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