I was born overseas and I have run for the federal parliament. This was in 1983, 34 years ago. Of course I checked to see whether I had a nationality other than Australian. It is a basic requirement that you have only Australian citizenship. This has been known for a long time.

Given the dire consequences of being elected and not checking, it is incomprehensible that the Greens candidates have been so negligent. But why should I be surprised when their platform is a fantasy, and many of their supporters break the law, because if the law is wrong, then it is their moral right to do so?

It seems that the potential successor to Senator Waters, Andrew Bartlett, may also be disqualified because he worked for a university when the election was held. His defence - that this can't be right because there has never been a challenge - suggests similar incompetence to the others.

And now we have academics like George Williams saying Section 44 of the constitution ought to be amended because of these disqualifications. Where were they when Senator Bob Day was ruled ineligible because of a very tenuous benefit from the crown?

In my view these senators should be excluded. The law is clear, and if you can't be trusted to get something so simple correct, surely you have failed the competency test for being a senator.

Graham,

I think that this is due to an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and the belief that their cause is so just that anyone that disagrees with them is heartless or bigoted, that any law that obstructs them must be wrong and removed, and the irony that they were happy to have these same laws applied to others eludes them.

This sums it up:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFFh557UIAAhMFu.jpg:large

"and many of their (Greens) supporters break the law, because if the law is wrong, then it is their moral right to do so?"

Graham, can you provide evidence to support that claim. Is it all encompassing? Would it apply to Jews who defied the Nazi Nuremberg laws, or Mahatma Gandhi's defiance of British Salt laws.
I take it from your post you are disparaging of law breakers. no matter the circumstances. I'm not suggesting you support the Nazi's or the British for that matter.

Just on citizenship, did the Liberal senator Eric Abetz, ever sit in the Federal Parliament whilst not being an Australian citizen? Something Abetz has not been quick to clear up.

I also note there is a well posted thread on this subject 'The Remarkable Mr Ludlum' I once submitted a thread that you rejected on the grounds "someone has beaten you to it!" Or are you just stoking the fire a bit on this one. I hope there is no bias here.

And since you raised it "I have run for the federal parliament" was that for a political party or as an independent?

It doesn't surprise that academics are just as prone to cognitive errors as the rest of the public. They each have their own world view to protect, whatever that is and that is fertile ground for error that is very hard for individual himself to identify. Then there are other influences, such as the present focus by Western humanities academics on being 'progressive'. A fad that is supported by a very sinister and systemic political correctness.

Then there is the effect of topical 'issues' that only look like a common 'problems' or of any consequence because some of the commentariat make it so and tabloids have columns to fill (and TV jocks precious sound bites to be 'controversial' or more usually now, to display their faux morality by conforming to the political correct 'Progressive' mantras. Say something often enough...

It would behove any who are going through tertiary study or have completed it (Everyone! But here I am focussing on products of Western universities) to force themselves to break out of the 'Progressive' bubble and seek company and inputs from elsewhere. That is to overcome a bias that is reinforced by Mr Google and ors who quickly detect confirmation bias especially and narrow attention, choices and attention even further. In universities for instance, humanities undergraduates, especially from sociology in certain universities, often judge the science-oriented professions as 'conservative'. They should think about and question earnestly, why they might believe that to be the case. It could be self illuminating and hopefully cause them too to value evidence.

The original poster is right of course to wonder about the politically self-serving indignation and flurry that demand Constitutional change just because the negligent few have had their chickens come home to roost. However it is just that.

Hi Paul, you demonstrate you're no respecter of rules either. Moderation decisions are not up for discussion on the site, but I'm going to show a little bit of flexibility and leave this one. You wanted to start a thread literally minutes after an identical one was started, which you know. No point having threads running in parallel minutes apart. The one to which you now refer is 6 days old, and there have been lots of developments since.

It's a bit rich to try and use Ghandi to cloak the criminality of the CFMEU or the actions of Greenpeace supporters in vandalising buildings, building sites, logging operations etc. in some scintilla of respectability. The Greens support all sorts of illegality, but in most cases it doesn't come close to reaching the standard of being a genuine conscience issue. Their protection of the CFMEU ought to be a scandal. Not only is it basically a criminal organisation, but it is raising the cost of building in this country, costing people jobs, and denying people housing. Having created the problems, the Greens will then go on to try and exploit the victims of them for votes.

You'll have to ask Abetz about his citizenship. I'm not commenting on it here. I have no knowledge one way or the other, and not sure why I should be concerned.

And as for what party I ran for - it is pretty well-known, because unlike you I am not an anonymous poster. Google will help you out if this is a serious question.

Thank you Paul, your post say it all regarding Greens.

Personally I would go much further. I would ban all not born & raised in Oz from any representative body. It takes a lifetime to become an Ozzie, not a just few years, & we deserve to be represented by no one but full born & raised in the country Ozzies.

It just shows how really stupid Greens (and possibly other politicians, who should now all be vetted) are when they don't at least take a glance at the Constitution that they will upholding.

And, sorry George Williams, the Constitution will never be changed to accept dual citizens. Australia is still Australia, despite ridiculous anti-Australian multiculturalism.

As we are here, on OLO, by choice, we should respect the OLO rules.

In contrast, the Australian constitution is being forced on anyone who happens to be born or live in this continent - even using violence when necessary.

There is no justification for respecting laws that were made by others without our consent. On the contrary - it is virtuous to break such laws (provided that nobody innocent is hurt as a result).

Section 44 of the Australian constitution intends to prevent those who have no allegiance to this concept of "Australia", from trying to abolish and overthrow it from within - regardless of the fact that this concept was imposed on them from without. This in principle is no different to Saudi women being subjected from birth to the rule of men and not even allowed to vote and represent themselves against it.

Graham, as far as I am aware the CFMEU or Greenpeace are not affiliated with The Greens. I would think without evidence CFMEU members would by and large vote Labor. Greenpeace members would, I suspect predominately vote Green. That begs the question are all Greenpeace members law breakers?

Again an unsubstantiated claim "Their (Greens) protection of the CFMEU ought to be a scandal." Can you provide evidence of that protection?

Since you raised the CFMEU, I am a supporter of the ideals of unionism, the CFMEU is a union, so therefore in broad terms I support the CFMEU, Do I support all the actions, by all the members of the CFMEU. No, many members of The Greens would agree. We can always apply the broad brush whenever it suits us.

1983 is a long time ago, but I assume it was the Liberal Party. Just to clear that point up. A friend on mine, a young Liberal Party member, ran at the last local government elections as an Independent, with the parties blessing, but unfortunately no cash. I did help him by getting him Greens preferences, which was 16% of the vote. He missed out narrowly to Labor, but if he runs again I think he will win a seat on council. A good starting point for a political career, if he's got what it takes. He is of Greek origin, better check his citizenship.

It only takes a few loudly spoken persons to convince the public they have an agenda to bring beneficial change to society. They capture enough votes to get into office. However they often have a hidden or particular agenda in their purpose in taking office; that is to bring about change and laws that are not in the interest of all the community. That is the case with one issue Parties.

Persons born under laws that clearly conflict with our values must clearly demonstrate they have denounced their allegiance to those conflicting values. We have persons in our society that believe in polygamy, that the wives and children are the property of the husband; and child brides they see as normal practise.

Paul, the Greens opposed the commission of inquiry into the unions, which was most specifically aimed at the CFMEU, plus the legislation flowing from it, and they receive donations from the CFMEU. It is not an issue of who CFMEU members vote for, but rather whether the Greens have supported the CFMEU, and clearly they have.

And the Greens support the actions of Greenpeace, and other, activists. I'll instance Sea Shepherd, for one.

Generally, when facts are this widely known, one doesn't have to "substantiate" them.

Just as my political affiliations are widely known, and generally put down in my articles and commentary as a necessary part of transparency. Before you start going down that track perhaps you might tell us who you are, and which parties you've belonged to over the years.

Graham, you have total control of this website, and have voluntarily, and freely given your "details", did anyone ever demand you "tell us us who you are" I do not believe so, other than for personal security reason, I would be happy to do so. I do not hide the fact I am a member of the Greens, and at one time the ALP. Several of your forum readers know who I am, as I have told others to "have a read".

The organised left spend heaps of their time on social media and are adept at reframing issues and creating an outcry. But then so many feel it lightning fast where their hip-pocket (and associated nerve) might be affected.

They are forever scanning for opportunities to get headlines and where that fails they drop it fast and move onto the next opportunity to whinge and blame-shift. No apology or corrections where they are proved wrong, which is usual, of course.

A favourite tactic is to resuscitate and kick the dog. They know that it is the number of mentions over time that matters, as they take advantage of human frailties in thinking identified by psychologists. The leftists ruthlessly and callously exploit those unique things that make us human, for example our sympathy.

The NSW 'Eastern Bloc' Greens elite for instance, are in the business of protest and serial activism to win soft careers with golden handshakes to benefit themselves. That is why they resist appeals from successive Greens leaders to co-operate in becoming a legitimate party with real policies one day. So it is only to be expected that they would be chucking the proverbial brown smelly stuff everywhere and often. The headlines if won are worth it for their human headlines. Fat lot they care about those 'Struggle Streets'.

Then there are those who astroturf on discussion sites, to protect their interests in the guvvy-funded victim industry. Including, naturally enough, the multicultural lobbyists, who may only be representing the financial and expansion interests of their own NGO that regards 'ethnic', 'asylum seeker', 'citizenship' and so on as profitable businesses to be in. They and types like the Greens feed off one another, having a similar interest of gulling and taking advantage of the trusting public to get a seat on the gravy train.

The 'Showboat' Greens Ludlam and Larissa Waters showed utter contempt for the Parliament and the public. Now the left is trying to pass them off as victims(!) and the Constitution, that is Australia, as the offender. Greens up to their cheap tricks, again.

Goodness me, this is certainly looking very political with the
attacks coming from some posters with their 'anti" stances
and their rigid and stereotypical terminology and -
their vague and sweeping generalisations about people
and certain political parties - instead of a case by case
examination of the individual Senators affected by s44(i)
of the Constitution.

Still, I suppose discussions whose subject matter involve
issues of deep human and moral concern will have some measure
of bias. Most of us tend to see things from a viewpoint of
subjectivity. We are influenced by our backgrounds, our
training, our values, and our personal experiences.

At least now with the cases of Senators Ludlum and Waters
perhaps the Courts will re-examine the Article s44 (i)
of the Constitution and decide what (if any) appropriate steps
need to be taken.

It shall be interesting to see what develops next as a result.

What an audacity to tell voters who can represent them and who cannot!

Say the voters want to represented by a camel, then they should be represented by a camel: what an excellent way to chew up all the government's proposed laws!

Hi there Graham, despite a well reasoned argument put forward for opposing what was a politically motivated act, The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, headed by a person who impartiality was openly questioned. Despite all that, you seem to believe that The Greens opposition was purely a product of a desire to curry favour with a union benefactor, the CFMEU.

Do you also believe that the recent company tax cuts instigated by the Coalition government were not for economic reasons, but a pay back to their big business benefactors.

p/s Can you clarify this; "And the Greens support the actions of Greenpeace, and other, activists. I'll instance Sea Shepherd, for one.
Generally, when facts are this widely known, one doesn't have to "substantiate" them."

Is there something illegal in that? I fail to see what it is

Foxy, sorry to have to say this, but your very dogmatic position on this subject could very easily be seen as the bias of the child of refugees.

It is just this type of biased position we can not allow into our parliaments.

Dear Hassie,

Not at all.

My parents followed your line of thinking to the
letter. Both were ultra conservatives, adored
anything British, and were totally devoted to
this country. And loved Menzies. My brothers
followed suit.

I'm the rebel.

Not because I'm a child of refugees but because I
lived and worked in the US for close to ten years.
That experience made me question a great deal of
what I had been taught and took for granted.
But I guess that's life - and even today, inside
of me there's often times when my conservative side
and family influence comes to the surface.

cont'd ...

Dear Hassie,

I stated earlier that to deny people with international
links political rights, the right to run for office is
not only unreasonable but incredibly short-sighted in
our current globalised age. Australia is undeniably
cutting itself off from some major political talent by
maintaining this very outdated Article s44(i) of the
Constitution.

To think that dual citizens cannot be representatives of
the people is belittling. Especially in a country like
Australia where a quarter of the population was born
outside the country and a further large percentage are
second generation residents with significant overseas
cultural ties.

I shall repeat what I stated earlier - it could easily
be said that people without such international links are
unrepresentative of the Australian public.

With such large numbers of Australians being so internationally
connected we should be able to rise above cheap definitions
of "loyalty" and maturely embrace our diversity in both our
Parliament and our public debates.

Foxy,

You can't very well be blaming it all on the 'Skippy' yet again (phew, what spin!).

The Greens Showboats and Greens leader Richard Di Natale have already admitted fault. Carelessness and lack of due diligence.

Do you imagine the Australian public to be so bovine that they would not know and remember that?

Foxy,

No one with international links is being denied the right to run for office. Juliar was born in the UK as were 22 present MPs. So your argument falls in a heap at the first hurdle.

Secondly, your comment that this is political also applies to you as you were silent when S44 was applied to others.

Paul,

The recent tax cuts were small and for small business.

The only people that questioned the partiality of Justice Heydon were trade union lackeys who would have questioned anyone in the position.

Hi Foxy, if we discount those who are motivated by political bias on the subject, what we are left with are two opposing camps. On the one hand there are those driven by nationalism, the extreme is the Hassy view which excludes and penalizes all who are not dinky-di, true blue Aussie, what ever that is. In the other camp are the more accepting types, you for instance, who see value in inclusion and believe that migrants can make a positive contribution to Australian society.

Australia is very much a multicultural society, an inescapable fact, and has been so since the European arrived permanently in 1788. Today 98% of Australians are in some way the product of many and varied cultures that have transplanted themselves from all parts of the world. In the Howard era, there was the notion of "Australian values" put forward, no sooner had that been wheeled out, and the argument began as to what it actually meant in a realistic Australian context. When you have so many people being the product of other cultures it is impossible to define with certainty what "Australian values" in a purely Australian context are. I will leave that to the nationalists to answer.

Shadow, depending on your own particular political philosophy it is easy to take a cynical view of politicians and what motivates them. The other side never acts with altruistic motives, its all grubby self serving and patronizing politics. This may shock you, but I think most politicians do try and act for the common good, most of the time. However political patronage in the form of donations is a factor in determining policy to some degree. I am sure if the Packer's or Murdoch's of this world want to give Malcolm their opinion on an issue, its only a matter of a phone call.

Paul,

If you discount all those motivated by political bias, you will have eliminated everyone on OLO. Some of us are motivated by 2 sanctimonious idiots getting their comeuppance.

MPs are voted in by the voters in their electorate and are expected to represent their electorate. To this end, they are expected to live in their electorate, similarly, federal MPs are expected to represent Australian voters and their interests, and a very small requirement to avoid conflicts of interest is that at the time of the election they are not citizens of another country. There is no requirement that citizens of another country are never allowed to be MPs. That it is written in the Constitution means that it is out of the reach of even the high court to modify.

In 2008 a friend of mine went bankrupt, not because of mismanagement, but because a large client that owed his business a large sum went bankrupt. He is now excluded from running for parliament but is a far better person than many of the ratbag MPs today. Are all laws always fair, absolutely not, should the exception dictate the rule, also not.

The two greenie idiots signed a statutory declaration that they were not citizens of another country, but never bothered to check. They are guilty of gross incompetence and possibly fraud, and just on those grounds, their loss is our gain.

Interesting thing is that Jordon Steele-John, the likely successor to Ludlam, actually went to a great deal of trouble during the last election to ensure that he was indeed an Australian citizen. So if he could, why not the others?

This pair have shown that they are either liars or incompetent.

As such we are much better off without them in parliament.

As they are greens, it is highly probable their replacements will be no better.

Why indeed didn't Ludlum and Waters renounce their
New Zealand and Canadian citizenships?

Perhaps it is just possible that they are telling us
the truth. That it did not occur to them to check on
their relationship with a nation they left at a very
young age and never knew. Perhaps they were genuinely
oblivious to the fact that they had to,concentrating instead
more on doing a good job as Senators for their electorates.
We can speculate all we like on those issues.

Of course some people are more interested in condemnation and
punishment than in explanation. Explanations seem tantamount
to sympathizing and excusing.

I guess it will be up to the courts now to decide the answer
to that question. Perhaps the courts will take into account
the fact that both Senators thought that their
Australian Citizenship and their Oath of Allegiance to
Australia was enough proof of "national loyalty"
and therefore acceptance of a place in our Parliament.

We'll have to wait and see what develops.

They are opposed to Australia as a separate nation, are all for 'Open Borders' and are all for the 'One World' government of the totalitarian International Socialists that would deny Australians any real say in their own affairs and destiny.

Previous Greens leader Bob Brown, who has been playing pirate on the High Seas with Sea Shepherd (who do get up to nasty things under the guise of 'being nice' to whales), proposed himself as the First President of the New World Order/Government.

Just saying, where the Greens are already sworn to the goals of International Socialism (or worse!) and support 'One World' overlords ruling Australia instead, they would not be placing much value on the Australian Constitution anyhow. Australian citizenship wouldn't count for much either where they are concerned, except for the availability of 'Wonderful Centrelink' to attract the sort of 'diversity' they and grubs like Soros want to disrupt Australian culture and traditions, especially Australian Law and democratic institutions.

The contempt for Australian culture and values and its democratic and legal inheritances is very strong among some here.

Section 44 (i).
"44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or ...."

In all this, spare a thought for those born overseas who cannot renounce their birth citizenship because the laws of their birth nation do not allow it; are they to be forever barred from public office?

Then there are the Irish, who, if a parent or a grandparent was born in Ireland are automatically citizens of Ireland.

How many MsP are affected by having relevant Irish ancestors?

Is Mise,

From DoFA,

http://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/citizenship/how-do-i-renounce-my-citizenship/
"How do I renounce my citizenship?
If you're an Irish citizen living abroad and you want to apply for citizenship of another country, you may need to renounce your Irish citizenship.
renounce citizenship
You can renounce your Irish citizenship if:
You are over 18 years of age
You live outside the State
You are, or are about to become, a citizen of another country
You need to:
Complete a declaration of alienage form
Get your declaration witnessed (there's a list of acceptable witnesses on your form)
Submit your form to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service"

Is there something else?

Dear Is Mise,

God Bless the wonderful Irish.

It would be rather sad without their rich cultural traditions
that have added so much to the myths, legends,
stories, and music - that I've passed on not only
to my grandchildren but to all the tiny tots in the Story-time
sessions that I've held at the regional libraries for many
years in the past.

And lets not forget St Patrick's Day - when we all become
"Irish".

Foxy,

The high court in the past has made allowances for someone that has made a genuine effort to renounce citizenship but has failed. Neither of these 2 idiots made any effort whatsoever, and ignorance has never been accepted as a valid excuse.

Foxy,

What has that got to do with the subject?

leoj,

One can renounce Irish citizenship but that has nowt to do with the fact of inherited citizenship.
A person so affected is an Irish Citizen, formal recognition can be granted by the issue of an Irish Passport and other relevant documents, but that is because of an existing right by birth and is completely different to the granting of citizenship to a non-citizen by the Irish Government.

Did he know?

<Senator Ludlam said he was “personally devastated to learn that an avoidable oversight a decade ago” has forced him to quit politics.
Despite his denial of any knowledge about his Kiwi citizenship, a citizen started a petition on Change.org three years ago, raising questions about Senator Ludlam’s citizenship.
Scott Ludlams (sic) refusal (under Freedom of Information request) to provide his Form RN renouncing his New Zealand citizenship before being elected raises serious questions about his legality as a Member f Parliament, the petition states.
Is this man really so incompetent that he can’t even himself as an immigrant obey Constitutional Law 101? A technicality is a technicality but it’s the law.>

Is Mise,
Thank you

Dear Is Mise,

You state that -

A technicality is a technicality but it's the law.

No one is denying that fact.

But it's a law that needs to be examined according
to its relevance to Modern Australia.

And it's good that we are debating it.

Hopefully the courts and politicians will take note.

cont'd ...

Dear Is Mise,

You asked (on page 5 of this discussion) -
How many MPs were affected by having relevant
Irish ancestors? And when I responded about
the Irish, you asked what does that have to
do with this discussion? Well, I would politely
suggest you take an intelligent guess.

However you are not debating it at all are you Foxy? You are avoiding discussion and ignoring posts.

What you represent is a very narrow sector that is hijacking the embarrassment of the Greens to further a secondary agenda of extreme multiculturalism, where Australian values, traditions, lifestyle, even citizenship, is devalued, denied and is up for grabs. For replacement by anyone, including the overseas billionaires who find borders and the autonomy and laws that go with them, not to their taste, an obstruction to their greed and hobby of interfering, just because they can.

The Greens want to move on. That was made obvious by the quick resignations of the Senators concerned, the immediate acceptance of the next in line replacements and the solemn promise for a new governance regime by leader Richard Di Natale.

However you have a different goal entirely, which is to bring into disrepute and delete, a section of the Australian Constitution. You are just riding bareback on the Greens and stirring. Because you see it as both another wedge and a staging post for more of that endless 'diversity' in all areas of life, a cringing, genuflecting servility, obsequiousness to all things foreign, that Australians have to have, no matter what.

Is it just that old inheritance of the self-loathing left (they never were the real Left who had guts even though they were often misled), or like so many, are you making a dollar out of it?

Should be, "The Greens NATIONALLY want to move on". That excludes the NSW based 'Eastern Bloc' faction who want to remain as a collective of serial stirrers - all care and no responsibility taken nor expected. Easy money for these selfish, irresponsible, seat-polishing Senators.

Foxy,

An intelligent guess is that your post had nowt to do with the subject.

Dear Is Mise,

Don't worry about it.

You did the best you could.

leoj,

Weak people revenge.

Strong people forgive.

Intelligent people ignore.

Sometimes one just have to let the "haters"
be mad.

While the forums regular Green bashers are taking the opportunity to give the big stick a solid workout over this fairly minor issue. The same people turn a blind eye to the incompetent pair with real power, Turnbull and Abbott who are going at each other like a couple of petulant school brats, whilst Australia goes down the gurgler.

Well done fellas!

".... or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or ...."

and that is the catch for MsP who have relevant Irish ancestors, who knows how many may be caught in that net?

Are there other countries that have the same, or similar, Constitutional provisions to those of the Republic of Ireland?

Paul,

Your last post is a typical Green 'Red Herring' (and by the time they turn green they're really on the nose.

Did anyone tell Ludlum about the Ghangre Org petition?
I remember when it came up, but took no notice of it; I can't believe that the Senator (as he was) didn't hear about the petition, therefore he dismissed it out of hand [rather stupid] or he checked his status, lied. and now owes the Australian Taxpayers a swag of money.

Paul,

If the Greens losing their 2 deputy leaders to staggering incompetence is a minor issue, what is a major issue?

Issy, even though I am a Green, I actually have no sympathy for these guys. Rough and tumble of politics, you win some, you lose some. and move on. I seen them as a worthy pair of senators doing a good job in my view. Not worth much if you get kicked out, or fall on your own sward. Looks like Abetz manged to get away with it, so what.

You know what I'm like when it comes to politics, I have strong views on most thing, but I'm pragmatic enough to realize what's the real world is like.

Both the Greens senators should really be ashamed of themselves. I am not inclined to offer a single excuse for them. Their negligence has been both disruptive and made a direct mockery of our democracy. Who knows what the vote might have been without these two leading the Senate ballot in their respective states.

Am I biased? Probably. Both the Greens and Labour are very much on the nose for me at the moment given their politicking over Turnbull's Gonski funding.

However we then I read this in our constitution; “Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power” the only person I think of is Abbott. To be giving a knighthood to Prince Phillip despite common sense speaks to an allegiance for his old country that is hard to put excuse.

In truth though that is small change compared to those so called Australians like Hasbeen and Shadow Minister who have show a great willingness to support multinationals over ordinary, sovereign Australians. They have scoffed at moves to secure a fair share of our resource wealth, they have campaigned against a very reasonable super profits tax, and railed against any attempt to secure gas supplies at anything other than full cost.

They might not show an allegiance to a foreign power as such but they certainly are not supporting ordinary Australians. Whatever I may think about the incompetence of the Green's senators I do not challenge their commitment to this country. This is not the case with these two.

what is a major issue?

Shadow, The comic farce that passes for a government in Canberra, led by the two "retards" Money Bags Malcolm and the Mad Monk. That's what!
You walked into that one!

Paul,

It's good that you recognize that the greens are insignificant.

SR,

Good to hear from the old Marxist again. Yes some of us don't view everyone that makes money through his own effort as a parasite. Neither do we view the multinationals that employ 100 000s of people in the highest paying jobs, pay royalties, company tax, wage taxes, p.a.y.e. for their workers etc as robber barons that need to be taxed out of existence. Similarly, I understand your lexicon where "fair share" is no fixed quantity, but simply legitimizes taking more, and reasonable means what ever the left whinge thinks they can get away with.

Judging from the many comments posted on social media
and from my social and work contacts in the community -
this issue looks like it is sadly leading to
the demise of the current Government and its
Coalition. That is the feeling amongst many migrant
groups that have supported the Liberal Party for
decades. The Labor Party also appears to be on the
nose as well.

By belittling the two Greens Senators they have affected
every person of immigrant ancestry in this country.

Not a good move politically.

Dear Foxy,

«Not a good move politically»

Indeed!

[Proverbs 24:17-18]

Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and He turn away His wrath from him.

Foxy, "By belittling the two Greens Senators they have affected every person of immigrant ancestry in this country"

It is your work to put lipstick on the pig apparently. But that spin would out-do a Kawasaki ZXR 250, and that red-lines out at 19,000rpm. Still, you are not known for being light on the pedal where self-serving spin is concerned.

However, the interests of NGOs and other lobbyists that are forever siphoning from the public trough do not always align with the needs and expectations of migrants, particularly those who are established. Bluntly, if you imagine they were impressed by those two 'Showboats', you can think again. The 'Showboats had no respect for themselves and none for their Party. Frivolous.

You need to get out of that bubble. Mr Google and ors are confirming your confirmation bias. Narrowing you down even further.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You and -

Blessings to you too dear chap.

I am blessed to have a family and a job I love -
and also be able to give back in a small way to
people in need. (I work part time as a volunteer
in a dementia wing of an aged care facility).

cont'd ...

Here is a link on what the Australian voters think
about dual citizenship:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/21/voters-ok-with-dual-citizens-in-parliament.html

That was a small sample of what some voters think.

Foxy,

I know that you are desperately trying to conflate this issue to affecting everyone, but it's not. This makes no difference to 99.99% of dual citizens and for the tiny handful that wants to run for MP, it requires a tiny sacrifice.

So mocking 2 airheads for a massive self-inflicted cock up affects no one but these two airheads.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not desperately trying to do anything of the sort.

I don't have to.

The link that I gave from SkyNews clearly showed that
a large portion of Australians (46.2 per cent with a
further 9.6 per cent undecided) are not in favour of
the rules that have seen two Greens Senators being
forced to quit Parliament.

The figures speak for themselves.

We all know that the past few weeks have been
the worst in the
modern history of the Australian Greens. I've never
voted for the Greens but I did admire both Scott Ludlum
and Larissa Waters and thought that both represented
the Greens' Parliamentary future.

A shame for our Parliament that we lost such capable
people.

Larissa Waters as has been pointed out by political
commentators - was the party's best media performer.
A great policy brain and an effective campaigner on issues
like the Carmichael coal mine, the health of the Great
Barrier Reef, women in the workplace, and so on. She was
tough and feisty. A needed voice in Parliament.

Scott Ludlum was one of the Senate's best Estimates
questioners. A razor sharp intellect with a sound grasp of
Parliamentary tactics.

Their leaving is a loss not only for the Greens but for all
of us who value talented Parliamentarians no matter which
party they come from.

"Their leaving is a loss not only for the Greens but for all
of us who value talented Parliamentarians no matter which
party they come from."

Their leaving is a boon for Australia and may the rest of their Green mates soon follow.

If Ludlum was such a dill that he didn't know that there had been a Change Org petition about his dual citizenship, some three years ago, then he deserves all that he got, if he did know then he is an incompetent fool for not checking his status, alternatively, he's a liar.

What you are not saying Foxy is that Larissa Waters was forever the superficial, self-entitled Showboat, the Paddle Boat, PB 'Princess'. Even regarding women issues, an easy target, there was nothing real and practical. Just self promoting stunts, in the Senate for instance. And cop that executive pad (linked to previously) that wasn't good enough for her and needed such 'necessities' as a roof top garden. High maintenance. She could empty the Bank of England.

Yet there are longstanding issues affecting almost all women, but fat lot the always-entitled Larissa, or Greens, might care. Foxy, you obviously need a reminder too. See here,

CHERFUL, Saturday, 22 July 2017 10:58:19 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19173&page=0#340825

Political stunts are easy. Criticism and social activism are easy. So very easy to flick a bit of brown stuff. But finding solutions and rolling up sleeves, building, is hard, requiring effort and time. Being constructive and balanced is hard. Taking responsibility is a long hard road, and definitely not for the privileged, self-entitled Larissa. .

The Greens should be learning from this lesson. Or else they are doomed to repeat the same mistake. And at the same times they will be losing the rare leader who might take their many ringed circus on.

Hi FOXY...

In one of your posts you mentioned the current LNP Government were destined for defeat at the next federal election. Indeed that are, and as an ultra conservative myself, I'm glad to see it as they deserve nothing more then to be consigned to the depths of political infamy.

After that treacherous individual Malcolm TURNBULL aka 'TURNCOAT', shafted a sitting PM in the back, they deserve nothing more than to be banished into the abyss of all quislings. It doesn't matter how bad or how good Mr ABBOTT is/was, the electorate put him there, and only the electorate should remove him. I have nothing but utter contempt for everything Mr TURNBULL stands for. The mere mention of his name is nauseating.

Interestingly, subsequent to the LNP's loss at the next federal election, their leader Mr TURNBULL will simply retire with his millions to his Point Piper mansion. While the rest of us will need to assimilate to a big spending Wm. SHORTIN government.

I do not support the Greens in anyway. However, despite the fact that my politics and the politics espoused by PAUL1405 are diametrically opposite. I've always found him to be refreshingly candid with his beliefs, affiliations, and opinions. More than could ever be said of that, that; 'person' Mr TURNBULL!

Dear O Sung Wu.,

You are not alone in your strong feelings
about our Prime Minister. However many of
my family and relatives still see no other
alternative. Mr Shorten is even less popular
with them.

I personally feel that the Liberal Party chose
to oust out Mr Abbott. I don't blame Mr Turnbull
for that. He simply took the opportunity that
was available. I guess that's politics.

However, don't stress - much can happen before the
next election. We've got interesting times ahead.

leoj,

Your description of Larissa Waters as a
"superficial self-entitled showboat"
is not something that I agree with.

I found the Senator to be a whip-smart
policy brain who has proven to be an effective
campaigner on so many issues.

She succeeded as a young politician from a
crucial growth state where the Greens have
traditionally struggled. Senator Waters had
all the hallmarks of a future leader and her
loss is a grave blow for her party.

I only recently found out more details about
her dual citizenship. It seems that she left
Canada as a baby (11 months old). She was
born to Australian parents studying and working
briefly in Canada before they returned home to
Australia.

Naturally the Senator lived her life thinking that
as a baby she was Naturalised to be Australian and
only Australian that that's what she thought she was.

However she's now found out that she was born
one week after Canada's 'Citizenship Act 1976'
came into force. That Act repealed earlier
provisions for involuntary loss of Canadian
Citizenship after naturalisation overseas.

Which of course meant that unbeknowns to her she did
have dual citizenship. Despite the fact that
she was an Australian Citizen of
Australian parents who just happened to be born in
Canada and left Canada as a baby of 11 months.

To me her case simply does not make sense.

I wonder where she'd be if she'd been
born on a Italian, German, British or American luxury liner?

Foxy,

You are beginning to look like an apologist for the greens. It takes a single visit or even just a letter to either the Canadian embassy or the NZ embassy to verify citizenship status. Given that prospective MPs are briefed on the citizenship requirements and both LW and SL knew they were born overseas, there is no reasonable excuse, and to fail their party for such a trivial error is gross incompetence.

That the Constitution is old is a feeble argument, as nearly all Aus Law is founded on principles that far outdate the Constitution going back as far as Roman times. That most countries in the world don't allow dual citizens to run for senior office would imply that the concept is not out of date with today's expectations.

As for the two senators, in spite of you singing their praises, I have yet to see from either of them a single policy of substance rather a wish list of populist agendas (if you can show one that contradicts me please do so). While I believe all politicians are show boats, these two are the most superficial.

Foxy, Your description of Larissa Waters as a "superficial self-entitled showboat"
is not something that I agree with"

To repeat the bleeding obvious,

Yet there are longstanding issues affecting almost all women, but fat lot the always-entitled Larissa, or Greens, might care. Foxy, you obviously need a reminder too. See here,

CHERFUL, Saturday, 22 July 2017 10:58:19 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19173&page=0#340825

Larissa's stunts in the Senate chamber and elsewhere were about Larissa. She and other strutting, self-entitled celebrities who are as fortunate as she is, but some not as well placed as she was to do anything about it, are riding on the backs of millions of women. Women they are constantly letting down.

Got to wonder if Larissa or any of those other women celebrities who claim to represent women, the womyns commentariat on The Box for instance, have ever graced shopping centre infants change rooms in their Gucci pumps and designer essentials. Yet the planet could be saved from global warming if only their endless gassing about women could be directed into electricity generation.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I have no control over your interpretation of
how I sound to you. The same as you have no
control over how you Sir sound to me on this
issue. Lets leave it at that.

leoj,

You have a history of consistently attacking
the Greens with insults, name calling, ad-hominems
and other childish tactics. Therefore your
current attacks on Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlum
doesn't hold much credibility. Your past
record unfortunately speaks for itself and as you're
proceeding in the same predictable style - to tell
you the truth I don't read most of what you write.
You never have anything new to say.

Dear foxy and o sung wu,

I will admit to being a little surprised myself but I'm finding Turnbull has risen a modicum in my estimation. This is at the expense of Shorten and the Green's, primarily due to their reprehensible Gonski politicking.

Up until this point I could have tossed a coin between Shorten and Albo but the former has lost me. Albo's position that Labour should have supported the government and touted the fact they had at least come someway toward Labour's position on education funding reform.

The Greens' are really starting to get a record of less than honest brokers, of being hyper-partisan at the expense of half way decent policy. I am thoroughly disgusted by their efforts during the latest Gonski debate. They are a minor party and so the kickem' at any cost should not apply. They really need a good look at themselves.

And I really did think we needed saving from Abbott. While not deposed in an election the people certainly had a hand in turfing him out by returning poll after poll of massive dissatisfaction with his performance.

That being said I did hanker over a chance to vote him out. Perhaps that will come to pass if he manages to do a Rudd. However I do recognise this is a selfish position to take, and one that does nothing for the country.

Foxy,

You must be too posh too to have any consideration for the great majority of ordinary Australian women, salt of the Earth, who are constantly being forgotten by the educated middle class elite of self-titled 'Progressives' who are doing very well for themselves and 'never you mind'.

There was Greens Princess Larissa, making a big show in the Senate, while out of that rarified atmosphere most women (&parents) were at the same time confronting the conditions (mainly lack of same) described by OLO contributor CHERFUL, Saturday, 22 July 2017 10:58:19 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19173&page=0#340825

Then Princess Larissa passed 'The Child' to her waiting retinue. A reverent hush descends, as the curtains gently drop for the next scene...

'Where is that tiara?' 'No! Not that one, the other one!'
So hard to get good help these days.

Voice from behind, 'Er, I might be able to supply names of some nannies. Going cheap, a bit over-used though'......

leoj,

What on earth are you on about now.

Still the same anti-Greens tirade I see.

Give it a rest, it is becoming embarrassing.

So you think that I'm posh?
I'm not quite sure of what you mean by that?

Therefore I don't quite know
how to respond.

I'm someone
who's always had to work hard for what I
wanted and what I have I well and truly
earned. Yes, I am fortunate to have had a
good education - but again, nobody gave that
to me. I had to study hard to get that. It
wasn't easy.

I imagine that the same can be said for Larissa
Waters - who you seem to think has had it easy.
Do you know how hard it is to study and earn a
degree? And Senator Waters has several degrees.
Therefore inferring that she's some kind of
"Princess" is really ignorant. And life for a
female Senator in Parliament is not easy either.

Dear SteeleRedux,

It will be interesting to see what happens prior
to the next election. There's so much talk at present.
I'm mainly interested in the policies. Still,
I also have to admit that I am leaning more towards
Malcolm Turnbull currently. Mr Shorten does not
appeal to me at all. As for Mr Abbott? Mr Turnbull
needs to take that man aside and have a serious heart-to-
heart with him. Things can't keep on going as they
currently are.

Foxy,

There is a gap, a chasm, between the elitist Greens and the ordinary public. Women provide a perfect example of that.

Here, from page 11, since you feign ignorance, and you will need to duck again,

<To repeat the bleeding obvious,

Yet there are longstanding issues affecting almost all women, but fat lot the always-entitled Larissa, or Greens, might care. Foxy, you obviously need a reminder too. See here,

CHERFUL, Saturday, 22 July 2017 10:58:19 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19173&page=0#340825

Larissa's stunts in the Senate chamber and elsewhere were about Larissa. She and other strutting, self-entitled celebrities who are as fortunate as she is, but some not as well placed as she was to do anything about it, are riding on the backs of millions of women. Women they are constantly letting down.

Got to wonder if Larissa or any of those other women celebrities who claim to represent women, the womyns commentariat on The Box for instance, have ever graced shopping centre infants change rooms in their Gucci pumps and designer essentials. Yet the planet could be saved from global warming if only their endless gassing about women could be directed into electricity generation.
Posted by leoj, Monday, 24 July 2017 3:28:23 PM>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7855&page=11

leoj,

I stopped reading your post when I saw
that you were on your usual rants.
Then I just lost interest.

Hi there FOXY & STEELEREDUX...

I'm so fed up with all but a very few of our LNP federal politicians, I'd lock 'em all up given half a chance! All the backstabbing, the factions, and quislings all doing their own thing, is utterly disheartening to the average voter. If one were a true conservative, as am I, you'd never cast a vote, to favour the LNP with Mr TURNBULL at the helm. I see myself casting a vote for Mr Cory BERNADI and his team provided Mr BERNADI even has a team, and they are all bona fide Australian citizens.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Yes, things are in a bit of a mess politically at
the moment but you know what - I watched Q&A last
night. It was a first. The audience was made up
entirely of High School students as was the
panel. What smart kids they were. It gave me great
re-assurance that the future of our country is
in very good hands.

Since the Q&A show was mentioned as a lesson for us all, I had a quick look but was disappointed by two things:

-first, the ABC's player was down so it was impossible to view. But there were questions listed which could be a guide for the content, which was some plus; and

-secondly but of more importance, the questions were so predictably channeled, which is only to be expected I guess.

With the subjects like:
-gay marriage (a predictable perennial where the ABC and particularly Q&A is concerned);
-youth&politics, "when figures such as Bernie Sanders in the USA or Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom emerge, young people can become very engaged and influential"(!);
-intergenerationsl 'inequity'; and,
- lower the voting age etc.,

are on the list one cannot but imagine that there is some far left, Marxist, dead hand guiding. Of course it could be the program and people's expectations of it. People would be self-selecting, audience and panel (viewers too!). And Q&A does select and help frame the questions.

But then the questions do not come across as representative at all of what healthy young people find interesting, and young people are most often full of hope and the adventure of youth. What is happening?

continued..
fter thinking for a few minutes I ended up hoping against hope that it was the availability heuristic in action and they young people were just talking up what they were seeing from Q&A and headlines.

Then there is the Marxism in the education curriculum that has been boasted of by those involved in framing it.

I am not impressed but concerned about the apparent psychological channeling of young people's minds. And I was left even more concerned about their futures where their thinking had already been narrowed.

There is a need for parents to make sure they are watching what their children are being exposed to in education, particularly in Victoria.

As for The Box and ABC's Q&A with its broken record, tedious 'Progressive ' agenda, switch it off, the social media too and encourage the young to get out there face to face and enjoy their bodies. Less diabetes from couch surfing watching Q&A is a good thing.

I read the analysis of last night
Q&A's program in today's The Australian.

It was an interesting read.

Last night's episode of Q&A was youth-focused in which
most of the panellists and the audience were high
school students. They debated amongst other
things - the quality of life, the Adani coal mine
in Queensland, climate change, same-sex marriage (raised
by a gay student) mental health issues, teenage suicide,
freedom of speech, and how engaged young people were in
politics. A young Muslim audience member raised a question
about the new
combined intelligence ministry.

All in all the younger generation asked tough questions of
their peers - Liberal Environmental and
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and
Labor's Health spokeswoman - Catherine King.

Australia's next generation were
concerned about whether they will have a better quality of life
than their parents did - as they watch the rising cost
of living, housing prices, and education fees skyrocket.

The program clearly illustrated that our young generation
cares a great deal about their democratic and legal
inheritances and about those who are on "Struggle Street."
Which was shown by the questions asked - of youth suicide,
and youth unemployment (particularly in rural areas such
as Mildura).

I'm therefore somewhat surprised by leoj's reaction to the
program. He's one poster who keeps telling us -

"Fat lot you care about those "Struggle Streets."
(or words to that effect).

And talks about - "the contempt for Australian culture
and values and its democratic and legal inheritances..."

Last night's program should have put his mind at rest
one would have thought.

Still as he himself has stated - he's not known "for
being light on the pedal where self-serving spin is concerned."

Foxy,

Some comments on the Facebook page, a taste,

-These kids need to stop demanding that the government do more for them and start doing something for themselves.

- Schooled by ideology. Ok!

-Fair to say the kids were promised "smashed avocado" vouchers for brekky this morning.

- The other half of the empty glass? If it's empty, can someone please explain what is half of nothing? Must be lefty maths again..... Q&A should be rated as comedy. Panelists and audience stacked in favour of the left week after week. Absolute rubbish TV and a waste of Tax payers money.

- Start studying (hours in the library on your iPhone and iPad doesn't improve your grades). Develop some people skills in the real world, not the virtual one. Stop sooking, everyone has their own journey and their own battles in life. s as usual playing big Daddyo with his smug smirk cutting people off while they're still making their point.

-And apparently a life on welfare should be accepted and even admired according to one of the panelists. When are people in this country going to wake up and realise that without investment and a competitive business environment.....there are no jobs. Qanda and their panels are living in a dream world that doesn't, didn't and never will exist.

So for balance there are two sides.

But what I am more concerned with:

- nothing new, just the usual subjects and dependent whining on Q&A

- youth are being schooled into disempowerment, whining, protest and hash tags. Lack of optimism, lack of interest in broader life. Who the hell is conditioning these kids to be so negative and self-limiting, and to be so unaware of the 99.9% of life that is good? As well, who schools them to be so anti-establishment, which is limiting in itself?

LIBERAL SHOULD RESIGN FROM PARLIAMENT! Liberal minister Matt Canavan has resigned from the Turnbull Cabinet over duel citizenship, not good enough. The bloke has Italian citizenship! Out he goes. No excuses Canavan, on your bike, good riddance.

leoj,

You advise our young students to develop people
skills in the real world not the virtual one and
yet your post is taken from some comments you found
on a Facebook page. There's a word for that.
Hypocrite.

Then you proceed in your usual rants of "lefty maths again,"
and that the Q&A audience is stacked in favour of the Left,
(this was a student audience mind you), Left this,
and Left that, and that its
absolute rubbish TV and a waste of taxpayers money, et cetera.
And then the final clincher - your faux concern for the
youth of today. And this after you've just rubbished everything
they've said and the issues they've raised on the program.

It's not brain surgery to wonder why your unsubstantiated
rants can't be taken seriously.

You need to change your tactics.

Regarding Matt Canavan's situation.

This is getting beyond the point of absurdity.

It was his mother who did the dual citizenship
on his behalf without asking him or telling
him. He was an adult at the time and he did not
sign anything or agree to anything - so I would
question the legality of what she did. The
Senator had no idea of his joint status until
she told him recently after what had happened to
Senators Ludlum and Waters. And now to resign?

This case should go in front of the courts and
quickly.

Foxy,

Unlike some here I am usually scrupulous in using inverted commas and giving a link. On this occasion I have mentioned the source but unusually for me omitted the inverted commas. However, it is very obvious even to the mentally challenged that it was a quote, as is made plain by the introductory sentence and the list below it,

<Some comments on the Facebook page, a taste,

-These kids need to stop demanding that the government do more for them and start doing something for themselves.>

And at the end there is, "So for balance there are two sides" which again to all but a fool or a stirrer would indicate the end of the quoted list as well.

Now, what about you address the issues for once, instead of ducking? Not your strong point? But nor is balance.

I suggest too that many parents, teachers and psychologists would go as far as saying that entertainment shows that always focus on the negatives and sensationalise, without paying due regard to the positives (and 99.9% IS positive where youth are concerned in Australia) do a very severe disservice to youth, encouraging sadness and withdrawal, feelings of isolation, exasperation and disbelief, that they might have any impact on what affects them, no matter what they do. It is a recipe for resigned futility.

While it suits the secondary agenda of the Greens 'protest party' and other collectives of stirrers to get youth dismayed and upset, the 'good guys', parents, teachers, counsellors and ors who are trying to help youth are seeing their good work going down the drain.

You might want to Google some long passages to bury this post as well.

Senator Canavan? It could be out of a Seinfeld script.

However it will be decided by a court and so where the die falls, so be it.

One rule for the Greens and another rule for the Liberals, As Canavan has admitted to holding Italian citizenship, and since the Constitution makes no allowance for "Me Mum got it for me!" crap, Canavan should resign from Parliament,

Strangely, none of the Usual Suspects have jumped in to demand Canavan's resignation. and money paid back. Why not fellas?

Whee, I agree with Paul. Of course Canavan must go.

If Turnbull was in any way decent, or actually a leader he would have made him go.

Can there be any redeeming of either of them? Certainly not in my book.

leoj,

To quote you -

"So easy to flick a bit of brown stuff...
Being constructive and balanced is hard."

Try taking your own advice.

Until you do your rants don't interest me.

Here's a great idea for Russia:

Is it a Russian interest for any particular Australian political party to win?

Then simply, grant Russian citizenship to all the members of the other party(s) - good riddance to them all!

Paul,

While I agree that MC should resign, the comparison of his position with the staggering incompetence of the greens is not there.

There is a stark difference, chalk and cheese, in that Senator Canavan is choosing to defend his case in Court. That is not something the two Greens were prepared to do. The Greens admitted fault chose to resign to prevent that from happening.

Greens administration/governance was criticised publicly by past and present leaders and the two Greens. That is also on the public record.

Canavan is best serving the interests of his electorate, the Parliament and Australian public. It will be interesting to have the Court examine the conditions, hopefully what was intended by s44 and other relevant provisions, for example its utility and effectiveness in treating risks.

Foxy,
It was you who put forward the irrelevant Q&A entertainment show (not news or fact, entertainment according to ABC management). It is discourteous and unreasonable to do that and then try to censor other comments. The subject newspaper's facebook page was indeed relevant and topical. The only problem where you are concerned is that the public reaction to the show was not something you wanted disclosed. See page 13, here,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7855&page=13

It is surprising but at the same time predictable that a 'young person's' Q&A comes up with 'issues' that identical to the predictable 'issues' of the 'adult' ones (sic, adult is a stretch). So inner-city Hipster ('Ultimo') Sydney.

However such shows are not understood by all viewers as the concept of 'entertainment' of ABC executives. That and all of the media and especially on The Box, should have regard for their effects on youth, especially where it is marketed as being for them.

There is no need for you to say that you don't read posts that you don't agree with. You have I believe done that to others besides my humble (and quick) contributions. Where you don't intend to comment you could do just that

leoj,

Most of the time I do ignore your posts however when
you continue to address and provoke me deliberately
I am forced at times to respond. I shouldn't but I do.

Yes,I did bring up the subject of the show Q&A as a
response to O Sung Wu's post on page 12 where he
stated he was fed up with all but a few of our politicians.
And I agreed with him on the following page
that the state of our political
affairs was in a bit of a mess.

My response was relevant to his comments, more so
than many of your posts in this discussion, because as I
explained in my post, Q&A's program that evening was a
youth-focused episode in which the younger generation
asked some tough questions of their peers, covering a
wide range of topics which showed that with youngsters
as caring as these were, our country's future was in good hands.

You then went on your rants through several
posts about "Leftism" et cetera, accusing the ABC of
all sorts of things (I'm surprised that you didn't bring
in George Soros, World Order, Totalitarianism, Socialism,
or Johannes Bjelke Petersen into the conversation).
You again accused the ABC of stacking the audience in favour
of the "Left" - and this a high-school audience. You stated
that it was absolute rubbish TV and a waste of taxpayer's
money and -
- then you have the gall to accuse me of irrelevance, and tell
me that I'm being impolite and discourteous.

How on earth can anyone take you seriously or even
continue to respond to what you write.

It’ll be interesting to see what the High Court determines in Canavan’s case.

One thing about constitutional law is that, compared to all other areas of law, it has relatively little case law with which to interpret it. And even then, what little case law there is has mostly been focused around the interpretation of the sub-sections of s 51 (i.e. the legislative powers of the Commonwealth).

I suspect that what the High Court determines in this case will depend largely on the worldviews and legal approaches of the current sitting judges. A predominantly formalist bench will likely uphold a more literal interpretation of the provision and insist that Canavan’s election was unconstitutional, and that any change to such a strict interpretation of the provision be put to a referendum. A more activist bench, on the other hand, may take a more purposive approach and find that the recent incidences are not in line with what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted that provision, and that they could not have possibly foreseen the problems that it is creating today.

Whatever the High Court decides, it appears that it is high time we got some case law on how to interpret this provision in a modern day context.

Yuyutsu,

"Then simply, grant Russian citizenship to all the members of the other party(s) - good riddance to them all"

and there you have the great menace lurking, any foreign government, or dictator, can interfere with our Parliament Members' status at the stroke of a pen.

This provision of the Constitution has to go.

So the rumour is true, Money Bags Malcolm has asked his new second best buddy Vlad the Unvailer (MBM's new best buddy is The Donald of course) to grant Russian citizenship to his not a buddy at all Phony Tony. Malcolm was thinking of offering Tony the ambassadorship to Siberia, the thinking being; "its a long way to Siberia", citizenship would just help things along. What about it Vlad!

Foxy,

You introduced the irrelevancy of the 'youth' Q&A that was as predictably politically correct 'Ultimo' Hipster as the so-called 'adult' entertainment version.

Q&A is the Oz version of the Jerry Springer show. And compere Jones performs the same circus ringmaster role. Same outbursts of faux indignation and self-righteousness from the dumbed-down audience who cat-cry and applause enthusiastically and without thought, getting it wrong sometimes and needing a tip in the right direction by the ringmaster. Except that the ABC's Q&A is the Oz flagship for political correctness.

So of course the 'youth' show comes up with the same old, same old, perennials worn threadbare by Tony Jones. Or is it that by the earpiece he wears?

The ABC could save hugely on production costs by cutting out the smug compere, panel and audience. Just put on the earpiece and canned wildly enthusiastic applause and reproachful hisses as required by the PC script.

This is the public broadcaster's Q&A and the challenge is out to Springer to do worse. But Springer would have principles.

"Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain"
http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

Taxpayers are up for $1.3 billion plus for that. That could be a big new public hospital a year. What about roads, community recreation facilities too?

leoj,

I did explain to you previously why I raised - the program
"Q&A".

Besides -

We've covered the question of this program in other
discussions. The criticism that the program lacks
impartiality and maintains a left-wing anti-Coalition
bias is an impression that is not substantiated.

The program is regarded by most Australians as an
important conduit for direct public participation with
their Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should
be able to hold their own during questioning from the
audience.

The program provide a platform for critical scrutiny of
a government's performance. Be it the Coalition or the
ALP. This scrutiny was applied in equal measure to both
when they were in government.

As for the cost of the ABC?

Australians pay hundreds of dollars a year to Foxtel
and very few people would think that 14 cents a day for
the ABC is excessive.

But then each to their own. If you think the ABC is too
expensive for an affluent democracy such as Australia,
and you don't think that governments should be held to
account by the public. That's your viewpoint.

I happen to think otherwise.

Cheers.

Leoj, anything to say about your man the One Nation nong Malcolm Roberts who has admitted that he held British citizenship the day he was elected to Parliament. Refuses to release so called "evidence" to the contrary. maybe the ink hasn't dried yet!
You seem to jump from one thread to the other on this topic. What about your own thread 'The Remarkable Mr Ludlum', renamed 'The Remarkable Mr Roberts'

OK so that '14 cents a day' can buy a new $1.3 billion hospital a year. Or fix the abuse of indigenous mothers and children. Or provide infrastructure that has been over-run by the feds' over-enthusiastic immigration targets for decades.

It is NOT the role of the ABC to hold government to account - particularly one side of government, as its political correctness dictates.

Who consulted the public before this very one-sided circus went to air and where was the public interest that set that 'priority' above all else? It was the ABC doing its thing, 'their' thing, wasn't it?

"Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain"
http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

No surprises then that the so-called 'youth' Q&A revisits the same ground. Honestly, as if such subjects are the main concerns and interests of high school students.

The independent Aunty of years ago, the Aunty that informed, has long disappeared, gone. It is a dead.
RIP Aunty

leoj,

I totally disagree.

And you are wrong.

It is not the ABC that holds the governments to account.
What it does is provide a conduit for direct public
participation in that process and most thinking people
would consider that to be important in a democracy.

Worth 14 cents a day.

After his incessant rants about the two Greens senators, leoj has gone awfully quiet when it comes to one of his own, the One Nation nong from Queensland Malcolm Roberts. Keyboard not working leoj?

Section 44 of the Australian constitution disqualifies from sitting in either the House of Representatives or the Senate;
Any person who: (i)  is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.

Australia has 5 Jewish members of the Australian Parliament from both sides of politics. They certainly have the 'right of return' to Israel. My question is does this bring them under the definition of being “entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”?

If not why not?

If so then what would they need to do to properly renounce that right?

We hear news reports of young Australians going and spending time in the IDF forces before returning to Australia. This also occurs with Australians serving in the Greek forces. What would each need to do if they ever wished to later serve in the Australian Federal Parliament?

SR,

While most left whingers are for some unknown reason anti-Semitic, I am yet to fathom why reason eludes them. As the rights to citizenship etc only manifest once a person of Jewish heritage actually relocates to Israel.

From what I recall Malaysia has an automatic right of entrance to Muslims. Does this make Muslims Malaysian citizens?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Reason eludes a lot of people not just one
specific group, unfortunately.

And raising questions regarding Israel does
not constitute anti-Semitism. That's a standard
line that's been used so many times. As author
Antony Loewenstein can confirm.

Regarding Muslims from Malaysia. You might need
to do some research on that question. I think
it's not straight forward.

Foxy,

Targeting 5 MPs purely because they are Jewish is not questioning Israel.

Notably, SR chose one particular faith, whereas other faiths such as Muslims tend to integrate far less, with far weaker allegiances to Australia.

Dear Shallow Minister,

Mate, a charge of antisemitism was completely expected from your good self. You have it so ingrained now that it is practically a Tourettes response. Despite the fact, as we have previously ascertained, you are not Jewish. We arrived at the conclusion back then that your stance was purely political, as in this is the path your party has decided to take, and you have gone along with it in the usual slavish fashion. Most people would think it as sycophantic and more than a little demeaning but you seem to engage in it with relish.

You also chose to raise the red herring of;

“From what I recall Malaysia has an automatic right of entrance to Muslims. Does this make Muslims Malaysian citizens?”

This is for a visiting visa, not migration, and include a group of Islamic countries, not all mind you.

There are three pathways for a non-Israeli Australian wishing to serve in the IDF;

IDF Mahal - Jewish or Zakai Aliya (one of your parents or one of your grandparents is/was Jewish)
IDF Mahal Nahal Haredi - Jewish (religious/haredi only)
IDF Mahal Hesder - Jewish (religious/dati only)

The last two are for men only.
http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/about/join.htm#mahalqualifications

So I ask again, what would an Australian who served in the IDF have to do to satisfy the Australian constitution in order to eligible to sit in our parliament?

Dear Shadow Minister,

How many Muslims are there in our Parliament?

Perhaps SteeleRedux chose Jewish Parliamentarians
because there's more of them - and by the way,
kindly answer his question and try not to divert.

Dear Foxy,

I should be clear about this. My original post was prompted by this article;

http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-australians-who-go-to-war-for-the-israeli-and-greek-armies-20140911-10fj89.html

Why it gets interesting of course lies in the fact that Israel is notionally identified by many people as a Jewish state and the 'right of return' is such an emphatic emblem of that mindset.

This means that for a sizable number of Australian Jews there understandably lies a division of loyalty between Israel and Australia. This is usually not a issue until instances like the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai where Australian passports amongst others were used to assist the killers.

“But were the Israeli dual nationals whose foreign passports were allegedly forged unaware that their identities were stolen by the Mossad? Or were they acting as sayanim, the Hebrew word for helpers, whom the Mossad relies on across the globe to provide shelter, money, and logistical support... in this case identity. A sayan, singular for sayanim, must be 100% Jewish, and in many cases a dual national.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-dajani/mossads-little-helpers_b_487173.html

I have no issue with an Australian who identifies themselves as Jewish putting the interests of Israel above those of Australia. I think I would too if I were in their shoes. But the Australian constitution is very clear about banning those “under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power” from taking a seat in our Federal Parliament.

Israel is a foreign power.

To be eligible for Israeli citizenship, one must:

1. Be a Jew; the spouse of a Jew who is not an Israeli citizen; the child of a Jew; or a grandchild of a Jew.
2. If they have ever been a Jew, they must have never willingly converted to another religion (but Israel's supreme court ruled that this rule is void if the person had since forsaken their new religion).
3. Be physically present in Israel.
4. Express their wish to settle in Israel.
5. Not be currently working against the Jewish nation.
6. Not pose a health or security risk to Israel.
7. Not have a criminal record which might endanger the public.
8. Not be a minor who came to Israel on their own without his/her parents/guardians.

Jewish parliamentarians who are in Australia, obviously do not fulfil condition #3, so they are ineligible.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You for explaining.

It is a complex issue.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for clarifying things for us.

SR,

The right of return for Jews into Israel is not automatic, and the comparison with Muslims into Malaysia is very close. And that there are fewer Muslim MPs than Jewish is irrelevant.

"A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Eligible applicants under the Law of Return have no claim to any of the rights or privileges of an Israeli citizen until they are formally granted Israeli citizenship. This is possible after three months of residency in Israel. New arrivals are issued an Israeli Travel Document during this period, after which they are granted citizenship."

Your anti-Jewish / Israeli stance is also an automatic reflex as shown in another of your posts: "And Alan would you then also make the case for sterilising Jewish settler women?" as is your automatic assumption that Australian Jews who had their identities stolen were complicit.

To answer your question, I believe that serving in an overseas army is not an obstacle to being an MP unless it was a state hostile to Australia. As neither Greece nor Israel is regarded as hostile or terrorist states, there is no issue.

What is your view of Australian soldiers seconded to the US or the UK?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Australian soldiers seconded to the US or the UK
are simply following orders. Which as soldiers
is what they are supposed to do.

It's different for private individuals who may have a conflict
of interest in their loyalties though, and they
want to become a member of our Parliament.
Different situation altogether.

So when an Australian, of Jewish persuasion, goes to Israel to do his stint in the Israeli army, what is he doing it as....an Australian?

' So when an Australian, of Jewish persuasion, goes to Israel to do his stint in the Israeli army, what is he doing it as....an Australian?'

a lot less concerning than a young person going to Hamas to learn how to strap a bomb or behead the 'right' way.

I didn't ask about what concerned you, or what you might believe....I asked a simple question and if you don't have an answer other than to confuse the issue....butt out!

Dear ilmessaggio,

Not had the time to properly look into it but this blog post by an American who also joined as a 'lone soldier' might shed some light.

Here is the oath he swore. He is not an Israeli citizen but is certainly Jewish.

"I hereby commit myself to remain loyal to the State of Israel, its constitution and official government and to accept unconditionally and unhesitantly the weight of responsibility of the Israeli Defense Forces, and to obey orders and commands given by my official commanders and to devote all my strength and even sacrifice my life in the defense of my homeland and the freedom of Israel."
http://fromusatoidf.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/i-am-idf.html

Dear Shadow Minister,

As Foxy said seconded soldiers do no swear oaths of allegiance to a foreign power.

You also wrote;

"and the comparison with Muslims into Malaysia is very close"

Absolute tripe! It is exceedingly difficult for someone to become a citizen of Malaysia whether they are Muslim or not.

You also wrote this;

“Your anti-Jewish / Israeli stance is also an automatic reflex as shown in another of your posts: "And Alan would you then also make the case for sterilising Jewish settler women?" as is your automatic assumption that Australian Jews who had their identities stolen were complicit.”

More drivel. I made an entirely valid point that Alan was proposing sterilization to address 'war through the womb' for Gazan women then by his definition it should apply even more to illegal settlers in the West Bank because of their higher fertility rate. He was quick to disown it which was the reason for the comparison.

It was not my 'automatic assumption' about Australians perhaps being complicit in having their identities stolen rather it was the Huffington Post.

All of the Australians whose passports were copied are from Victoria but have lived in Israel for an extended time. I think there is a case to be made that Mossad could make high quality forgeries through having direct access to these passports. Are you saying there was zero cooperation between this group of Victorians and Mossad?

SR,

What bollocks, you are simply flying a kite on a very long line. Because someone has a chance at applying for Israeli citizenship does not make him a citizen, or even vaguely mean that he owes more allegiance to Israel than Australia. Frankly, your implication that the Australians who had their identities stolen were Israeli spies is disgusting.

Given that there have been 13 Islamist terrorist attacks thwarted and 2 not prevented in the last few years and not one Jewish attack, I would say that your anti-Semitic racism is misdirected.

I would say that a youngster that pledges allegiance to the IDF for a limited time in a support role will have mixed loyalties at that point. However, if he does not take Israeli citizenship and decade later runs for parliament it would take a lot to show that his loyalties lay elsewhere.

With regards to Malaysia, it is considerably easier to gain citizenship if you are Muslim, as thousands do every year.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You really have become pathetically transparent my friend. To hurl 'anti-Semitic' and 'racist' slurs invariably means you are trying to cover an argument that is rubbish.

To be forced to use them both in the one sentence usually means that the argument that follows is going to be utter bollocks and you dutifully delivered.

“I would say that a youngster that pledges allegiance to the IDF for a limited time in a support role will have mixed loyalties at that point. However, if he does not take Israeli citizenship and decade later runs for parliament it would take a lot to show that his loyalties lay elsewhere.”

The youngster in question does not only pledge allegiance to the IDF does he. He also pledges to loyalty to the State of Israel and to “even sacrifice my life in the defense of my homeland and the freedom of Israel.”

He is declaring Israel his homeland. There is nothing 'mixed' about it. Then you say if this person wants to saunter into the Australian Parliament 10 years later nothing needs to be said or done? What a terrible argument. Surely at a bare minimum this person should have to renounce that earlier oath and reaffirm his or her loyalty to this country. Or is it just because they are Jewish they should be treated differently. You sir really are a bigoted person.

Finally this nonsense; “your implication that the Australians who had their identities stolen were Israeli spies is disgusting”

How bloody ludicrous could you be? An Israeli spy giving up his personal passport to assist in an assassination? No, however the Huffington Post queried “were they acting as sayanim, the Hebrew word for helpers, whom the Mossad relies on across the globe to provide shelter, money, and logistical support... in this case identity. A sayan, singular for sayanim, must be 100% Jewish, and in many cases a dual national.”

A perfectly reasonable question except blinkered sycophants like yourself.

Now be realistic: A young person pledging allegiance to anything, doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say - they've got other things on their minds.

Perhaps they want to stay away from the parents, or perhaps they are told by their parents to go, perhaps it's something romantic, whatever, then some adults tell them to swear such-and-such - they might as well have been told to jump around 3 times on one foot and say: "I'm a rooster, I'm a rooster, I'm a rooster", which they would have done just the same.

SR,

As MP swears allegiance on taking office, this overrides the oath of loyalty pledged by a teenager for the duration of a 15-month non-combat "camp". As this commitment does not extend to citizenship, anyone a decade later trying to challenge in court this person's entitlement to run for parliament would struggle.

Secondly, as you raised the issue of Jews serving in Israel you are the bigot. I simply responded to the senario that you presented. I don't see this being a problem in any other state that shares Aus values and is not proscribed.

That you unquestioningly echo this "question" of the involvement of Australian dual nationals originated from Jamal Dajani (a vocally anti-Israeli Palestinian) speaks more to your bigotry than against it. That these dual citizens travelled to Israel is known, and thus Mossad would have their passport details. That the Mossad would burn their "helpers" would be ludicrous to all but Palestinian sycophants.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The American in the above blog was a university graduate before joining. I think it is a hard stretch to claim such a person “doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say”.

Dear Shadow Minister,

See above. Why did you pull 'teenager' out of your proverbial? Oh yes, that is right – unscrupulous deflection is your default method of defending the indefensible. And this was not a training camp. He was stationed in occupied territory doing heavily armed patrols.

And what is this? “As MP swears allegiance on taking office, this overrides the oath....”

Go and read the Australian constitution again my friend. It surely couldn't be clearer.

“Any person who: (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”

You are basically saying an Australian university graduate who has made acknowledgment of allegiance to a foreign power is under no obligation to publicly renounce it before taking a seat in our Federal Parliament?

Bloody hell the contortions sycophants like yourself make are breath-taking.

Just a heads up my friend, for many years we used to be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum until the day you accused me of being a Jew hater and refused to retract it. You have continued to do so at every opportunity. I'm wondering if you find the result edifying.

Dear SteeleRedux,

«The American in the above blog was a university graduate before joining. I think it is a hard stretch to claim such a person “doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say”.»

Sorry, as I have not read all the comments, it is my fault of not being aware that we are discussing a particular case of a particular American with a particular blog, rather than foreign soldiers in general.

If the person is a university-graduate, then it is indeed unlikely that they cannot understand the oath, but it is still possible and likely that they do not attach significance to it, as well as other mitigating factors.

One thing you should realise, is that soldiers do not make such oaths before joining the army, but during, after completing some training. Normally, a soldier would not even be aware that they will be required to make an oath until close to that time. Also, they do not actually say the oath because it would be too long: they stand, sleep-deprived, in a long line and are called one by one to raise their hand and say "I swear".

Obviously they get no opportunity to negotiate the words of their oath - they are COMMANDED to make it. Refusal to swear would result in court-martial and incarceration - well perhaps in the case of a non-citizen American they could be saved that and sent instead on the first plane home.

I am saying this because many years ago I also was a conscript. I was in the army against my will. When it was time to make an oath of allegiance, I said the words "I Swear" out loud, then added softly "that I am not a cat".

Dear Yuyutsu,

You big pussy you ;)

You wrote;

“but it is still possible and likely that they do not attach significance to it, as well as other mitigating factors”

Larrisa Waters certainly did not intend to be regarded as a Canadian when she was born to Australian parents in that country, one she left when she was 11 months old. She left parliament because she had not forsworn that tie, as tenuous as it was, to a foreign power.

I'm afraid someone of voting age who swears an oath of allegiance to a foreign power and is determined to fight for that country at risk to their own lives should not be deemed to have less responsibility and less requirement to actively forswear that allegiance before taking a seat in our Federal Parliament than she did. End of story.

Dear SteelRedux,

I don't think that Larrisa Waters should have resigned from parliament: this trait of strict adherence to law and constitution, in defiance of common-sense, is rotten, plain stupidity. Moreover, I don't agree with the principles behind S44 to begin with. I believe that the voters should be able to choose to be represented by whomever they want with no restrictions whatsoever... well, perhaps with the only provision that he/she/it will not eat the other representatives...

It is pretty questionable whether in general, someone who was made to say the words "I swear" under duress was indeed determined to fight for this-or-that country, how more so to risk their life for it.

Meow!

Dear Yuyutsu,

You really are a pussy-cat (smile).

SR,

I was talking generally and not specifically about the person in your blog. The program is open to anyone 18 and above, so you are the one going off half cocked. As I have said before, the same logic applies to anyone that serves in another non-hostile military force that is a not a citizen of that country, not just Israel.

Secondly, on a legal point, the only quantitative measure in section 44i is citizenship. The onus would be on the accuser to prove that the person is ineligible based on continued allegiance, and a decade's old oath taken for a limited time "camp" experience would be legally very tenuous.

Finally, putting words in my mouth then finding them contorted is your problem, not mine.

I will also refrain from calling you anti-Semitic for the purpose of civilised discourse.