to the extent that the Australian Parliament has incorporated them into Australian law, which they have with the refugee definition.

Show me, Page, Para, Sub Para. Then I would consider believing you. Show me the penalties for not abiding by the C &P. Page, Para, Sub Para.

My bet, you cannot.

1.
How much do you bet?

I've already quoted above the exact quote from where it's part of Australian law. I just haven't cited it, because I told you to look it up yourself.

2.
But before you lose as much as you wager, just think about it for a sec. If it's not part of Australian law (and we are agreed that merely being in the Convention doesn't make it so), what do you think is the basis o which the federal courts hear refugee claims - it comprises a huge part of their caseload plus there have been numerous High Court cases on them.

According to your theory, you are right and the High Court is wrong?

JKJ: I've already quoted above the exact quote from where it's part of Australian law. I just haven't cited it,

No you haven't. I have been through every one of your Posts & there is nowhere where you quote Chapter, Page, Para, Sub Para. Body. Or anything from the Migration Act at all pertaining to this discussion. So I assume that you are one of the crowd that wishes it so, so you quote continual BS. The judge must have a good laugh when he sees you in his court.

So, once again.

Show me, Page, Para, Sub Para. Then I would consider believing you.

Show me the penalties in the Migration Act for not abiding by the C & P. Chapter, Page, Para, Sub Para.

You can't because there is none.