The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Which Law rules? Australian law or ?

Which Law rules? Australian law or ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
So it's a beat-up

Pericles asks for a word

I suggest "boaz"
Posted by Shintaro, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 10:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGIR, as soon as I read the title of this thread I knew you had written it.

How? Because this sort of title and it's contents always lead up to anti-foreigner issues, only thinly disguised by you.
I read on to discover your discontent was about a Somalian refugee- a Muslim no doubt? No surprises there.

I'm sorry AGIR, but I tend to believe the wise Lexi's version of the court case to yours.
We may not always like the outcomes of some court cases, but all judges are constrained by the laws and acts of parliament.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 11:51:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGIR has it wrong.

Common law as it is called essentially means that the common good over rides any parliamentary law, and in the case of penniless squatters will not allow them to be evicted if it threatens their well being. Examples can be drawn from other cases in other countries.

This is standard application of Australian law.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 2:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Which part of "this is a piece of Australian legislation, in the form of an Act of Parliament, duly passed in Australia" did you fail to understand, Boaz?

>>The background to this was the "Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibities" where they ASSURED us... no.. it won't become 'law'....hah!<<

Section 6 (4) states:

"This Charter binds the Crown in right of Victoria and, so far as the legislative power of the Parliament permits, the Crown in all its other capacities"

The fact is, the clear wording of the Act clearly contradicts your accusation that "they ASSURED us..." If you had conducted even the most rudimentary search (it's even got its own stub in Wikipedia, for goodness' sake), you would have realized that your memory is not only highly selective, but actually faulty.

But your rant about the involvement of "foreign powers" is - or should be - an embarrassment to you.

>>1/ Is...Australia Sovereign?
2/ Did...we vote to be under the legal jurisdiction of a foreign power? (UN)
3/ What happens when a COUP D'ETAT takes place? is it not that a 'new law' is established by the conquering power?<<

1/ Clearly, this is an entirely Australian, sovereign issue. Read the Act.

2/ The jurisdiction remains in Australia. Read the Act.

3/ Oh, puhle-e-e-e-ze...

Admit it, Boaz. In your anxiety to foment yet more xenophobia, you jumped the gun on this, and shot your mouth off before checking any facts at all.

Not only that, you even misunderstood the key issue in the case.

Quite a sad display, all told.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 4:02:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi team.

Another vigorous discussion is underway!

The "Charter" is based on the UN conventions. The content reflects it.

Pericles does the old shell game trick "So.....where is the pea?" under that one ? NOOO (dill)..it's under....THIS one!

i.e.. Pericles points to the 'existence' of the Charter in our statutes now, with no regard for the history of how it got there.

Hulls! ('antiChrist' ? one of a number)

“The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities formally protects 20 important rights and, by implementing this charter, we are sending a clear message about the way we in Victoria wish to live and be treated -- with dignity and respect.”

What utter unadulterated complete stinking rubbish!

He rambles on:

Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities was drafted after a lengthy public consultation. There was widespread agreement that the 20 rights in the charter should be formally protected in law.

Ooooooh yeah! "consultation".. we know about that Mr Hulls...don't we.

LABOR LIES
Jenny Mikanos (to me by email ) "The Equal Opportunity Reform act was subjected to wide public consultation including the Faith groups.. even the Catholic Church supported it."

REALITY 'Submission by Catholic Church to the SARC on this change to the law'.... "We are happy with the law AS...IT...IS!

So MUCH for Labor "public consultation"

I also wonder.. if the 'consultation' included such things like..
//"Much of our law will be invalidated by this, and the Director of Public housing will be legally castrated in his attempt to enforce the law over YOUR and MY tax payer dollar funded public houses"//

Nope.. guarantee they didn't say that. Because IF...they HAD... you can be sure the 'public consultation' might have had a different outcome.

It essentially PROTECTS unlawful opportunistic squatters (thieves)who are abusing our tax payer funded public houses.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 5:48:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow....

//Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'état, regardless of the intentions//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#Relation_to_rule_of_law

The fact that this process occurred within Australia does nothing to diminish the reality of where it comes from, and who is pulling the strings. It becomes a Progressive/Socialist overlay on Aussie sovereignty which is enacted by deception.

Just ask a few of your neighbours how THEY feel about the original case cited!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 5:54:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy