JKJ,

Your sharp and shiny comment is an excellent one to complete this conversation. It would be nice if a certain person apparently studying for his kindergarten entry exams allowed you to have the last word.

Too late, ttbn. In a fantastic example of recursive irony you've already made your own comment redundant.

JKJ:"Judicial review is to determine the validity of executive action; but your and the author's objection is to legislative action. "

Once again, JKJ, you misunderstand. The Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, but it is in the execution of those laws that the devil lies.

You shoot your own argument down in your quoted extracts. This is not an issue of immigration if the people involved are Australian citizens. It is not an issue of criminality unless a court has found that criminality is proven and it is not a foreign affairs matter, except to the extent that there may be implications for the relationship with other states, once again because these are Australian citizens in question.

The power to revoke citizenship may well be constitutional to the same extent that the power to grant it is, but it is most certainly not a summary power and should be treated with proper judicious attention to the details of the law. The potential for uncomfortable precedent is large and must be considered.

You're right to say that my personal liking for a particular law is not relevant; this is the whole point of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and in fact of the Magna Carta and Parliamentary Sovereignty. I'm glad we see eye to eye on the undesirability of allowing laws to be made based on personal preferences, such as, for example, your obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic.

CM
"The Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, but it is in the execution of those laws that the devil lies..."

You're contradicting yourself. If the Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, then it can enact how it is to be executed. That disposes of all your objections.

"The power to revoke citizenship may well be constitutional to the same extent that the power to grant it is, but it is most certainly not a summary power and should be treated with proper judicious attention to the details of the law"

The question is only what is the constitutional status of a law "most certainly" enacted by Parliament, if Craig Minns "most certainly" disagrees with it?

"This is not an issue of immigration if the people involved are Australian citizens."

It's an issue of immigration if it involves non-citizens coming in to the country, and the effect of the proposed laws is to revoke citizenship, remember?

So either they're non-citizens, and you lose the argument that Parliament lacks the power under the immigration power; or they are citizens, and you lose the argument under the naturalization and aliens power.

"It is not an issue of criminality unless a court has found that criminality is proven and it is not a foreign affairs matter..."

You're back to arguing that the opinion of Craig Minns, a pseudonymous poster on the internet, is legally supreme over a law enacted by the Parliament. You are wrong, that is all.

"obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic."

Ho hum, Craig Minns' self-contradictions being pointed out, he descends straight-away into personal abuse as usual.

Craig, I've got more Muslims refugee status since 1993 than you've had hot dinners.

JKJ, your argument is fatuous. You seem to be advocating for a form of "Parliamentary Despotism", in which the rule of law devolves to the leader of the most numerous party of the day.

I wouldn't have picked you as an anarchist.

You do seem to be a slow learner though:"You're right to say that my personal liking for a particular law is not relevant; this is the whole point of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and in fact of the Magna Carta and Parliamentary Sovereignty. I'm glad we see eye to eye on the undesirability of allowing laws to be made based on personal preferences, such as, for example, your obvious personal dislike for Muslims, which borders on the sociopathic."

All
Notice how Craig Minns ignores the fact that he's just been disproved on every point he's tried but failed to defend, and instead tries to divert the discussion into his mind-reading, pseudo-psychologising, personal abuse, falsely assuming he's more concerned about Australia than anyone else, and just endlessly re-asserting that his opinion determines the constitutional validity of law in Australia?

Craig
Try some argument at your own intellectual standard.

Your hateful cowardly bigotted fear-mongering bile-spouting, and your obvious dislike for Australians only shows your sociopathic tendencies, and your fatuous despotism marks you out an anarchist.

There. Your own standard satisfies your intellect I take it?

To quote you: "Whatever you have to say about this or any other subject should be seen as a good guide to how not to think about that subject."

Kuranda
What active steps have you taken to publish your opinion that Mohammed was completely wrong in teaching that it's okay to commit murder, rape, and slavery against people who don't agree with Muslims' religious opinions?

That *is* your opinion, isn't it?

What steps have you taken to publicly criticise and condemn your co-religionists who are guilty of so many abuses throughout the world ever day?
http://www.barenakedislam.com/category/beheadings-graphic

Please provide proof so we know you are not lying.

//Notice how Craig Minns ignores the fact that he's just been disproved on every point he's tried but failed to defend, and instead tries to divert the discussion into his mind-reading, pseudo-psychologising, personal abuse, falsely assuming he's more concerned about Australia than anyone else, and just endlessly re-asserting that his opinion determines the constitutional validity of law in Australia?//

Great rebuttal there mate. I think it's fairly safe to assume that JKJ was never picked for his school's debating team.