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.