A recent SBS report transported me back to primary school days when the entire school saluted the flag and recited a pledge of loyalty to the flag, Queen and country at outdoor assemblies. All but one pupil was required to conform in my school ; he was a Jehovah's Witness, exempted from the ceremony and invited to stand against the wall and watch. Standing against the wall was also the punishment for talking or mucking about during the assembly, so the exemption seemed more like punishment.

SBS reported that Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton told the National Press Club that there was a place for the pledge in a “broader rejuvenated civics effort with school-aged children, regardless of their background”. People becoming Australian citizens are obliged to read out the pledge of loyalty.

For people who don't remember this, or the National Anthem (then God Save the Queen) being played at the end of television for the night, or standing in a cinema for God Save the Queen before the pictures started, might find this sort of thing quite odd. But it was real life then, and not without merit. Peter Dutton thinks that it “behoves” us to “reaffirm our nation's core values”.

Would it be good for Australia to return – in some way – to regular expressions of loyalty – or not?

Good for this insentient creature called "Australia" and bad for its victims - ordinary people who happened to be born and live in this continent and were never asked whether or not they agree to have anything to do with that beast.

The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation tries
to capture the essence of what it means to be
Australian. It reads as follows:

"From this time forward (under God) I pledge my loyalty
to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs
I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose
laws I will uphold and obey."

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first to
Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratc
beliefs - to respect the rights and liberty of others and
to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge.

Unless we have a consensus of support about how we will form
our legislatures and an agreement to abide by its laws, none
of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without
being threatened by others. We have a compact to live under
a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.

In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

Foxy,
Everyone that applies for a visa to come here is informed of our basic laws and our social standards, well before they get the visa.

One wonders why then do we continue to allow in and give permanent residency to people from those groups that have no intention of obeying our laws and hold our standards in contempt.

That should be the first step in reducing immigration.

Dear Banjo,

Before becoming an Australian people are asked
to subscribe to certain values. If they have
strong objections to those values they should
not come to Australia.

We need to be very clear on these issues.

It is important to explain our values, explain
why they are important. Ultimately, however it is
important that they know that there is only one
law and it is going to be enforced whether they
acknowledge its legitimacy or not.

We must be very clear on this point. This is not
optional. We expect all who call themselves Australians
to subscribe to them. Loyalty, democracy, tolerance, the
rule of law - values worth promoting, values worth
defending. The values of Australia and its citizens.

pledges mean very little. Look at the number of pollies displaying total self interest over the good of the nation. They all made pledges. Kids need discipline and to be taught character not empty pledges.

I remember standing for the National Anthem.

I remember particularly one occasion, as I stood I put my hat on and was promptly jabbed in the back by an irate little lady who said: "Take yer 'at off!!"

So I did.

Her face was a study as the lights came up and she could see that I was in Army uniform.

Foxy,
I agree with you but our weak polys do not enforce our laws. Too many use their race, culture or religion to obtain weak sentences and our judiciary continually fall for it.

One does not have to look far to see examples of soft sentences.

The convicted criminal that would not stand for the judge the other day should automatically lose any right to parole. Add another 11 years to his sentence. Personally, I would bring back capital punishment for some crimes as they are not worth feeding.

Dear foxy,

I am certainly not comfortable with an oath of loyalty, especially in it current form.

Firstly I would hate to go down the path of the States where there often seems to be a sense of just blind allegiance, the kind of which allows for things to be done without proper scrutiny. There the patriotism is on crack and often frightening to behold. I think traditionally we have been a little more circumspect on these matters.

Certainly in times of war where the nation is facing an existential threat then bring people together with a shared purpose and vision can be useful.

But meaningless oaths can detract from the notion of loyalty or allegiance.

For instance the if you were ever elected to parliament then the Australian Oath of Allegiance would be;

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The affirmation is:
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

Now Elizabeth is substituted, but still pledging loyalty to a leader of a foreign country and her children?

How many parliamentarians really feel their principle loyalty lies to the Queen of England rather than this country? A meaningless oath for many.

Steele,

"Now Elizabeth is substituted, but still pledging loyalty to a leader of a foreign country and her children?"

"According to law". and the law is that she is Queen of Australia.

"... and her children".

It says heirs and successors, these need not necessarily be her children, but would be the person who becomes Monarck of Australia according to law

Dear Banjo,

I haven't really thought about the complexities of the
laws that we have to abide by in this country. I only
know that without the rule of law there'd be chaos.

Dear Steele,

I understand what you're saying. However that's what
we've got at present. Things may change in the future
but for now is anyone can't honestly make the citizenship
pledge, they can't honestly take our citizenship.
We currently have on our hands citizens who were born here
and who apparently are so alienated that they don't support
what their country stands for. Such alienation could
become a threat to the rights and liberties of others.
Therefore it is important to explain our values, explain
why they are important and engage leadership they respect
to assist us in this process. Ultimately, however, as I
stated earlier it is important that they know that there
is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they
acknowledge its legitimacy or not.

This is a problem if we have a second generation - the children
of immigrants who have come to Australia - in a twilight zone
where the values of their parents "old country" have been
lost but the values of the new country not fully embraced.

To deal with this we must clearly state the values of Australia
and explain to them how we expect them to be respected.

I suspect there would be more respect for these values if we made
more of the demanding requirements of citizenship.

No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so
undemanding that it asks nothing. In fact, our citizenship is
quite a demanding obligation.

We are more likely to engender respect by emphasising the
expectations and the obligations that the great privilege of
citizenship brings. We have a robust tolerance of difference
in our society. But to maintain this tolerance we have to have
an agreed framework which will protect the rights and liberties
of all. And we are asking our citizens - all our citizens - to
subscribe to that framework.

Seems pointless. What's to stop people metaphorically crossing their fingers behind the back whilst they recite an oath?

What's important is that people actually believe the sentiments expressed in the Citizenship Oath. If they do, then it doesn't really matter whether or not they say it out loud. And if they don't, making them they say that they do won't achieve anything.

People won't share a belief in democracy or uphold and obey the law just because they've read off a bit of card that they will. They'll believe in democracy if they understand that democracy is what makes this country so free and prosperous compared to many others and that countries without democracy tend to be, to borrow a Trumpism, 'sh*tholes'. They'll uphold and obey the law if they fear the stick of punishment, but even more so if they value the carrot that is a society which operates under the rule of law. Educating people in these sorts of things requires a bit more effort than the recitation of oaths.

The point of a pledge of loyalty is to remind people that they are not simply individuals but part of a larger community with common rights and obligations.

Far too often people consider only their rights and ignore their duties.

Like families, sovereign nations rely on shared values and beliefs for stability.

Toni Lavis,
I agree, signing a pledge is of no use, some ideologies like Islam actually encourage followers to lie if it benefits Islam. Sure we can stop alien cultural practices like bullfighting because it is hard to hide, but other alien practices like under age marriage and FGM are easily hidden and continue. Apparently cock fighting and dog fighting are also carried out. Education is also of little use.

That is why we need a discriminatory immigration policy the allows us to stop allowing in people from those groups that have alien cultural practices. There are a few groups that have shown us they hold our laws and society in contempt. The African gangs are another example.

Foxy,

" Ultimately, however, as I
stated earlier it is important that they know that there
is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they
acknowledge its legitimacy or not."

Hasn't it sunk in yet?
You have had it pointed out to you numerous times that there is more than one law in Australia.

Customary Aboriginal Law has been recognized, de facto, by the legal system in the Northern Territory for decades.

While there is, in theory only one law, in practice this is not true.
There is also Jewish law to be considered.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getaus.html#no.4
and whilst Australian law does not enforce Jewish law it can, and does, take it into consideration for some people.

Is Mise,

What is being referred to here as "one law" is
the law enacted by the Parliament under the
Australian Constitution. It was pointed out to
illustrate the fact that our State is a secular
State. And as such it can protect the freedom of
all religions for worship. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals and conscience.
But there is not a separate stream of law derived
from religious sources that compete with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society. The source of our law is the democratically
elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia
law - Saudi Arabia comes to mind. If a person wants to
live under sharia law there are countries where they
might feel at ease. But not Australia.

You're welcome.

cont'd ...

And the Citizenship Pledge should be a big flashing
warning sign to those who want to live under sharia
law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy
of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot
truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they
do not meet the pre-conditions for citizenship.

I forgot to add that if you're interested in laws
that may affect our Indigenous people or for that
matter the Jewish people - you should Google these
for yourself. There's so much available on the web.
And they're quite interesting.

Have fun.

ABC News a few minutes ago: Sikh parents wanting their children exempted from school uniform regulations because of their religion. What's the betting that they will moan and groan and the Gutless 'authorities' give in. Then there will be complaints from the parents that their kids are being bullied and discriminated against because they are different.

Dear Foxy,

«We have a robust tolerance of difference in our society. But to maintain this tolerance we have to have an agreed framework which will protect the rights and liberties of all.»

False.

1. This framework is not agreed upon by all.
2. Despite this framework, the rights and liberties of all are protected on paper only, not in practice.

But most importantly:

3. The words "we have to" imply that this framework is the ONLY possible solution, the only possible way to protect our rights and liberties: well, it is not.

Of all possible solutions, your chosen solution is of intimidation: "you must either obey our laws or leave this continent, otherwise we will catch you and lock you up".

Do you really consider it OK to protect your rights and freedoms by bullying others into obedience?

«And we are asking our citizens - all our citizens - to subscribe to that framework.»

Then ASK, say "Please", that magic word. Try to persuade others that your way of life is good for them, try to enlist their cooperation peacefully, but instead you are waving a big stick - that's not asking, that's DEMANDING.

Within an institutional framework that preserves
tolerance and protects order we can celebrate and enjoy
diversity in food, in music, in religion, in language
and culture. But we could not do that without the
framework which guarantees the freedom to enjoy diversity.
Therefore we have laws that we are all expected to abide
by. Laws enacted by Parliament under the Australian
Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept
the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Many people don't like the putrid representations like the
"Piss Christ" and do not think that galleries should show
these sort of works. But most people recognise that the
galleries should be able to practice their offensive taste
without fear of violence or a riot. Muslims don't like
representations of the Prophet. They don't think newspapers
should print them. But they must recognise this does not
justify violence against newspapers or countries that allow
newspapers to publish them.

Therefore, we are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a
framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.
These are Australian values. We must be very clear on this
point. They are not optional. We expect all those who call
themselves Australians to subscribe to them. Loyalty,
democracy, tolerance, the rule of law. Values worth promoting,
values worth defending. The values of Australia and its
citizens.

Actually, 'Loyalty Pledge' was just a quick and easy (lazy) heading. It sounds like the pledge unknowing kids in Presbyterian Sunday schools signed to say they wouldn't drink or smoke. They had no effect, either. What I am interested in is the possibility of kids being taught about our country and what it and we stand for. They have to make their own decisions in the long run, but at least they would learn the whys and wherefores of a democratic, Christan-based Western country; because there is no way their disinterested, materially-obsessed parents are going to tell them.

ttbn,

Sikhs have traditionally been allowed to wear their turbans no matter what they are engaged in.
Sikhs in the British Police, London Transport, the services in general; I can remember Sikhs in the Australian Army wearing the turban in uniform when to do so did not interfere with their safety or the safety of others.
They are also allowed to wear beards.

http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2017/01/18/special-exemptions-turbaned-sikhs-australian-army

Off duty, and sometimes when on duty, such as being in the Orderly Room, I would wear my clan kilt and badged bonnet with regulation uniform.

Yes, Is Mise. I know that Sikhs are 'traditionally' pandered to. Doesn't make it right or desirable. Host countries spend too much time on catering to the values and practices of immigrants rather than on their own values and practices. If Sikhs don't like school uniforms, they should start their own schools or find a school that doesn't insist on uniform. Thinking that they can come here and carry on as though they were still in the Punjab is arrogant and insulting to Australia.

Australia is often described as a succefful
multicultural society. And it is, in the sense
that people from all different backgrounds live
together in harmony. But there is a predominant
culture just as there is a predominant language.
And the political and cultural institutions that
govern Australia are absolutely critical to that
attitude of harmony and tolerance.

Within the institutional framework that preserves
tolerance and protects order we can celebrate and
enjoy diversity, but we could not do that without
the framework which guarantees this freedom for
everyone. That's why the Australian Citizenship
Oath or Affirmation is so essential to capture the
essence of what it means to be Australian.

ttbn,

It's not that the Sikhs object to the school uniform, they simply wish to wear the turban with the uniform and it's not pandering but simply allowing a people who have always been allied to us to keep some of their traditions alive in this country as we have always allowed.

They do not represent a militant threat to our way of life, 99.99% are model citizens.

Dear Foxy,

«But we could not do that without the framework which guarantees the freedom to enjoy diversity.»

There you say it all, using the words 'THE framework'.
The word 'the', implies as if there are no other possible frameworks that can achieve the freedom to enjoy diversity.

Well, your legal system is NOT the only possible framework to achieve freedom and diversity. In fact, it is quite a violent method to achieve the given result (which we both want) where alternative non-violent methods are available just the same.

«Therefore we have laws that we are all expected to abide by.»

Do you notice how you resort to threatening?

«If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.»

If the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for are the use of threats and violence, then no decent person should accept them.

«Therefore, we are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.»

Yes, you ask them to subscribe to a violent framework, then you expect violence to protect liberties... what a joke!

«These are Australian values.»

I understand that these are the values of Australian politicians, but I hope that most ordinary Australians do not share such terrible values.

«We expect all those who call themselves Australians to subscribe to them.»

So you would like good people to subscribe to violence? This will not happen and if what it takes to be called "Australian" is to become a bully and persecute helpless and innocent others, then it is far better not to call oneself "Australian".

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm not going to argue with you. All developed
countries have laws that people are required to
obey. Laws that are passed by their legislatures.
Why stop at a red light? Why have a license for
driving a car? Why can't you poop in the street?
Why can't you wonder around naked? And so on.
Stop trying to make something out of what's being
said here. You're intelligent enough to know -
what is being talked about here - don't try to
divert things.

Cheers.

Foxy,

You are right. Most would agree with you. Can't win 'em all, though; some people prefer to live in a bubble.

Is Mise,

You will find that schools have written requirements for uniforms, and you won't see turbans or religious regalia listed. I repeat that, if any person cannot comply with certain rules, they should make other arrangements. There is no reason why the host, majority culture should change its rules for a minority. It is one of the many faults of our lax immigration system that potential migrants do not have the rules explained to them before they come here.

ttbn,

No one is asking for a change to the rules only for a bit of flexibility; why is Sikh headgear a sudden problem?

ttbn,

You might prefer us all to wear some kind of quasi militarist uniform, a sombre outfit in khaki possibly. The extreme are always demanding total conformity, and allegiance to the Utopian society they supposedly create. The outward expression of this is seen in flag waving, patriotic song singing, reciting of pledges and oaths, rewards for the most loyal, and grand organized activities, like parades which portray the greatness and power of the state, they are a necessity. In a dictatorial utopia, by default, the greatness of the society can only be reflected through the greatness of the leader.

Issy, it is not the Sikh headgear that is the problem, it is their lack of conformity and expression of difference, which must be viewed with suspicion. If a minority is perceived as too big a threat, then you force them to identify themselves through some outward sign, like headgear, a good way to exercise control and place restrictions on them. If that is not enough, then you round them all up in one place, and keep an eye on them, "security" is the buzz word. You and I, might have a problem with that, but ttbn most likely approves.

Dear Foxy,

«All developed countries have laws that people are required to obey.»

Just to show how material development and moral development are hardly related.

«Why stop at a red light?»

Isn't this obvious? Otherwise you could run into another car or pedestrians!

«Why have a license for driving a car?»

Indeed why?!

«Why can't you poop in the street?»

Because others are likely to be hurt in several ways. Do I need to detail how?

«Why can't you wonder around naked?»

Indeed why?!

«Stop trying to make something out of what's being said here. You're intelligent enough to know - what is being talked about here - don't try to divert things.»

So you only enjoy discussing Muslims and how bad they are, because you find it flattering?

Your attitudes give you 2 out of 10 for tolerance of diversity, Ttbn gets 1 out of 10 and Muslims get 0 out of 10 - does it make you feel proud?

Dear Yuyutsu,

This is not about Muslims as you well know. This is
about people who refuse to acknowledge the rule of
law as laid down by our legislatures. In
order to have the rights and liberties of all protected
we have a responsibility to adhere to our Australian laws.
People who can't accept that can't accept the
fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off
their shoes. This is a sign of respect. Anyone who has
a strong objection to walking in their socks should not
enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian people are
asked to subscribe to certain values. If they have strong
objections to those values, they shouldn't come to Australia.
We need to be very clear on these issues. There are some
beliefs, some values, so core to the nature of our society
that those who refuse to accept them refuse to accept the
nature of our society. If someone cannot honestly make
the citizenship pledge, they cannot honestly take our
citizenship.

I proudly stand by my posting record and I find your inference
to my being anti-Muslim insulting. My record speaks for
itself.

Australia's immigration experience is a broad one. Originally
it was predominantly Anglo-Celtic but after the war our
immigrants came from other regions. In more recent times
Vietnamese and Chinese immigrants and others, have grown
considerably in numbers. And all of these immigrant
communities as I have consistently pointed out on this forum
have made successful contributions to Australian life. And yes,
of that I am proud.

However, the freedom and tolerance that we all share can be
protected only within a legal framework that is accepted by all.
And if you want to argue with that - well frankly
go find someone to argue with - I'm not interested.

Hi Yuyutsu and Foxy,

Yuyutsu, how do you score yourself, a big fat zero? You lost me when you wanted to maintain laws which denied rights to gay people.

Foxy, correct. To maintain a stable cohesive society you need some kind of enforceable rules/laws which in general the majority support and respect. How those laws are determined is what we question. In our Australian society we prefer the so called democratic process, which seems to work reasonably well, but certainly not perfectly.

I believe the vast majority of those who migrate here, already have the necessary "values" instilled within them, which will make them reasonable Australians in our multicultural society. It has nothing to do with what language they speak, what they eat, how they dress, or even what religion they practice. It has a lot to do with what kind of person they are, and what are their aspirations for themselves and their families, generally not much difference to that of the majority.

For some like these extreme posters here, the outward differences is enough to make them suspicious of those not from their "cultural background", whatever that is. Without evidence they create a totally distorted view of all within the minority, perceiving them as dangerous people. Intolerable acts by a few is enough of an excuse for the extreme to demand punitive action against all those within the minority.

Yuyutsu,

You are wrong about me. I have no tolerance of 'diversity' at all. The strongest society is an homogeneous one that knows what it believes in and is prepared to fight for those beliefs against all comers. The fools who decided to change the face of the West by bringing in inappropriate immigrants, despite all the advice against it, thought that diverse cultures were going to settle in and act like us. Well, they have not done so, and in many cases, they are downright hostile to us and what we believe. They have been encouraged not to fit in via multiculturalism - aka tribalism - and have formed their own ghettos, where they continue with everything alien that they brought with them. I would not trust any of the to help defend the country. As for you, Yuyutsu, I don't have a clue where you came from, but you certainly have some very peculiar ideas on life and society.

//Before becoming an Australian people are
asked to subscribe to certain values. If they have strong
objections to those values, they shouldn't come to Australia.//

No, not necessarily. The serial killers Ivan Milat and John Bunting clearly had strong objections to fundamental Australian values like 'not being a serial killer'. That's despite both having held Australian citizenship their entire lives.

Of course, those are rather extreme examples, but one doesn't have to look far to see Australian citizens that reject Aussie values in a less dramatic fashion. 'The fair go', our commitment to egalitarianism, is often held up as a core Australian value - but I don't see much support for the idea from the likes of Cory Bernardi-Gras. And what about our Pauline and her little 'Hanson Family', promoting their brand of 'Helter Skelter'? These people sit in our Parliament for heaven's sake.

It's not actually possible to police people's 'values'. Even if it was, I'm not convinced it would be desirable. See '1984'. I think we're probably better off with the imperfect system we have where people get punished for breaking the law, and not having the wrong 'values' (thoughtcrime).

//If someone cannot honestly make
the citizenship pledge, they cannot honestly take our
citizenship.//

And how are we supposed to tell if they're making the pledge honestly or not? Polygraph? Pinky swear? Trial by ordeal?

//The strongest society is an homogeneous one that knows what it believes in and is prepared to fight for those beliefs against all comers.//

Just started watching the new Star Trek show, 'Star Trek: Discovery'. You sound exactly like T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XTce38ef98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Nokw5i8aY

See what I mean? The similarity is uncanny as it is disturbing.

You want us to be worried because Sikhs are wearing turbans, when we have bloody Klingons in our midst? Bugger that for a joke, it's you and your fellow Klingons that are the scary people.

Toni et al,

Anyone can lie whether it is a pledge to the countries values or not to introduce a carbon tax. The point of a daily or monthly pledge at schools and of civics training is to inculcate an understanding of community values and expectations. There is no intention of policing values in spite of what left whingers say, there should at least be some understanding in the pledgee of what is required and the consequences of non-compliance.

While many immigrants share most of our values, many come from backgrounds that clearly don't.

Thank You Shadow Minister.

Laws are rules that bind all people living in a
community. They protect our general safety and
ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by
other people, by organisations and by the
government itself.

In a free society each and every person lives under
a rule of law as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men.
Everyone is held accountable to the same laws and these
laws protect our fundamental rights.

//The point of a daily or monthly pledge at schools and of civics training is to inculcate an understanding of community values and expectations.//

In my day we managed that without a pledge. Still, I suppose if the Muricans have got one then we'd better get one too. After all, their society is so superior to ours, everybody obeys the law all the time and the streets are paved with gold in Murica.

One can only wonder why their incarceration rate is about four times higher than ours.

Foxy,

You're still unconvinced that there is more than one law in this country; tell that to some underage aboriginal girl who has just been given to one of the tribes old men.

"Everyone is held accountable to the same laws and these
laws protect our fundamental rights."

Old cobblers.

Is Mise,

I'm entirely with you on that one.

Is Mise,

Most us are all aware that there are more than one law
in this country. There are all kinds of laws at the local,
state, and national levels. Laws that we are all expected
to abide by. If you want to make assertions about
people who go against these laws - by bringing up things
like the abuse of children, things -
such as child-brides, female-genital mutilations, domestic
violence, drug and alcohol abuse, robbery, murder, and so on
these activities are against the law - and will be dealt
with accordingly by our criminal justice system.

It may perhaps help you to
research Aboriginal Customary Laws and see for yourself
exactly how they
fit into our Criminal Justice System. It's quite
interesting and educational - and tells us what is expected
of the Aboriginal Community.

Foxy,

"It may perhaps help you to
research Aboriginal Customary Laws and see for yourself
exactly how they
fit into our Criminal Justice System. It's quite
interesting and educational - and tells us what is expected
of the Aboriginal Community."

I've done that and that is why I plainly see that there is more than one system of law in Australia, Customary Law does not apply to you and me but it does apply to some of our fellow citizens, hence more than one law.

Just go to the lands in WA/NT/SA and see the spearings, rape, payback, domestic violence and blind Freddy can see there is more than one law operating in Australia. For this reason massives of child abuse is ignored as Jacinta Price writely points out. Of course then you get the denialist like the drum mob who can't accept the truth unless they feel they can malign the white man.

"massives of child abuse is ignored" sounds like your Catholic Church runner.

Is Mise,

Had you done what you claim then you would be well
aware of how our judicial system works regarding
the Indigenous people of this country.

Peta Credlin wrote an interesting article on this
very subject in November of last year entitled:
"Indigenous or not, the same laws apply to us all."

It's worth a read if you haven't already read it.

As I said, Foxy, tell that to an underage girl who has just been given to a tribal elder; or don't you believe that it happens?

'massives of child abuse is ignored" sounds like your Catholic Church runner.' you show exactly how heartless you Marxist are Paul. btw I am not Catholic but facts never get in the way of you turning a blind eye to Indigeneous child abuse Paul. Typical regressive who will ensure abuse continues.

//Customary Law does not apply to you and me but it does apply to some of our fellow citizens, hence more than one law.//

//tell that to an underage girl who has just been given to a tribal elder; or don't you believe that it happens?//

Not legally it doesn't, Is Mise. I reckon somebody has been telling you porkies. It is a truth universally acknowledged that the law is an ass, but it's not so big of an ass that it will permit slavery. No matter how customary it may be.

Toni,

Legality has not much to do with it, the law is not strictly applied because to do so would cause trouble, so in fact, there are two laws operating.

Read this and then say that there were not two laws operating.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/21.%20Aboriginal%20Customary%20Laws%20and%20Sentencing/aboriginal-customary-laws-and-sentencing-e

also,

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/21.%20Aboriginal%20Customary%20Laws%20and%20Sentencing/recognition-aboriginal-customary-laws-sent

runner don't come the high and mighty! Any abuse of children is abhorrent to me. People like you are apologists for the disgusting behaviour of the clergy towards young children. You say "it happened a long time ago...it was not as bad as people make out, people are making it up for personal gain, etc etc". You only jump on the bandwagon about indigenous abuse in their community, because it suits your particular political agenda, not through any concern for the children, you do not give a rats about the children! It was your type who helped create that situation in the first place. Catholic, no, you are all tared with the same brush.

"As I said, Foxy, tell that to an underage girl who has just been given to a tribal elder; or don't you believe that it happens?"

Issy, I will agree with you, that has happened, and it is a shameful blight, on both Aboriginal communities and Australia in general. Allowing that situation to exists in the name of "culture" is beyond my comprehension, and yours. One law for all.

Citizenship Minister, Alan Tudge, points out that migrants are failing to integrate and develop proficient English skills. (ABC) They used to, but they don't any more. They live in their own cultural bubbles.

It's a pity Mr. Tudge and his colleagues were too thick to realise that the types of people they have been importing since people like us lost interest in coming here were never going to fit in because of their totally alien cultures. They did not come here because they wanted to fit in!

If Tudge now thinks he can solve a problem that he and the rest of the Australian political class themselves caused, he is very much mistaken. It's too late now.

//the law is not strictly applied because to do so would cause trouble//

It would be in the case of SLAVERY, Is Mise. To not do so would cause a hell of a lot more trouble. In an effective judicial system, justice must not only be done: it must be seen to be done.

If a case of slavery in 21st century Australia were to come before the courts, it would be hugely sensational and shocking. The press would be all over it like ants at a picnic. And not just the Australian press. The eyes of the world would be upon us, watching and seeing what we did.

What the courts would not do would be to give the perpetrator a slap on the wrist because slavery is traditional.

The perpetrator would be tried punished under a system of 'customary law', specifically the English common law system we inherited from the Brits. If he wasn't, the excrement would hit the fan in a big way.

Dear Paul,

«Yuyutsu, how do you score yourself, a big fat zero? You lost me when you wanted to maintain laws which denied rights to gay people.»

When reading my various posts on the topic of SSM, were you aware that I equally want to deny those particular so-called "rights" from everyone, including heterosexuals?

I wrote, not once or twice, that the Marriage Act needs to be abolished, so how can you say that I wanted to maintain it?

'People like you are apologists for the disgusting behaviour of the clergy towards young children.'

no Paul, people like you are incapable of telling the truth. Your hatred of almost anything decent completely blinds you. No doubt you banged on about your concern for refugees as another one of your failed dogmas ended up in over a thousand being drowned. Spare me your sickening 'compassion'. You are blinded and hard hearted largely caused by your hatred.

Dear Ttbn,

«You are wrong about me. I have no tolerance of 'diversity' at all.»

Nevertheless, the fact that you even talk with me, politely, who am not from your culture, awards you this minimal score of one out of ten: there are others, as you know, who are less tolerant than yourself and would have drawn a knife instead.

«The fools who decided to change the face of the West by bringing in inappropriate immigrants, despite all the advice against it, thought that diverse cultures were going to settle in and act like us.»

If that was indeed what they thought, then indeed they were fools: myself, I wouldn't encourage immigration or entertain such delusions, but I also recognise that nobody has a moral right to forcibly prevent others from entering and living in a whole continent without a very compelling reason (such as serious terrorism, health or crime risks). One doesn't have to welcome everyone who comes, one is not obliged to offer them welfare, healthcare and such benefits, but any person who is half decent may not kick others out without truly compelling reasons and I do not consider "they will form their own ghettos" to be a sufficiently compelling reason.

«As for you, Yuyutsu, I don't have a clue where you came from, but you certainly have some very peculiar ideas on life and society.»

I could not fit in the culture where I was born, so I moved to Australia, thus it doesn't matter where I came from - I do not identify with any particular group, I think for myself.

Yuyutsu,

I am glad that you are comfortable in Australia and feel that you can express your opinions irrespective of what I or anyone else thinks.