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.