I do believe, as I have said before, he should be allowed to speak in Australia. The speech should be Televised on every TV station.

Failing that, any speech he has made in other Countries should be Televised. I think that would have a great impact on the mindset of Australians & the horror of what this man proposes would be explosive.

The legal position regarding what one can do with 'one's' land has to take into account the rights and responsibilities of the Crown: this from Fry's "Land Tenures in Australian Law" (1947):

"No proprietary right in respect of any Australian land is now, or ever was, held, by any private individual except as the result of a Crown grant, lease, or licence and upon such conditions and for such periods as the Crown (either of its own motion or at the discretion of Parliament) is or was prepared to concede."

His full paper is on: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1947/42.pdf

This differs from the situation in many US states, where occasionally allodial title is recognised. But even in such rare situations, jurisdictions would enact some form of underlying title rights to be held by the sovereign power, i.e. the State, and thereby the extension of all its legislation over every bit of its territory.

Many Yanks can't seem to get their head around that. Sovereignty resides with the State, not with individuals.

So, in that sense, there is no rights to carry out crimes on 'private' property: it all comes under some overriding legislation, even in the US, and certainly here in Australia. Even Native Title assume rights of an overriding State or Territory government to legislate for, and protect the rights of, all of its citizens.

In other words, nobody is 'sovereign' over their own 'private' property. Let's bury that misconception once and for all.

Joe

Spot-on, CHERFUL !

It baffles me that, if some bunch of bikies were found to be in the habit of taking off young women, raping them, passing them around, trading them between gangs, we would all be rightly appalled and demand the maximum penalties - but as you infer, if it happens to involve Muslim men, particularly Arab men, the left would go dead-quiet: 'it's part of their culture, after all, and all cultures are equal and good, who are we to judge ?'

Appallingly gutless. As Hugo Rifkind wrote last seek, something like, we can have all the different foods and dances and songs and shoe designs we like, but we must defend one set of values, amongst which is surely the equality of men and women, and the rule of law.

So, do we defend a set of values for all Australians including women (actually 100 % including Muslim women), or do we devalue women ? Whatever happened to 'Reclaim the Streets' ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

The people who call themselves "the state" are nothing but a gang of robbers, whether that be the "Islamic state" or the "Australian state". All they have to say for themselves and their so-called right to sovereignty over a huge stretch of land, a whole continent in the case of the Australian gang, is the use of force over those who are militarily weaker then themselves. They never asked nor received any permission to rule over their victims who in fact live on that land.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Yep, that's how it is. 'Owning' a bit of land gives the 'owner' merely a limited range of rights to do with what he or she likes with that land. You can't commit crimes against other people on that land. You can't use it for prohibited purposes, such as dumping rubbish or storing nuclear materials.

Sorry, mate, you can't buy your way to doing whatever you like: what you're paying for is the right to use the land for definite purposes, and no more than that. Ask your local council.

Joe

A distant cousin of mine 5th. cousin I believe. was a bit of a widl child when he was a lad. The court sentenced him to 3 years Jail or 6 years in the Army. He chose the Army. & got out about 1965 & joined the Police Force. He must have done something right because in 69/70 he headed up the first Riot Squad (See Anti-Terrorist Squad) in Queensland.

He used to visit or we'd visit & for fun go through the "Old Laws" still on the Books. If I remember "The Blue Book." Many of these have been repealed of course & only recently. Like stopping at an intersection, getting out of the car waving a red flag, shouting a warning in the four directions & firing a shot, to warn people that an Automobile was about to cross the road. Also only one person was allowed to be in the Drivers Compartment (front seat). One very interesting piece of Law was, "No one could be arrested, for any reason, on the "Kings Highway, (a highway) an Easement or a Stock Route." Highways, Stock Routes & Easements traverse the entire length & breath of Australia. If you're in trouble stay on one of these forever. ;-)

I don't think these are still in force but some "very unusual Laws" still are.

Any comments OSW.