I heard on radio, the six 'tinnie terrorists' who were apprehended somewhere in Northern Queensland, apparently while taking their first perilous steps to sail to Indonesia, in their preposterous efforts to join ISIS in Syria ? They faced a Melbourne Court today.

Apparently the supporters of this highly intellectual lot, had failed to stand in the customary way for the Magistrate. This show of obvious disrespect, naturally raised the indignation of said (female) Magistrate, and they were strongly censured for their arrogance and scorn. The learned defence counsel judiciously advised the Court thus, Muslims don't feel obliged to show respect, other than to Allah.

Once more, our legal system has been thoroughly sullied. Yet it's again shown a disproportionate level of forbearance, for our Muslim folk. Or is this simply another indelible sign that our Australian culture is going to 'hell in a hand basket'?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Have you considered the fact that those people do not want to be Australians, that all they wanted is to leave this place?

One of them at least was brought to Australia by force in the first place.

Why then should they respect your institutions?

OK, so they wanted to join Daesh and Australia is, very rightly so, fighting Daesh and therefore rightly so does what it can to prevent new recruits from joining the fight against it. That being the case, these men should not be tried as criminals before a criminal court, but instead detained as Prisoners Of War for as long as the war lasts, then sent back to their own natural place.

They are an enemy, not criminals - and enemies too need to be respected, not humiliated.

Yu, you have to be kidding. These thugs should never have been stopped from leaving. The authorities, by revoking their passports have simply retained the hatred in our homeland.

What should have happened was to let them leave, then cancel their passports so they cant return. Ever.

The best we can now hope for is to spend millions keeping these thugs in our own prisons.

In some countries you commit a serious crime, your whole family gets deported. Bring it on.

these muslims have a lot in common with the Greens. They hate every form of national Government and promote law breaking. They are also very happy to use violence to quench free speach.

'afternoon to you; YUYUTSU, REHCTUB & RUNNER...

YUYUTSU...

I disagree with your summation these 'six, sick, slugs' are war criminals and should be accorded the same respect as war criminals. One part of me agrees with many people, when they say simply let 'em go, NEVER ever to return whatever their reasons may be.

The copper in me says lock them up, maximum security, classify them as 'intractable' and treat them accordingly. Minimum term, 30 years without any possibility of parole nor licence. The Veteran in me says...well I'll not go there, as last time I copped heaps for declaring my intentions if circumstances existed similar to that in South Vietnam in the late sixties?

With respect though YUYUTSU, war criminals they're NOT. They are indeed the worst type of loathsome criminal you could imagine.
In conclusion, I agree with everything both REHCTUB (Butch) and RUNNER have said.

Dear Rehctub,

<<The best we can now hope for is to spend millions keeping these thugs in our own prisons.>>

Well, not millions, but perhaps a 6-digit figure because I expect Daesh to be finished off in a couple of years, then I'll place them on their boat and send them away, never to return.

It's not nice to be paying all that money, but it is even less nice if they kill Australian soldiers in Syria/Iraq.

---

Dear O Sung Wu,

<<They are indeed the worst type of loathsome criminal you could imagine.>>

The fact is that they resided in Australia for several years without committing any crime: you can't say the same about many others.

If you are looking for an example of far more loathsome criminals, look here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/malware-hunters:-the-battle-to-stop-hackers/7422752

Enemy soldiers must be stopped - but are generally not criminals.

It's a pity that at this time we cannot allow them to leave, but once we can security-wise afford to, we should.

Thank you again for your contribution YUYUTSU...

The beauty of this Forum (actually it's Graham's Forum) it's more or less a democracy where we can all ventilate a our views and opinions without the risk of the 'thought police' kicking down our collective doors. I agree with the general thrust of your views it's just a few words that I disagree with, nothing else really? Thanks again.

Let 'em go and, as others have said, cancel their passports, after they leave.
This course of action would not help the "terrorism industry" however.

I really think that any person, Australian or otherwise, has the right to follow the dictates of conscience and fight in any war that he/she thinks fit; if they fight against Australian troops however then there should be some penalty if they are caught, but not if they have formally renounced Australian citizenship.

They didn't quite breach the contempt of court rules, but the NSW AG intends to bring in a law to make it illegal to refuse to stand in court. Of course, we have to reminds ourselves that these blokes are idiots, their attempted flight to Syria being described as something out of Monty Python. Their buffoonery should necessarily suggest that your average Muslim would not stand in court.

They didn't quite breach the contempt of court rules, but the NSW AG intends to bring in a law to make it illegal to refuse to stand in court. Of course, we have to reminds ourselves that these blokes are idiots, their attempted flight to Syria being described as something out of Monty Python. Their buffoonery should not necessarily suggest that your average Muslim would not stand in court.

Maybe they don't have a leg to stand on?

Sitting down would be more comfortable now than after they've had the pleasure of Big Bubba's company in the pokey.

Will the wringing hands apologists be excusing them as 'Just boys' and 'Discrimination made them do it'?

The show of total disrespect shown to our courts by their supporters further strengthens my opinion that true multiculturalism disappeared a few decades ago.

Gone are the days whereby those immigrating to our country, did so in their quest for a better life, and in doing so, contributed to the wonderful country we have, however, the past few decades has seen many scum bags coming here no to contribute, but to feed off our over generous support network.

The true criminals here are our law makers who have allowed this to happen, and continue to allow this to happen. The likes of Singapore would not tolerate this garbage. Why do we continue to tolerate it.

I say again, we are a peace loving nation and this garbage has no place here. Not now, not ever.

Take a look at how we have degenerated in the past few decades, then try to imagine where we might be in thirty years from now.

We should adopt the ultimate FIFO attitude towards invited guests of, FIT IN OR (') OFF, with a capital 'F'.

Migration always was like the curate's egg, good and bad in parts. However our overlords at the Big End of Town and their tools, the political parties who claim to represent us, came to a cozy agreement not to allow any reviews or criticism of immigration policy.

Immigration policy had a very simple aim: to prop up business and an economy based on perpetual growth. A 'Big Australia' represents plenty of customers and bigger profits. As a spin off, business and especially manufacturing had a source of cheap, non-unionised labour, who would also be very difficult to unionise through language problems and different cultural traditions that were often oppositional to union organising.

The early Oz Communists got that right in their criticisms of immigration.

Migrants also objected to being used as cheap, easily dispensable labor. The reply, "Hey, if you don't want the low paid job and no workplace safety to speak of, there is another boatload on the way".

Most of manufacturing has long gone and the jobs that required hands and feet and SFA brainpower and skills (which would have required language competence and training). The heavily subsidised car plants followed.

Immigration has always been the sacred cow that must not be criticised and must always be praised. It is also a complete myth that a country does well out of it. However most migrants seem to benefit, although some do not and are never happy until they can retire back in their country of origin.

The recent problems are due to several factors:

- first and most important is that the Internet has encouraged and provided for improved freedom of speech and a means to access information that was previously very difficult to access and analyse. To be blunt, the public were being mushroomed and only told the sales pitch for more migration;

tbc

contd..

- secondly, the diversity tail has been wagging the immigration policy dog and forced Immigration authorities to allow in numbers of people whose political systems, traditions and values are very much at odds with our own and very likely will remain so; and,

- finally, Immigration authorities are not resourced adequately to check the large numbers involved (they never had adequate resources in the past either, which is how so many Mafia got in), nor handle the number of appeals encouraged by the NGOs and professionals who make hay out of claimed asylum seekers and migrants.

Many of the people I have been dealing with in business over the years are first or second generation migrants and they are far more choosy as to who they would like let in. They are critical of what they see as naive bureaucrats and corrupt politicians feathering their own nests and allowing the political corruption, nasty traditions and violence that they fled from to develop here.

Anyhow, that is all something to discuss.

Hi there BUTCH...

I'm in total agreement with you. The matter of whether they stand, sit, or lie down is essentially immaterial. It's the principle, the contempt, the utter rudeness they've shown, both to our legal system and the Australian culture in toto.

Notwithstanding many of these types are more than ready to complete a set of forms, attend an interview, and later pick-up their money for this or that, arbitrarily paid for by the Oz taxpayer. Yet these same people will not even consent to overtly display even a minuscule level of respect, to the very culture and government that provides them with money with which to live.

OK, I'm old fashioned, out of date perhaps, but somewhere buried deeply within this labyrinth of arrogance, lies a more
sinister aspect to all this? As you correctly say Butch, the failure of multiculturalism with some from Islamic countries is very evident.

ONTHEBEACH...

Much of what you say, I'd never argue with. Particularly where you assert, immigration staff have always lacked the necessary resources; suffered from inadequate training, because of inadequate staff numbers, have been smothered with masses of applications, together with lengthy and costly appellant protocols.

Much of which have been perpetuated by certain avaricious members of the Immigration legal fraternity, some feeding insatiably upon the bottomless public purse, all the while tying-up valuable Court time.

o sung wu,

I must say that the disrespect shown to the courts is only to be expected after politically sensitive magistrates have excused so many ferals who have abused and jostled police officers, and gone as far as threatening the families of police with impunity.

It is not this particular magistrate's fault, but she should be looking very closely at her colleagues around Australia who will reap what they have sown. Some of the politically correct, 'Progressive' judiciary really need to get out there and see the negative consequences of their limp decisions for the public, businesses and police.

On the Gold Coast, bikie thugs were over the moon when the previous Premier and Duntroon Officer Graduate Campbell Newman - a solid, reliable man who stood up to the cowardly outlaw bikies' bluff and meant it, was replaced by Labor's Palaszczuk. With Palaszczuk and Greens the bikies knew that the party was on again for them and they have taken full advantage. Absolute contempt and lack of respect for police, laws and the public are back in vogue. So is the violence and perhaps you have been reading about the shootings and turf wars (over drug territory).

Make no mistake either, there is also a return of the sort of senior police who were about before and promoted 'mutual cooperation' and 'understanding' with the outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The tone is set from the top. That means from the Premier down.

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

I would NOT wish to be a copper in Queensland under the current administration. From what I've heard organised crime is flourishing up there, together with the strong arm of the Bikie gangs enforcing their rule.

Without the full support and backing of both government and the judiciary the coppers don't have a chance of doing their job properly. Still, that just might suit some political figures in Brisbane? My understanding the new laws that were meant to curb consorting among Bikie members worked particularly well I thought. Moreover it's in everyone's interest the heavies are constrained in their respective caves without any unnecessary violence on the streets.

'tis the very worst thing the WRAN government's AG (Frank WALKER ?) did, was to repeal the old, but very effective consorting laws and disbanding the Consorting Squad. A powerful tool for detectives, to make many of these hobo's, take notice of them and 'leave town' as it were ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

All of us living in Australia have a responsibility
to adhere to Australian law. We have one law that
we are all expected to abide by and that's the law
that enacted by the Parliament under the Australian
Constitution. There isn't a separate stream of law
derived from religious sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society.

However, having said that,
I'm not sure that standing before a judge is actually
a requirement that has been passed into law. Possibly, it
should be, but I'm not sure that it currently is.

It's a sign of respect and most people do adhere to
it - but technically I'm not sure that it's illegal
not to do so. It's up to the judge, whether these people
are "in contempt," or not.

What happens next we will have to wait and see. Personally
I would have taken their passports and allowed them to leave
the country - instead of supporting them here on taxpayer's money
until
September 22nd, when their day in court is due next.

Dearest Foxy,

If you or I were not to stand as a judge or magistrate entered a court, and to stay standing until he or she had sat, we could be found guilty of contempt of the authority of the Court. We would be sent downstairs until we changed our minds, and for perhaps a bit longer.

In Australia, the rule of law over-rules any 'law of Allah', or Ganesh, or the Spaghetti Monster. With the greatest of respect, I think the magistrate erred on the side of a misplaced respect for multiculturalism in this case. I certainly support multiculturalism, but within the framework of the total dominance, now and forever, of the rule of law, formal respect for our institutions, and the equality of men and women. If these trash refused to recognise these principles, I don't care how long they should have stayed downstairs.

As for the Five Kings, I would have let them sail on through the Barrier Reef and through the shoals of the Torres Strait and, if they had survived, pinged them as they tried to leave Australian waters. If they hadn't survived, gosh, what a shame, never mind.

Love always, dear Foxy,

Joe

Hear all ye people this unholy decree: All of us living in Australia have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law. We have one law that the Spaghetti Monster expects us to abide by and that's the law that enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

Don't ask why - Thus saith the Prophet Foxy, the last and final messenger of the Spaghetti Monster, as dictated by Him to Her in the cave through His green-tailed Angel.

Those who fail to agree will have their heads chopped.

Foxy,

As I said in my post, they didn't quite qualify for contempt of court, meaning it is not a legal requirement to stand. Hence, as I said, the NSW Attorney General intends to table laws to make it a legal requirement. I'm beginning to think it's a waste of time saying anything on the General forum. Nobody takes any notice of what other people have to contribute.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

We have an institutional framework in this country
that preserves tolerance and protects order so that
we can celebrate and enjoy our diversity. But we could
not do that without that framework.

Unless we have that
framework and an agreement to abide by its laws, none
of us would be able to enjoy our rights and liberties
without being threatened by others. This is not something
Yuyutsu, that I have made up. Its a fact. We have a compact
to live under a democratic legislature and obey the law it
makes. In doing this the rights and liberties of all
are protected.

We ask all of our people to subscribe to a framework
that can protect the rights and liberties of all.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You give me too much credit.

Peter Costello wrote:

"After the London Underground bombing of 2005 I was troubled
by the fact that young people born and raised in a democratic
society could turn to terrorism and kill their fellow citizens
in the name of Islam. I gave a speech at the Sydney Institute
in which I argued that freedom and tolerance can be protected
only within a legal framework that is accepted by all."

Dear ttbn,

I'm sure that many people on this forum (including me) read your
posts. And please continue to post.

I find it strange that these young men did not stand before the
judge. After all I believe that before you enter a mosque you
are required to take off your shoes - out of respect.
If you don't want to do that - don't go into a mosque.
The same applies to our country - of you don't want to obey our
laws - there are other countries to choose from that may be more
suitable.

Hi there FOXY...

I hope you're well, and the recent consultation with your Cardiologists has proven positive?

Now you've got me thinking - I've attended many Court sittings in my time, and at every strata except, the HCofA. I can honestly say I'd not be in a position to quote a specific section in any Act where there's a legal (statute) requirement to stand, pursuant to any circumstance?

As a recruit, your first visit to a working Court, begins with the old Police Court (Court of Petty Sessions) in Liverpool Street, Sydney, where you observe a Stipendiary Magistrate do his work. Next is the District Court presided over by a Judge, aka the Court of Quarter Sessions in criminal proceedings, presided over by the 'Chairman of QS' (a Judge by any other name?).

Finally the Supreme Court presided over by a Justice (usually for capital offences) occasionally the same Court sits as the Banco Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by three Justices.

It was thoroughly inculcated into us the importance of showing proper respect for the Court, by giving a slight bow when one is entering or leaving the Court when in session, and standing whenever the judicial officer presiding, enters and egresses the Courtroom.

There is an Act which regulates each strata of the Courts, and how they shall conduct their business. However a section that specifically identifies and then mandates, what one 'must' do in terms of appropriate court etiquette, I really don't know FOXY? After over 32 years in the job, you'd think I would by now ?

Foxy,

"There isn't a separate stream of law
derived from religious sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society."

Rubbish; it is quite common for the Courts in the Northern Territory to take into consideration Customary Law when dealing with Aboriginal people.
Customary Law is often/nearly always of a religious nature.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I don't know what our court procedures entail.
I had just assumed that we all stand when the
judge enters the court room - as a sign of respect.

Thank You for asking about mu health.

I did go to see the specialist on Thursday afternoon.
He told me that the test I had done was very revealing
and useful. I won't bore you with the details but the
good news is that at this stage they are going to try
to take care of the clots through medication. (Much
to my relief).

He is arranging for me to be put on
a certain specialist program at one of the largest
hospitals here in Melbourne. All I have to do is now
wait for the hospital to ring me and arrange everything.

The specialist wants to see me again early next year -
for more tests after this program.

I am calm and positive. I believe that with the new medicines
and the technology that they currently have available for cardiac
patients - hopefully, I should do well.

Thanks for caring.

Dear Is Mise,

Kindly supply us with evidence of your claims
Sir.

Surprising that you have no recollection of the Aurukun rape case. The Queensland Attorney-General appealed the case on 12 December 2007 on grounds that Judge Sarah Bradley erred in giving disproportionate weight to the offenders’ social and cultural status.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2009/6.pdf

Foxy,

OTB has given you one reference but I would think that anyone who reads/listens to the news would be aware of the use of Customary Law in the NT.

Dear Is Mise,

We are talking about religious laws and as they
apply in this country.

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Birka was asked in an
interview on the "7.30 Report" :

"But don't you think Australian Muslims - Muslims living
in Australia - also have a responsibility to adhere to
Australian law?"

To which he answered: "This is a big problem. There are two
laws - there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic
law."

Peter Costello explained - "No, this is not a big problem.
There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the
law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.
If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals
of what Australia is and what it stands for."

"Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom
of all religions for worship."

"Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals, and
conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived
from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian
law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the
democratically elected legislature."

"There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi
Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under
sharia law there are countries where they might feel at ease.
But not Australia."

"Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the
rights and liberties of others - the right to live without
being maimed, the right to live without being bombed - and as
such they forfeit the right to join in Australian citizenship
and our community. The refusal to acknowledge the rule of law as
laid down by democratic institutions also stabs at the heart
of Australian compact."

Regarding the treatment of Aborigines in the NT - I'm sure that has
nothing to do with religion - as is the case here
with these Muslim Terrorists. That's why I asked you to provide
some evidence to support your claims.

Dear Is Mise,

Did you read the link that otb gave us?
You should. And so should otb.

That particular case clearly explains the mitigating
factors that are involved in the sentencing of
Indigenous offenders. Judge Bradley gave disproportionate
weight to the offenders social and cultural status - to
"Aboriginal Disadvantage."

Perhaps you don't understand what that means?
Read the link again.

Practically speaking it means that multiculturalism policy and the political correctness springing from it result in unevenness in decisions and bloody awful unfairness affecting Indigenous women and children (in the subject case, a child minor).

So yes, the reality of daily life for indigenous women and children is that they cannot expect to have the same rights and treatment under Australian law that are taken for granted by other women and girls.

Regrettably though it isn't only indigenous women and girls who are negatively impacted that way by multiculturalism and that has been a recurring contentious subject in many OLO threads. Child marriage is an example and cuts across a number of ethnic groups and indigenous as well.

Foxy,

What you said was "There isn't a separate stream of law
derived from religious sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society."

Aboriginal culture is inextricably bound up with their religious beliefs and there is clearly recourse to Customary Law in the NT when dealing with Aboriginal people.
Seehttps://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=aboriginal+customary+law+in+NT+courts
then take your pick.

There should be one law for all Australians and i add that recourse by the Court to 'payback' under Customary Law usually falls under "cruel and unusual" punishments that are banned under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

Hi there IS MISE...

Now you're testing my memory ol' man! You're quite correct when you say there are 'customary laws' in the NT when dealing with our blacks. As most of you are aware, there are a set of rules (10) that have been determined by our esteemed Law Lords in London, known as the 'Judges Rules'. These rules establish some basic 'rights' or 'protections' for those individuals who happen to fall foul of the coppers.

I'll not attempt to accurately enumerate each and every rule, other than to say:- When arrested, you're entitled to know why ? You're not obliged to say anything or make any admissions. You're entitled to be taken before a justice within a certain etc.

Quite recently, certainly in the last fifty years or so, our wise judiciary decided to increase the 'Judges Rules' from ten to another nine, if I recall correctly? They were called 'the Anunga Rules', making it a total of nineteen Rules altogether, that police should observe whenever they arrest an aboriginal. These additional rules ONLY applied to our indigenous people, or those who're identified as being indigenous.

Some of these 'Anunga Rules' include; The right to have a friend present when police are formally questioning them (that's in addition to their legal counsel); Be permitted to sleep if they feel tired or fatigued; A shorter period of time limit where police can formally question them, etc.

In other words, the police had to tread very very carefully whenever they have an aboriginal suspect? As I mentioned earlier, these additionally rules 'the Anunga Rules'. So titled after a HCofA matter involving, Queen Vs Anunga and (either) anor or ors?

Regrettably my memory's exhausted, therefore I'm not entirely sure of the spelling? It's either Anunga or Annunga ? * CHRISGAFF1000, where are you when I need you ol' man? (Formerly a police prosecutor)*

You're quite correct IS MISE, there are (officially sanctioned) legal allowances or concessions made for our indigenous folk in criminal matters, and not just for the NT, for the entire C'Wealth of Australia.

Dear Is Mise,

I still stand by what I said because there isn't
a separate religious law applying to the governing
of our civil society. We are a secular State.
Religious laws have no legal standing in our country.
O Sung Wu has explained things well dealing with our
Indigenous people is a separate issue and deals with
Aboriginal disadvantage.

"Aboriginal disadvantage" that advantages bullies molesting women and children and taking other liberties that would be intolerable in mainstream society.

"Aboriginal disadvantage" that advantages indigenous elders and other men to get away with domestic violence.

Here is the result of the political correctness of multiculturalism and apologists are still shifting blame,

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/top-end-community-where-women-brawl-in-front-of-police-has-been-let-down-by-the-system/news-story/354ab240b71f37cdfc673eb31fd864ea

Fortunately there are courageous, straight-shooting people like Bess Price to challenge the spin of apologists,

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bess_price_calls_out_the_urban_aboriginal_spokesmen/#commentsmore

Dear O Sung Wu,

Many Australians are aware that there are
scholarly articles on "Aboriginal Disadvantage and
Australian law," that deal with the economic and social
disadvantages faced by our Indigenous Australians
together with their over representation in the criminal
justice system.

There are reports also available on the
historical perspective of disadvantage as well.
For anyone interested in the subject.

Also the subject would make for a great discussion.
Perhaps those interested in the subject could start one?

However here are a couple of links for those that are
interested in this subject:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/the-gap-indigenous-disadvantage-in-australia

and -

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/about

I look forward to our next discussion.

I have nothing further to add to this one.

Thanks FOXY for your thoughts and recommendations, I do appreciate them.

Back to the topic :-

Whatever the law dictates, whether there's a section requiring all those present in a Court, to demonstrate their deference by standing, as well as showing their respect to the judicial officer appointed to hear the matter, I really don't know?

Insomuch these 'boneheads' won't stand, in itself is of minor consequence, it's the principle that concerns me and many with whom I associate. As one correspondent claimed, it's the thin edge of the wedge. Next, they'll decline to pay a fare on a bus, train or ferry, because their religion prohibits governments extracting money for these services, when it could be better spent erecting more and bigger places in which to worship?

In these matters, perhaps we should consider introducing the New York zero tolerance model, and apply a modest fine, or for repeat offenders, a few days in the 'go slow' where they can more properly reflect upon their negative attitude?

Can I see this happening? In some States perhaps, in others, no way. Australia has become such a weak, timid, and political correct Nation, we're too scared of our own shadow. Even too afraid of copping a serve or criticism, from some equally PC Nation, if we dare do something so proactive, as taking a harder line for this type of obtuse behaviour?

Foxy bows out left stage.

Dear Foxy,

<<We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the law it makes. In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.>>

Can you please show me the papers and signatures?
And even if you could find such a compact, would it mean anything if it was made under duress?

<<We ask all of our people to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.>>

Who is "We"? I hope I'm not included.
I already respect everyone's liberties, no framework needed (or perhaps it's due to my religious framework) - it's the state which doesn't.

<<I gave a speech at the Sydney Institute in which I argued that freedom and tolerance can be protected only within a legal framework that is accepted by all.>>

So? it's only an argument, with no proof that there are no other ways to achieve the same (protection of freedom and tolerance). In any case, Costello's idea is a fantasy: no legal framework will ever be accepted by all. I for one do not accept his.

<<After all I believe that before you enter a mosque you are required to take off your shoes - out of respect.>>

Definitely. If you voluntarily enter a mosque, then you should take off your shoes. Are we discussing people who voluntarily entered a courtroom?

<<The same applies to our country - of you don't want to obey our laws - there are other countries to choose from that may be more suitable.>>

What, other countries do not impose laws?
Imposing your laws on others is simply a form of bullying.
Are you suggesting that people who were born in Australia must leave their homes and families just because they don't accept your dictates?

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.">>

It's not a matter of "can't": I could if I wanted, but I won't, because I don't accept bullying. If the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for are a system of bullying, then I certainly don't accept it.

<<Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.>>

It cannot, because it doesn't even have the means to identify religion, let alone protect what it cannot identify.

<<Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of others>>

Well, the state does not acknowledge the liberties of others, hence by your own definition, itself is a terrorist (or a terrorist-supporter).

Not only by your own definition: the state is in fact a terrorist organisation because it instils terror in people, who constantly fear to be sent to prison if they (knowingly or unknowingly) act contrary to its dictates.

<<The refusal to acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions also stabs at the heart of Australian compact>>

Which doesn't exist, which never existed.

There is a lot being quoted here without proper attribution. Yet providing the link allows readers to put the comments in context and obtain a balanced understanding.

Costello's remarks in his article, 'Subscribe to our values or don't come here', see here,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/23/1140670203748.html?page=fullpage

Where the quote is sufficient, it is easy to see that Costello where he is coming from and that is Zero Tolerance, as o sung wu is suggesting for instance,

Costello,
"We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and liberties of others. They should be refused citizenship if they apply for it. Where they have it, they should be stripped of it if they are dual citizens and have some other country that recognises them as citizens.

Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of others - the right to live without being maimed, the right to live without being bombed - and as such they forfeit the right to join in Australian citizenship.

The refusal to acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions also stabs at the heart of the Australian compact. The radical Muslim cleric Benbrika was asked last year: "But don't you think Australian Muslims - Muslims living in Australia - also have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?"

He answered: "This is a big problem. There are two laws - there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

No, this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for"

tbc

and,

"A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the condition for citizenship.

There are some beliefs, some values, so core to the nature of our society that those who refuse to accept them refuse to accept the nature of our society.

If someone cannot honestly make the citizenship pledge, they cannot honestly take out citizenship. If they have taken it out already they should not be able to keep it where they have citizenship in some other country.

Of course this is not possible for those who are born here and have no dual citizenship. In these cases, we have on our hands citizens who are apparently so alienated that they do not support what their own country stands for.

Such alienation could become a threat to the rights and liberties of others. And so it is important to explain our values, explain why they are important, and engage leadership they respect to assist us in this process.
..

No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so undemanding that it asks nothing. In fact our citizenship is quite a demanding obligation. It demands loyalty, tolerance and respect for fellow citizens and support for a rare form of government - democracy.
..
I do not like putrid representations like Piss Christ. I do not think galleries should show them. But I do recognise they should be able to practise their offensive taste without fear of violence or a riot. Muslims do not like representation of the prophet. They do not think newspapers should print them. But so too they must recognise this does not justify violence against newspapers, or countries that allow newspapers to publish them.

We are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all. These are Australian values. We must be very clear on this point. They are not optional. .."
The Age, Feb24 2006 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/23/1140670203748.html?page=fullpage

This is how The Age summarised Costello,

"PETER Costello has lashed out at "mushy misguided multiculturalism," warning that Australian values are "not optional" — and that migrants who do not share them should be stripped of their citizenship"

Fox,

To be frank, that doesn't sound like anything you would be supporting and others might give you feedback on that.

However if it is your view and you are saying you have been misunderstood you should have been making that plain without weasel words.

o sung wu,
It is plain that Costello supports the Zero Tolerance you are talking about, wouldn't you say?

Don't take risks with entry, visas and citizenship he says and where they put a foot out of place, show them the Big A with a one way ticket to ride out of the country.

Plainly he is NO apologist for the sort of mongrel who, having been allowed into Australia, craps in his nest. It is NOT discrimination or 'racism' to lay into a creed that is at odds with Australian values either.

I don't imagine that Malcolm Turnbull would be disagreeing with that, but he needs to show leadership, not sit on the fence giving the false impression he is about to weaken to pull the 1% 'Serially Upset' vote in a marginal seat.

There is a simpler way to look at this. Do you really want to piss off the person that will be determining the sentence?

"Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and liberties of others."

Such pompous rhetoric while the majority of threats to liberty, in fact of actual denials of liberty, are done by the so-called democratic government itself.

Had such a compact existed, then it would be a leveller: one could indeed find themselves outside this compact by being worse than the compact expects in terms of respecting others - but then one could also find themselves outside this compact by being better than the compact allows.

---

Dear SM,

<<Do you really want to piss off the person that will be determining the sentence?>>

Obviously not: this would be a very stupid reason to do anything.

A better reason would be to abstain from acknowledging an illegitimate mundane authority. Jesus did so when he kept silent, not answering Pilates' questions. Yes, he could get away alive if he defended and explained himself, but then he would betray his father in heaven, the eternal judge of the living and the dead.

otb,

I have made it quite clear both in this discussion and
in the past that I fully support Peter Costello's
views on this subject. And I have quoted word
for word from his book - "The Costello Memoirs,"
as I've stated in the past and now. I bought the copy of his
book when it was first published. You have merely repeated
what I have quoted from Costello's book. Parts of Which The Age
apparently also published in article form. For that all I
can say is - "Well done!" I am pleased that you also
agree with Costello's stance on this issue.

OK thanks.

For those interested, this is Peter Costello's speech. He was the federal Treasurer at the time.

It is not a long speech and it is well worth reading on the subject of respect for Australian values, which seem to be so unfashionable in some quarters as not to be even contemplated as existing, with the 'diversity tail' (and political correctness) always wagging the public policy dog,

http://www.petercostello.com.au/speeches/2006/2111-worth-promoting-worth-defending-australian-citizenship-what-it-means-and-how-to-nurture-it-address-to-the-sydney-institute-sydney

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

Your two previous contributions say it all both clearly and concisely in my opinion. You quote extracts from Mr Peter COSTELLO'S book which clearly identifies many of our rights and responsibilities that make us Australians, and have done so most successfully since federation.

Those among us who fundamentally disagree with those entitlements and privileges that have been immortalized in our laws or alternatively, decline to defer and capitulate to those attendant responsibilities that are also enshrined in our laws ? Then perhaps they should leave our Country, it's that simple. Furthermore religious law is completely vetoed or annulled by our secular laws. Again, if this is in conflict with your moral or religious position, leave our Country.

Or is it that regular endowment our hard pressed taxpayers accord you, that dissuade you from making that incomparable resolution to leave our shores at once, on moral and/or religious ground?

o sung wu,
These fools, and their supporters, have no respect for our country, our citizens or our laws. They should have been let go to meet their fate, we have no use for them or their like. Others that want to fight for ISIS should also be encouraged to go and stopped from returning. Quite a few have been killed over there and with luck more will be eradicated by drone missiles.

Of course the elephant in the room, of this debate, is multiculturism and our immigration policy. The Howard government was willing to let MC die out but should have knocked it on the head and the immigration policy needs drastic revision with muslim immigration and refugees banned. The politicians know this but are scared to implement what needs to be done.

An elected Labor government would be another disaster, just like Gillard/Rudd and the Libs with the present PM will fail to ensure either MC or the immigration policy is corrected as needed.

Therefore I will be voting for Australian Liberty Alliance and hope they will hold the balance of power and then gain more strength.

One can only hope at this point. Its a bad situation for Aus.

otb,

I am familiar with the link you gave.

The speech says it all beautifully.

cont'd ...

The speech is given in full on page 358 of Peter Costello's
book, "The Costello Memoirs," under the title, "Worth Promoting,
Worth Defending: Australian Citizenship," from which I've
been quoting regularly.

I've met Mr Costello and his wife on several occasions.
He's greatly admired by me and my family.

Hi there BANJO...

Golly are we in a mess, everywhere we turn we're being greeted and verbally assaulted by all these politically correct groups and individuals, telling us how we should think and behave. And to freely admit and encourage many of these queue jumpers to settle in Australia, many with no ability to find work, and some with no intention to ever seek work, thus becoming a fiscal burden on our hardworking taxpayers.

We're now confronted with groups of these Islamic provocateurs acting with the intent to actually 'test' our resolve to preserve and safeguard our long held Court traditions and rituals. All of which with the sole intent to create an incendiary situation in our Courts of Law. Today, it's simply failing to stand? Tomorrow, it may well be actions calculated to totally dislocate the entire Courts system as we know it, in order to introduce Islamic Sharia law.

BANJO, if we don't stop this contempt and insolence in our Courts, dead in it's tracks, well you don't need to be a clerical academic to prophesies what will happen ?

Foxy,

" look forward to our next discussion.

I have nothing further to add to this one"

True.

Dear O Sung Wu,

"Islamic provocateurs acting with the intent to actually 'test' our resolve to preserve and safeguard our long held Court traditions and rituals."

Nobody intends to provoke you and disturb your rituals: if you consider your courts sacred, then why do you forcefully drag non-believers into them? In fact, the real provoker is you!

"All of which with the sole intent to create an incendiary situation in our Courts of Law."

Blaming the sacrificial animal for defecating on your altar?

o sung wu,
The issue of the fools not standing in court is simply a by product of our multicultural policy. Our own fault really, as we gave them, or their fathers, every indication that their culture would come before our culture and customs. Simple to remedy. Take the prisoners downstairs until they mend their ways and carry on the hearing without them. Grab all their supporters and take to nearest lockup and charge of contempt. Treat them with the contempt they deserve. If they want to live here they must obey our laws and social standards. After that, if they wish to leave Aus, let them and no return. The further from Aus they go the better off we will be. Politicians should act in our citizens best interests.

As for the comments of Yuyutsu. He is an eccentric who hates Aus because he has to wear a helmet when riding his bicycle on a public road and he can't fathom out why. He only lives in Aus because he cannot find any country better. Best to just ignore him.

strangely enough I think if a person's conscience prevents them from standing or bowing to a judge so be it. In the case of muslims and others it is usual straight out defiance and rebellion. It has nothing to do with conviction and everything to do with hatred. We can blame the history revisionist and dumbed down education system for that. These guys have no conscience and show no respect to anyone. I do believe it is possible to respectfully decline to bow to judge. The left normally love those who take the rebellious path and hate those who show respect. They luv smirkers like Assange or Hicks. That is also why in often the left are unable to protest peacefully. They luv rebellion dumb enough to think they are god.

YUYUTSU, I'm sorry I've no idea what it is you're saying. To simplify it for you - in the military OR'S must salute all commissioned officers. Furthermore all subordinate commissioned officers must salute all ranks above them. You're NOT saluting the man, it's his rank that you're acknowledging. The only time you salute the individual in the military, is a recipient of the Victoria Cross, he's entitled to a salute by ALL ranks.

The same applies to the various stratum in our Courts, you're acknowledging the importance, the supremacy of the Court, is all.

Hi BANJO...

Somehow I don't think it'll be too long before our judiciary get 'jack' of all this arrogance and blatant rudeness exhibited by some, before contempt charges are leveled at a couple of them. In my time I've known of a few Judges, who it doesn't take much to get their noses out of joint if they detect any measure of disrespect in their Courts?

Hi RUNNER...

I also agree with you on this matter. It's a bit like the Vietnam days when some individuals were legitimate 'conscience objectors', consequently failed to register for National Service.

Though I again reiterate, you're acknowledging the supremacy of the Court. So I find it really hard to juxtapose the two when all you're doing is conceding the Courts supremacy in our society. Once it was customary for men to raise their hat, whenever they first meet a woman ? Granted, this is probably not such a great example today ?

Anyone who may disagree with the way I've tried to rationalise this point, or discussion per se, I'd like very much indeed, to hear their point of view?

It is customary to stand when the presiding Judge/Magistrate enters the Court, to not do so is contempt.
One may excuse the first refusal to stand on the grounds of ignorance but not after the custom is explained.

We need a few on the bench with a bit more backbone.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You have made and rationalised your point very well.

- But what a dreadful concept, it makes me shiver!

Most slavery was abolished during the 18th and 19th century. By now it is widely accepted that subjugation of one person to another is terrible and not on. Yes, it still happens in the Islamic-State and Australian forces are there among others to stop it and to save its victims.

While it is already widely accepted in modern times that no individual should be subordinate to another individual, there are still those who believe that individuals may be subordinate to organised groups of other individuals, states for example. This is no different in principle to slavery and within a few centuries, humankind will be looking back in horror and disbelief to learn that such things could still exist as late as in the 21st century.

While I can understand and appreciate the showing of respect to another individual, another child of God who just happened to be appointed a magistrate, it is sinful to acknowledge any supremacy of man-made institutions, including courts, over individuals who are made in God's image. It is in fact virtuous to have every contempt for institutions that attempt to take God's place by judging others, not for the men and women who do their job there, who do their duty in the best way they know, but certainly for this disgraceful institution that mockingly attempts to replace God. Not for the person who sits on the chair, but there should be every contempt for the chair itself that is meant as a cheap imitation of God's throne.

I find it very difficult sometimes an attitude of Australian authorities may grow a rage against the country. Sometimes diplomacy and more advisable than the law.

"Sometimes diplomacy and more advisable than the law"

No it isn't. Otherwise the law is variable and doesn't for example, protect young girls from the ravages of a medieval belief system.

What responsible Muslim leaders support their defiant attitude to Australian law and courts?