(cont.)
CJ: Yes.
James: “You can find the relevant provisions and discussion thereon in any of the standard international law textbooks, especially those dealing with human rights.”
CJ: And is that your main argument?
James: Yes your Honour.
CJ: Haven’t you got the onus of proof back the front Mr O’Neill.? It’s not for us to disprove that the government’s actions are illegal. You’re the one alleging they’re illegal. You need to prove they’re illegal in the first place.
James: “this is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact.”
CJ: I see. Is that your main argument Mr O’Neill?
James: Yes your Honour.
CJ: Application dismissed; plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs.
James: “I do not appreciate your cheap shots.”

You guys are only making fools of yourself. All you’re doing is assuming something *subjective* - your feelings – makes actions that you don’t like illegal. And when I challenge that, you try to personalise the argument to me. No wonder the rednecks get incensed. You guys do nothing but talk down to them and when you know you’re wrong and you’re caught out, you just lie.

Look it’s quite simple. You need to actually quote objective sources of law, like the section of the statute or Convention, or the case law, for specific propositions.

Failing that, just admit you’re wrong.

Bruce
When you use words like tutorial and read this or that indicates a number of things.
You see this opinion site as an opportunity to educate others to conform to your views.

That Bruce is simply arrogrant. Who says your opinions are paramount and all others wrong or misinformed?
You?

that elephant is now in a very very small room.

LOL.

Don't worry, James O'Neill will turn up in another thread re-insisting that the government's actions are illegal.

It's like, they don't care that what they're saying is untrue.