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