Dear Banjo,

I somehow don't think that any Minister is
going to take away a person's citizenship
simply because they were 'In contempt' in
a Court of Law. That is, they refused to
stand up. I don't think those actions
qualify as being - 'contrary to the public
interest.'

If we went around judging people only by their ability
to take oaths, stand up in court, salute the flag,
et cetera we'd not necessarily end up with a nation of
patriots. As history has shown - some of the biggest
traitors in the past were the ones that gave lip-service
to fidelity.

I imagine that the offence would have to be
far more serious than the
one you describe for a Minister to consider taking
away a person's Australian citizenship.

Belly,
RE: “ Just how tolerant are we supposed to be in accomodating others?”

Rather than ‘tolerant’, I think more appropriate words might be stupid or impotent..

--I recall we were not able to deport a convicted drug runner because it might contravene some UN covenant we had signed re "the rights of the child" .http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/10.html

--I recall we couldn’t stick with a deportation order on a convicted criminal who had no-citizenship--due to family connections.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/23/2170552.htm?site=news

--And, how many times have we --had to accept-- people who had destroyed their papers so their point of origin could not be traced.

It’s a joke -- I’m sure Australia's immigration laws must have been written by the Chaser team.

Banjo “I think achieving an extended criminal record should be grounds for revoking citizenship and expelling from the country like the killer in Victoria Ince (although he may not necessarily be a citizen, if he were his citizenship should he forfeit) must be returned to Turkey, regardless of his pleadings… An extended criminal record culminating in killing someone must be enough to expel him. At least he has been in detention since coming out of gaol but his appeals are not a warranted or justified burden for aussie tax payers to have to shoulder

“he is being medicated with warfarin, to keep him quiet.” (whilst it is a rat poison it is also used in the long term management of blood conditions as an anti-coagulant)

From extended continuous and current personal experience, I can assure you “warfarin” has absolutely no impact on ones vocality

From which I will assume the rest of the post tends to be more “dramatic rant” than fact.

Col,
You have erroniously attributed those comments to me. Please check.

Foxy,
Do you not believe that making an oath is serious? I do.

My marriage vows were, and are, very important to me.

If I sell an article for an agreed price and another person then offers me more for the item, I have to say sorry you are too late the item is sold, even if the item has not been picked up and paid for.

I see keeping ones word as basic to our society. How can we just disregard a breach of contract as unimportant. Or do we endorse 'cultural privilege'

I do not see how a person who has no respect for one of our basic institutions should still be able to vote, stand for election, hold an Australian passport and sit on a jury.

Those alleged terrorists now in jail in Melbourne will be tried under our laws and will face lengthy jail sentences. If citizenship were revoked those same alleged terrorists might be free to wander about their country of origin without restraint.

I know what you are getting at Banjo and I have often thought perhpas a probationary period of citizenship which can be revoked in the case of crime. But in hindsight this would not work, people are often at their best behaviour while under scrutiny so it would defeat the purpose.

In many cases there is often no longer a country of origin where refugee status has been given.

And better anyone convicted of a crime face our system of justice than a potentially skewed one overseas and one where their actions might be considered in the 'hero' category

There are two reasons why a person can be held against their will.

1) they have been committed of a crime

2) They have been "committed" by a magistrate.

Does anyone know why he is in there? crime or mentally ill.

What exactly is the medication?

The state govt. does not have the power to revoke citizenship, but can make a recommendation to the fed. minister.

Before we can continue this discussion can someone answer these questions.