All this waffle about 'rights'. Does this person not know that the Islamic savages who could face the stripping of their citizenship do not believe in anyone else's rights

Pretty deep, Xavier - but it goes even deeper:

So citizenship is meant to safeguard human rights.

And human rights are granted by states.

First the state took away our freedom, citing a contract we never signed, then they gave us some of it back as "rights".

Had the state not taken away our freedom in the first place, then we would need neither rights nor citizenship.

There is a simple but unpalitable way around this dilemma.
First recognise Islamic State, then declare war on Islamic State.
The 2nd step is just a recognition of reality anyway.

Then the rules of war apply. Anyone fighting with IS automatically
loses their Australian nationality. They are deemed to be a national
of IS and if they appear not in the national uniform with insignia, no
paybook or a serial number they can be shot as a spy.

If captured, equipped as above,they have to be treated as a POW, but
at the end or even before a cessation of hostilities, they could be
repatriated to IS or any successive government.

A delicious solution is it not ?

Well we are at war with ISIS! And if dual citizens go there to take up arms against our friends, allies and us, they are traitors, committing actionable treason! And able to be robbed of Australian citizenship, according to long standing law and precedent!?

In any event, I can find no redeeming argument for allowing them to keep their Australian citizenship; or return, but particularly if they know full well; that this would be the very first consequence for going to fight for ISIS, as more than willing volunteers/participants!

And I agree with Bazz; given ISIS sees itself as a state, let traveling intending terrorists become citizens of that entity, so they can't be actually rendered stateless!?

Not that it matters much, given believable accounts, volunteering folks (cannon fodder) can only leave as small blown apart particles; or, feet first and in a box; or just left where they fall?

And rendered stateless in any such event anyway!
Rhrosty.

Yuyutsu, I was just wondering which 'freedoms' the 'state' took away from us, and which ones do you think they should give us back?

Are you suggesting that all people should be stateless, and/or not be a citizen of any country? What a mess that would make of the world!

You are always on about what seems to be a lawless, free society.
Maybe you are living in the wrong country?

Dear Suse,

If you sing in a choir or play in an orchestra, then you have very little freedom: you must watch the conductor attentively all the time and follow all their instructions very accurately, you cannot even breath when they say you can't, let alone make your own music or in your own time - yet it is not a problem, because you joined the group voluntarily and happily and so has everyone else.

Yet if I knew that my choir/orchestra has members (other than myself), even one, that were forced to be there against their will, then I would have a serious moral problem about remaining there - no matter how much I otherwise enjoy it.

A society based on land rather than on people, who orders others around as to what they must and/or may-not do on the sole grounds that they happen to live over the adjacent hill/valley, rather than on the grounds that they were happily willing to be part of that given society, is immoral and has no right to exist.

To clarify, there is nothing wrong about taking the necessary steps to ensure that the people over the adjacent hill/valley do not harm you, but that's a totally different issue (which could be elabourated on) and the way to achieve it should not pass through forcing them to become "one of us" against their will.

So the ultimate and paramount freedom is the freedom from society, or the freedom to choose your own society(s) regardless of where you happen to live. Once you have made your choice, freely however and without coercion, to live in a given society, then, like in a marriage, freedom is no longer a requisite, then what counts is whatever was agreed between you and your chosen society, as normally expressed by its constitution.

The author's account of the origins of the law of nationality is not correct.

Both the modern and pre-modern concept of the law of nationality have in common the idea of a reciprocal duty between subject and State: the subject owing obedience and allegiance, and the State owing protection.

This notion pre-dates modern times. It did not come into being with the French Revolution, and the French Revolution or its Declaration of the Rights of Man did not fundamentally change it.

The only difference to the pre-modern concept that was added by the modern concept is the idea that the subject is a "citizen". The implication is that he is a kind of equal owner of the State, unlike a subject of a king.

However in law and in fact, a citizen is still a subject. He has the State forced on him. He is forced to pay for it. He is forced to obey. His withholding of consent is systematically ignored and violated.

The social contract is complete nonsense: it mply has no basis in reality. Neither society nor the State are formed by a "contract". The State in particular, is a legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making backed up by a legal monopoly of force and threats. It is moral, factual, logical, economic and legal nonsense to identify society with the State and the State with society.

The problem with the author's view of citizenship and human rights, and the dominant paradigm about human rights, is that they rest on the underlying notion that rights are whatever the State says they are.

The revoking of citizenship was always available to the State where the subject or citizen had violated his allegiance, and nothing about the current proposals changes that fact.

Therefore the current proposals do not represent a paradigm shift.

Yuyutsu
You have to understand that Susieonline defines freedom as whatever the State arbitrarily permits you to do, so like all statists she doesn't acknowledge any concept of freedom that is not dependent on the State's unilateral discretion.

Point 1. Xavier. The fact that some of Tony Abbot's ministers disagreed with the PM during a ministerial discussion on suspending citizenship is not a "party room revolt."

Point 2. You are correct to point out that the concept of citizenship has been evolving for hundreds of years. It is not an absolute concept. It is still evolving. You are objecting to it evolving away from some absolutist position that that you want it to be. Your position is that "citizenship" must conform to "Human Rights." Don't make me laugh. A "Human Right" is anything a left wing judge wants it to be. "Human Rights" are not absolute because they conflict with each other. And where the hell were you and your "Human Rights" coven when Andrew Bolt was being persecuted by the Human Rights Thought Police over freedom of speech? You pontificate over Human Rights when you see some mileage in it, and look the other way when they are against you.

Point 3. The idea that some sections of the population are so dangerous that stripping them of legal rights has a long and successful history in the English speaking world. The Pope and his followers were once (and rightfully) considered so dangerous to Britain that Catholics could not hold public office, nor own or inherit land. This was because of the Pope declaring that he had both spiritual and political power over all Britons, that it was not murder to assassinate the King (or Queen) of Britain, and his support for invasions of Britain by the Spanish, French and Irish. Toss in Catholic Guy Fawkes attempting to assassinate the entire British Parliament with a giant gunpowder bomb, and Catholics were regarded with suspicion and deep mistrust as traitors.

The automatic suspension of citizenship for dual citizens who engage in war against Australia has been in force since 1947. With the western world now being swamped by immigrants, both legal and illegal, it is once again pertinent to call into question whether people who are citizens and who wish to destroy our western civilisation should remain citizens.

Indeed Lego the cabinet room revolt against the PM was itself a very
healthy sign. It pleased me as it is an indication that decisions are
not made by a gang of four as in the last government but by even heated
discussion of the cabinet.

I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider the arguement to be a negative.

I as an Australian citizen expect the state to protect me and
my family from enemy agents within.

Too late to save anyone from the the soldiers who jumped out
of the trojan horse within the city once they had gained entrance
to Troy. The government couldn't save the people because
they did not realise the soldiers were hidden inside the wooden horse.

The Austalian government however, does know which enemy soldiers
are coming back into the midst of our unprotected citizens.

No good putting them in jail for 25years, so they get out at
45years with even more hate in them and let off bombs that blow
your childrens arms and legs off at the local shopping centre.
Or grab a gun and go and shoot all the kids at the local daycare centre.

I'd rather our government did not take that risk and ban them
from the country. Besides, they have broken their vow of
loyalty and allegiance to this country to gain citizenship,
therefore their citizenship becomes null and void.
The contract between us and them being broken by the breaking
of their citizenship vows.Which should be legally binding and not just words.