Just to go back to one of Toni Lavis' comments: no, an atheist does not have to swear on the bible, she can just affirm that she will tell the truth, etc.

As I understand it, a judge is in charge of his or her court, backed up by the State. To speak out of turn, or not to stand for him or her, or otherwise disrupt proceedings, can amount to contempt for the authority of the judge, i.e. of the court, i.e. of the State.

Spot-on, Foxy !

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo Paterson
".. living in total seclusion as a hermit, without leaving the country,."
Roadside camping may need RTA or council approval . All land is owned even it's vacant Crown Land. Yuyutsu will probably care for his own , whether princes or paupers. The North Korean leader provides for all who need it and judges and juries in Yuyutsu republic will extend the 2 finger salute with the public being limited to 1 finger on present indications.

Leo W, maybe you would prefer a return to the good old days of pre Whitlam. To the days of post war conservative rule in this country when Aboriginal people were totally marginalized and forced to live and die in squalor that existed on the edges of towns and cities, virtually existing as non persons! Is that your kind of society?

Paul1405,

Might you be Lee Rhiannon's boy acolyte Shoebridge? That is his spin. Not even a pretence of addressing the subject at hand.

Greens politics first and last.

The neglected and abused children must continue to suffer without any possibility of help.

phanto,

Well it didn’t take you long to resort to your amateur psychology again, did it? The tactic in which you present only one possible explanation for an individual’s behaviour, when there are in fact many, so that they may leave you to carry on with your nonsense unchallenged.

<<If you are not doing anything wrong then there is no need to be so concerned about whether you need to put up or shut up or whether or not you are a coward.>>

You assume I’m concerned. What if I were just curious? Or perhaps I knew your supposed logic wasn’t logical at all and wanted to expose the fact by posing a question to you that I knew you could not answer.

<<It's patronising Foxy to defend her unless you think she is incapable of defending herself.>>

You assume I was defending her. What if I was just pointing out your hypocrisy? Which, by the way, is on display again in this very ironic comment of yours.

NNN, as an old drill sergeant used to ask us young soldiers: "What is the best thing about banging your head on a wall ?" Answer: "It feels really wonderful when you stop."

Muslims (for the most) will feel compelled to not straighten their spines, nor their knees, as will atheists when in front of aforementioned bewigged and sashed members of the judiciary.

Anyone of any religious or theological persuasion can exercise the right to silence and also not swear on the Bible, as can Mormons insist only on swearing on their 'version' of the bible when in front of the law.

Remembering at all times there are 2 systems of law at play in this country.

1. 'Justice' for those who can afford a plumber (in his/her wig and finery) to attend the leaking WC and

2. 'Justice' for those who cannot afford the plumber (sans wig and finery) where the WC will continue to leak and the depth of muck will probably consume you.