Hi there PERICLES...

You make me laugh, you really do ! You've this unique turn of phrase that I find both refreshing and downright amusing, and in this sorry ol' world of ours, a bit of humour is very much needed I reckon.

And how are you BELLY my friend ? In one of of you threads herein you stated '...I dislike leftist lawyers...' or similar words. My only dissent to that statement is, I dislike ALL lawyers, particularly those who happen to engage in matters associated with everything that isn't in accord with my own beliefs ?

I know, I'm merely trying to be funny...and apparently failing miserably.

YVONNE made some interesting points too, apropos the seperation of the Judicary and Parliament. And in my opinion, she's quite correct. True, the High Court does have it's place, and that's not necessarily to support popular opinion, rather to carefully elucidate and interpret law. And by so doing, equitably apply that Law, if and when the Court deems it necessary.

It's incumbant upon the Legislator's to carefully draft legislation, in such a way, that it closely reflects the will of government. And of sufficient precision and fidelity, the High Court can't establish fault with it.

And in conclusion, I don't 'think' the Malaysian Solution will necessarily work BELLY ? It's the arithmatic of the whole deal that I find troubling - we send over 800, they return 4000 ? Anyway, we'd soon reach the point of 800, don't you think, and then what happens ?

Another 800 for yet another 4000 ?

Cheers.

O sung wo/Phillips S lets do the maths.
And place our selves around the negotiating table.
Fact one Malaysia is part time home to thousands of refugees, more than this country.
Indonesia is too, most are not from those two country's, and, in truth not wanted there.
Do we agree so far?
A regional solution, one involving all our neighbors, needs wins for all sides, not just us.
And end to boats, MAY be the driver to less refugees traveling via those two countrys.
Do we agree.
Now those in Malaysia are MOSTLY no potentual boat people, mostly sitting and waiting for legal settlement for up to ten years.
Any one think differently.
Our win?
800 soon after getting here [within a month?] end up in Malaysia.
They, needing a win too, get to see the end of? 4.000 long term stayers.
Yes it could take three 800,s three 4.000,s.
But it would work.
Who would come at what costs to be sent back to start.
IF if worked a bonus,for us Malaysia and Indonesia, far less refugees, trying it on.
Those who fail to see the recent returns for what they are, proof no ones life was in danger are blind.

Pericles the USA Public debt is more than 100% of GDP.The US Fed has off balance sheet transactions of $16 trillion.Are they going to add that to USA public debt.China is holding US private debt of a $ trillion or more.Now QE3 will be open ended.Who are you fooling? When the derivative market collapses hyper inflation will follow.Google Barnaby is Right and explain how our banks can have a $15 trillion derivative exposure with only $2.66 trillion in assets of which many are loans based on inflated property values?

Which country has real productivity backing it's money and debt? The West has little manufacturing and is totally consumed by debt and your worthless derivatives.

China in 2008 refused to let the Western Banksters to further erode their sovereignity that is why the Banking Military Industrial Complex is now demonising them.China has won the peace while the Western Imperialists now contemplate nuclear war.

Prattle on some more Pericles.It is quite amusing.

The job of the High Court is to 'make judgements about the Law'. The reason for separation of powers as Yvonne refers, is to avoid situation of absolute power to any one sector of the the groups that maintain governance within Australia.

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss35.html

Fact is the decision by the High Court does not necessarily affect parliamentary decisions as revealed in the recent Chaplaincy in Schools ruling. The government can move to amend legislation if it sees fit.

One of the problems with ASIO vetting procedures (and I believe it is the same for security vetting for asylum seekers) is there is no right of reply or ability to contest supposed claims. This issue has nothing to do with refugee policy per se. It is more about the fact that any one organisation should have complete power over this process. Seemingly goes against principles of ability to defend oneself (or through legal process) in the face of 'unseen' or 'secret' reports.

It is however, perfectly reasonable to refuse a visa for asylum status should the person be deemed through fair process as unfit for citizenship eg. mass murderer, serial killer etc. Also, reports show the government has, or is about to, implement a review process to ensure the security vetting is as transparent as possible.

pelican I found nothing to disagree with there.
I understand it all, my concern is when, an it happens too often, green/left Lawyers take governments to court.
Surely after a win, as they had in Malaysian Solution, they over rule both government and majority intentions.
I admit, after putting this thread up, my fear this ruling may see an unwanted person set free in the Australian community has been proved wrong.

A couple of issues about the above:

1) I don’t think anyone is bemoaning the Westminster systems separation of powers –though a couple of posters have tried to sidetrack things and make that an issue – what we’re are protesting is that some lawyers (often in receipt of public funding) or activist judges will through some obscure technicality seek to have a law interpreted in a way it was never intended , AND

2) I at least, have a further concern: what happens later –after we have determined someone is a security risk?
The story goes they are held till we find some other country willing to take them. But does anyone (in their right mind) seriously believe that we are going to find a lot of takers for those we have found a * security risk*? What is much more likely to happen is that they will stay in detention until some time down the track when one of the abovementioned lawyers or activist judges or the Greens (or a combination of all three) will find some loop hole or UN covenant that makes it illegal to detain them, and have them released into the community (and not beyond the realms of possibility, with a huge compensation for having been illegally detained.)