There is still one enemy of the people in the Rudd Ministry, and he is an enemy of the people because he was a New South Wales solicitor before entering Parliament in Canberra, and as a solicitor has been uncritical of the conduct of the Judges and Magistrates in Australia who were the slave-masters of the Howard Liberal Government.

He still tolerates insubordination by staff in his department and in some of the departments he administers and he is in conflict with the Acts made by the Labor Government between 1983 and 1996. He has no idea what the separation of powers is, or how it is supposed to work, and has continued some of Philip Ruddock’s wrong thinking. Until the 6th June 2009, he shared responsibility for law enforcement with another former New South Wales Solicitor, who had been Attorney General in New South Wales, and had been there when the suspension of Commonwealth citizenship, by the Liberal Party in that State took effect, in 1970, and was probably instrumental in continuing the misapprehension, that States are Equal to the Commonwealth.

The Australian Labor Party was ambivalent about Australian Citizenship. It was pushed by the States to grant them unilateral independence, from the Commonwealth, and Bob Hawke granted it to them by the Australia Act 1986, no doubt hoping that lawyers would tell him it was an oxymoron, and no one can continue a Constitution and repeal it in the same Act. Not one lawyer in a responsible position, since 1986, has been prepared to tell the Government it is almost totally unlawful.

In 1986 the Hawke Government continued as a law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This law makes the Commonwealth paramount, but has not been enforced for twenty three years, mainly because it strips power from State lawyers and restores it to the people. It has been subject of numerous posts here on OLO.

It has been a criminal offence carrying a penalty of seventeen years imprisonment, to fail to apply the Covenant, since the 16th October 2001. Will the AFP now enforce it

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

You are correct.. I should have addressed the comment to “Peter the Believer”

Please accept my profound apology Banjo.

Col R

And maybe "Peter the Believer" could respond

I know I carry on a bit sometimes, but I am a passionate Australian, and love our Country, but cry at the injustice I see inflicted upon innocent people by ruthless and mercenary individuals, who are clearly breaking the written laws of this my Country.

I despair at the fear I see in the eyes of some politicians. I have known a few, over the years. One of them has a Crucifix and Holy Bible on his desk in Canberra, but is fearful of raising the question of State Corruption in Canberra, “because they have all the guns!” Quote.

Citizenship should carry with it the right to have the Commonwealth Government stand behind every person, when they claim the protection of the Laws of the Commonwealth. The Australian Federal Police symbol has a Crown on the top of it. It is the Paramount Police Force in Australia. The Act creating that Force, in S 8 states that its duty is (b) the provision of police services in relation to: (i) laws of the Commonwealth;

The Commonwealth Australian Federal Police is therefore able to ensure that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is recognized as a law of the Commonwealth, by the simple expedient of prosecuting an offender under S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth).

This will upset Father Frank Brennan, who has been on a junket around Australia trying to convince us it is not yet law. It would upset Kathy Branson, the former Federal Court Judge, who is now the Human Rights Commissioner, because it means she has been refusing to accept complaints against Judges and Magistrates. But what the heck. Lets give it a go!

I subscribe to blue dog theory. Blue dog theory is that if you have a credible stick, your little blue dog will obey your commands. No stick and your blue dog will not. True fact from life experience. There have been no blue dogs, to keep the lawyer cattle honest since Federation. In 2001, the stick was put in the cupboard. It is clearly time it was taken out

'On what grounds should a granted citizenship be revoked and has this ever been done?'

These terrorist should be made to sign a statement when taking on citizenship declaring they agree to it being provoked if they commit certain crimes. The idiotic Governments of the last 30 years who embraced multiculturalism have a lot to answer for. The loonie left have got off lightly. They created this problem and their only answer to it is to label opponents of this mad policy bigots. I see the young muslims again creating havoc in France (like every other country they inhabit). Oh well that is secularism for you.

Sometimes you write the most hilarious things, runner.

>>I see the young muslims again creating havoc in France... Oh well that is secularism for you.<<

Actually, newsflash: that's religion for you.

Mind you, you are not alone in your ability to "get a laff". Here's PtB in full flight...

>>...a jury decided the punishment. That was a real democracy, and anyone who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan will recall the song, To make the Punishment fit the crime.<<

Gilbert was a satirist. This song is satire. Identifying it as an example of democracy in action is side-splittingly funny.

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk206.html

The Mikado was a despot. As Wikipedia so aptly put it, "[s]etting the opera in Japan, an exotic locale far away from Britain, allowed Gilbert to satirise British politics and institutions"

No juries were involved, PtB.

But more seriously, the question that is raised by this thread, and that lurks in the background like the proverbial elephant in the room, is the very nature of citizenship itself.

We seem to be quite happy to rabbit on about rights and responsibilities when it involves new citizens, i.e. ones who have recently arrived. But this effectively sidesteps the question why the same rules should not apply to all.

How about we start to call a spade a spade.

The underlying question is: how can we send these people back where they came from, with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of justification?

Be honest. That's what this thread is really all about, isn't it?

Horus certainly seems to think so.

Pericles

<< The underlying question is: how can we send these people back where they came from, with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of justification?

Be honest. That's what this thread is really all about, isn't it? >>

I think you've got to the numb of this entire thread.

Apparently some citizens are "more equal than others".

I was born in Australia, so automatically am a citizen and no matter what I get up to, my citizenship can never be revoked. But if you emigrate to Australia, swear an oath (which I never had to) and become a citizen, you can be sent back to your country of origin.

Bloody great double standard of 'mammoth' proportions.