Frank,
Let me again respond in point form.

Not fussed. Again I'll say to you that given his adoption of the islamic way, the government would be within their rights to revoke his citizenship. I commend to you some investigation of the workings of political islam and remind you of the duallistic nature therein, that is, it is acceptable for a muslim to lie to a non-believer if it furthers the cause of islam. How can we be sure that David's recanting of his conversion is true? In theory, it's like you ever really trusting the son-in-law who laid hurtful hands upon your daughter. There is a tendency in western society for forgiveness, so it's also possible that his citizenship won't be revoked. So be it.

Yes. Reprehensible delay.

There is nothing to suggest that any of those appointees will distance themselves from that which is right, proper and truthful.They would be acutely aware of the eyes of the world pointing in their direction. Shame upon them otherwise.
If you were one of the appointees, would you be swayed(having survived all attempts of perversion and being successful in your appointment anyway) by improper and/or inappropriate advances? Would you succumb and honestly maintain good relations with all your kin? I think not.

Who cares for the opinion of Admiral Harris? That's his belief system at work.

He may be among, or amidst or amongst them, but it doesn't mean he is one. So what? Opinion again.

PM,T,FM,A-G. Opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion.

No comment.

What?! The government can revoke citizenship on the basis of religion? tRAKKA you gotta get a grip on reality. Your opinion is welcome but you shouldn't dress it up as fact.

This article isn't about belief systems, it's about law and convention. There isn't one legal body on the planet that condones the abandonment of Hicks.

tRAKKA

Do you realise the enormity of the implications of your view that: '... given his adoption of the islamic way, the government would be within their rights to revoke his [David Hicks] citizenship'?

You are condoning discrimination on the basis of religion.

If such a position became government policy, some 300,000 Muslims in Australia would potentially be stripped of the rights.

If it's OK to do that to Muslims, why not also to Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and atheists?

Then why not extend it to Roman Catholics or other Christian denominations?

If it's OK for Australia to act in this way, why wouldn't it be OK for any government anywhere to practise the same oppression?

If it's OK for governments to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, would it not also be OK to discriminate on the basis of skin colour? Or political beliefs? Or gender?

Frank,
Wrong yet again. Please, please make the effort to read something about political islam. You may then understand. As I said, ANY muslim who claims to be a proper devout practising muslim must not tolerate the existence of any othe religious movement. Now go and read or sit on the naughty chair. Totally unasseptable...

Bennie,
You too, you wombat!

Frank and Bennie,
While I'm here. My point with the revocation issue is this.

He adopted an lifestyle that was in direct contrast to our own.
Religious practices aside,it condones any methods to undermine western culture.

Try and get your heads around this. He agreed to the possibility of killing you if you don't decide to see things as he does. That's ingrained into islamic culture. Do not kid yourselves otherwise.

As I said before, maybe his benefactors should be as enthusiastic now about his welfare as they were to train him.

Get off your stupid politically correct high horses and YOU see the reality for a change. Try being true to your own thoughts rather than adopting a crowd pleasing attitude that you yourself are uncomfortable with.

It's obviously very easy for you to be sheeplike and stay with the herd right now, but I do recommend thinking for yourself.

tRAKKA

So you're now arguing that "He [David Hicks] adopted an lifestyle that was in direct contrast to our own." I presume you mean in direct contrast to your own - since you have no mandate to speak for me. Now let's not quibble over that; let's just see where your logic leads.

If any other Australian wanted to adopt a lifestyle that was different from ours would it also be OK for the Government of the day to strip her of her citizenship? Suppose she went to live in the Kalahari Desert and adopted a nomadic subsistence lifestyle should she be stripped on citizenship? Suppose an Australian man went to live with an exotic religious sect in the wilderness of Brazil. Would the government of the day be entitled to strip him of his citizenship?

Simply choosing to live a different lifestyle to the norm is no crime. Crimes are precisely defined in our democratically-derived justice system. Governments that punish citizens just because they don't like their decisions to be different are governments of terror. And isn't that the whole point? If 'we' become like 'them' we have lost.

tRAKKA, I've read heaps about political islam (and know personally a number of Muslims) and I simply can't agree with you that 'ANY muslim who claims to be a proper devout practising muslim must not tolerate the existence of any other religious movement'. To claims that Hicks 'agreed to the possibility of killing you if you don't decide to see things as he does' is mere speculation in your part. And even if you are right, the fact is he did not kill or try to kill anyone. To agree to the 'possibility of killing someone' is not yet a crime.

So to run with your mixed zoological metaphors - I'm not sitting on a stupid politically correct high horse and I won't be sitting on the naughty chair with the herd, being sheeplike.

Thanks for the recommendation to think for myself. I think already - that's why we disagree.