As Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, published 30 September 2003, it appears to me that Howard Glenn obviously lacks a proper understanding what is constitutionally applicable in the commonwealth of Australia!

Human rights, whatever the may be in another country, do not dictate what is or isn’t constitutionally applicable in the Commonwealth of Australia. Like the UN cannot dictate/authorise if the Commonwealth of Australia can go to war, neither can so the prime minister, as this is in the hands of the Governor-General, as I have set out extensively in my book.

Say, that someone by error build a house on your land and have it painted purple. Would you argue about the purple colour or rather about the building being illegally on your property?

The same is with Human Rights. No other country can interfere with State rights unless the states themselves joint such membership of nations. The Commonwealth of Australia does not appear to have any constitutional powers in that regard. It has no constitutional powers to hold refugees in the concentration camps named Commonwealth Detention Centres either! Further, only the States can enforce commonwealth law against citizens. Therefore, it is useless to argue issues if you are not first addressing what is constitutionally appropriate!

The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers as to the liberty and property of citizens, but as long as we permit them nevertheless to do so what is the sense in arguing they are not doing it in a humane way?
If we stop in the first place the unconstitutional conduct then no need to argue about denial of human rights!
If just, people consider the most obvious first!

As the Commonwealth Detention Centres are unconstitutional, any State can refuse the Commonwealth of Australia to transport people to and from such Commonwealth Detention Centres using its territories!
The solution is more obvious then what most people seem to be aware off!

Fi "Some comments posted in response to this article amount to racial vilification and are apt reminders of the urgent need for the elimination of racial discrimination in Australia. "

That is an opinion which you are entitled to express. However, simply aluding to supposed racial vilification means nothing - if you have an "issue" with what someone has posted here, I suggest you identify and address it to the "poster" which you claim so offends.

If you do not have the courage or courtesy to make direct challenges, do not bother with pointless asides which go nowhere - they are a waste of time reading and thus a waste of time you posting.

And to be honest, as nations go, Australia is one of the most "racially tolerant" nations on the face of the earth, considering how "tolerant" most African, South American, Asian, European, North American and Middle Eastern Nations are (I think that covers the rest of the world at least - and none of them can afford to point a finger at Australia).

QUOTE
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, March 21, 2005 4:51:54 PM
Posted by Hamlet_Ofinn, Monday, March 21, 2005 6:14:05 PM
Some comments posted in response to this article amount to racial vilification and are apt reminders of the urgent need for the elimination of racial discrimination in Australia.

Posted by Fi, Monday, March 21, 2005 7:37:21 PM

END QUOTE

NONE OF THEM APPEARS TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISCRIMINATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!

While personally, I deplore discrimination, nevertheless, I must bow to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which specifically was designed, and approved by referendums, to discriminate.

If we do not wish to have any from of discrimination then we ought to put it to a referendum to omit Section 51(xxvi) from the constitution!
For those who are unaware of it, section 51(xxvi) cannot be used against the “general public”, hence the Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional, as I have set out in my book As Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, published 30 September 2003

As to the issue of being a citizen, not even the judges of the High Court of Australia understand this issue.
“citizenship” is normally attached to a person who by State legislative provisions obtained State citizenship, and by this AUTOMATICALLY obtained Australian citizenship.
Being a citizen of a suburb, village, etc can be any person when residing in that environment.
Australian citizenship cannot be applied for, it can only be obtained by obtaining State citizenship.
And, those of British blood coming to reside in a State in the Commonwealth of Australia AUTOMATICALLY obtain State citizenship and so Australian citizenship!
Australian nationality has got nothing to do with Australian citizenship!
Neither has the Commonwealth of Australia any constitutional right to define/declare the nationality of a person born in the Commonwealth of Australia, as they are natural Australian nationals, regardless if both parents are “aliens” (refugees or otherwise)!
And, refugees are no illegal immigrants, as only a State Court can determine their guilt or innocence.
Check your facts!

Mr. Hore-Schlovka is quite wrong in several respects. There is nothing equivocal about being a citizen: citizenship is conferred by birth or naturalisation within a nation. There is a connotation to do with being a citizen of any given community, which implies accepting civic responsibilities, and receiving civic benefits, but this meaning is loosely derived from participation in ancient Greek polites or a Roman civitas, though citizenship here was very clearly defined with sharp distinctions made between citizens and metics or preregrines.

So far as anyone being able to turn up from Britain and claim citizenship, that is a sheer nonsense. There was a civic reciprocity some years ago when Australians were British subjects, but it no longer exists. Many Britains are now refused citizenship, though of course this is unfortunate, don't you think.

If you want to be an an arbiter, develop a deeper knowledge of your subject.

Greg Deane

Col Rouge claims that we are the most racially tolerant nation on earth. Yet one of the key planks for federation in 1901 was the formalisation of state-sanctioned racism inflicted upon the hapless Chinese for the previous 50 years. 'Australia for the White Man' was on the masthead of the Bulletin until the late 1960s. Even now under our much debauched multiculturalism, the Chinese are still being treated as second class sometimes. (See my essay, White ghosts and Chinese middlemen devils,OVERLAND 175,2004)

The fact that China is not as lucky as we are on the Democracy stakes does not in any way invalidate its observation on our shameful treatment of our Aboriginal peoples. I would have thought that there is no argument now that the Brits stole their land and decimated their numbers and cultures through disease, the destruction of their hunting grounds, the 'dispersal' practices, and even the poisoning of water holes and flour.

CERD may be a cause of embarrasament for us from time to time. But if we are to claim to be high up on the totem pole of humanity then we have to take critcism in a 'manly' fashion. John Howard's track record is that he is not averse to playing the race card to his political advantage.(His 1988 anti-Asian immigration stance; his 2001 transmorgrification of the 'yellow peril' to the 'brown peril'.) But even he wants a legacy, an honourable one. Remember how Lynton Crosby designed a market survey after their victory in 2001 to tell us that voters voted on the economic record of Howard and not on his puffed up border security patriotism? There is also a chance that Howard's recent $1bn gift to a failed state is just another plank to an honourable exit into the sunset.

Progress is often slow. It took the two Wars to dismantle European colonialism. It might take a generational change for us to become more civilised and mature. Hang in there. Give our descendants something they can be proud of.

Chek Ling

Also Col Rouge, it is irrelevant how tolerant we are in comparison to other countries. The idea is to aim to be the best, not to be self-serving, self-satisfied and pat ourselves on the back for being better than everyone else.

To be even better, we need to constantly look at the areas in which we are failing and the plight of the Indigenous people is quite obvious evidence of this.