What is it to be, a citizen exercising their individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or a citizen playing the part of a Bogan. In these "unprecedented" times, we are being asked to make "horrendous" sacrifices, such as wearing a mask in public if we live in Melbourne. For the vast majority, these restrictions are not a problem, maybe an inconvenience, but not a great problem. A small minority object on the grounds that their rights as a Sovereign Citizen are being excessively infringed. Something that appears to have originated from the far right in the US, a Sovereign Citizen believes they, and not the government, or the judiciary, should be the arbitrators of what laws/regulations they should obey or ignore. Much of what these people believe is rooted in outlandish conspiracy theories, and a belief that what they call common law has been replaced by admiralty law, a new legal system designed to enslave them, control their lives in every way. According to true believers in the concept of the Sovereign Citizen this is all the work of secret government which has a vested interest in keeping them enslaved. In Melbourne, a few caught not wearing a face mask have claimed sovereign citizenry as a reason for non compliance, are these people genuine, or lazy, forgetting their mask, or just Bogans who don't know what they are talking about?

sounds like cousins to the blm's tantrum throwers.

As you are asking, I would definitely say that you are just a bogan.

Ding-a-Lings is my best description.
If you drink the water from the tap, make use of the provided sewage
system, buy food in the shops, then you are not sovereign.

Dear Paul,

I think anyone who considers themselves a "Sovereign
Citizen" of Australia would have pledged loyalty to
Australia and also pledged to share certain beliefs,
democratic beliefs, to respect the rights and liberty
of others and to respect the rule of law.

Therefore to refuse to comply by the law, such as the
wearing of masks in these difficult times is to go
against what one has pledged as a "Sovereign Citizen".
This would make a person anything but a "Sovereign
Citizen".

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

A person who does obey the rule of law can still be
a bogan. It all depends on their speech, clothing,
attitude and behaviour in all other respects. They
can be unrefined or unsophisticated but still loyal
to Australia, its values, and the rule of law - making
them a "Sovereign Citizen".

Google definitions of 'bogan' and 'sovereign citizen' -

bogan: "an uncouth unsophisticated person regarded as being of low social status".

sovereign citizen: "a member of a political movement of people who oppose taxation, question the legitimacy of government, and believe that they are not subject to the law."

The two only recently coined descriptions of people do not belong in the same conversation. It pays to know the meaning of words before charging into a post

To go shopping, using common currency, someone must use roads and footpaths. Possibly that someone must cross the road at the lights. If someone goes shopping at night, no doubt someone would feel grateful for the street-lighting, not to mention the even nature (hopefully) of the footpaths.

That person probably assumes that if their house is burgled while they are out shopping, then they have recourse to the police, like anybody else. If they are assaulted while catching the burglars in the act, they would probably assume that they can make use of the local hospital.

Their kids make use of the publicly-funded school system.

Such a person would assume they have the right to seek employment, to be paid standard wages, as protected by the country's laws, and to be reimbursed in some way if they comply with the conditions necessary to secure unemployment benefits.

And so on, and on. But then the world is full of dumb-arses.

But I do take exception to the slur against bogans, coming from a long and multicultural line of bogans, and long histories of boganism in their original countries.

Joe

Hi Foxy and Joe,

I'm more of the opinion some caught not wearing a mask, particularly in Melbourne, believed they would get away with it. When caught cold they used the "sovereign citizen" excuse because they had nothing else. Recently I watched an episode of 'Highway Petrol' where the cops pull up this Bogan speeding in a defective, unregistered vehicle, he's got no licence. When the cop asks "What's your excuse fella?" The guy tried the same thing "I'm a sovereign citizen, copper I'll have your job!" Well no, it was laughable, he was an idiot.

I think ttbn would make a great sovereign citizen, I can't wait to see him on 'Highway Patrol'.

Is there any merit in what the true believers in sovereign citizenry claim? Do we have any believers on the Forum, or is it just something a Bogan might throw up in desperation when caught out.

Funny how ttbn's 'found' definition of a 'Sovereign Citizen' would alternatively apply perfectly to a 'Libertarian'?

Can something weird be happening to the 'definitions' and 'interpretations' of terms in common use - in some clandestine conspiracy to make us question our beliefs, or even to send us 'tropo'?

(Tropo used to refer to a state of mental disturbance and instability supposedly sustained in reaction to inordinate immersion in an intense 'tropical' environment. Who knows what its 'new' meaning may be?)

So, in this vein, is it possible that some 'clever' and more than likely 'unhinged' individual, hiding in the shadows and delirious with laughter at their 'cleverness', has coined the new-wave term 'Qanon' as an ever-so-clever 'revision' of 'Quran'?
Such an individual would of course be secretly a super-bogan Islamophobic, homophobic, red-neck white supremacist junk-head having a huge laugh at the infantile gullibility of masses of 'conspiracy addicted' individuals resident in that swamp across the Pacific?
And, stranger than strange, numbers of such intensely unhappy clutching-at-straws suckered delusional 'fruitcakes' have gone so far as to select a 'dyed-in-the-wool' nutcase Qanon 'believer' to run for the Congress of the Greatest Show on Earth!
Staggering!

So, I reject the new-wave re-definition of a 'Sovereign Citizen', and I unreservedly define the originator of that new-wave pile of horse feathers as most definitely a 'dwarf-bogan'.

Such followers of this demonic 'corpse fly' Qanon 'instigator' I also unreservedly define as 'nongs'.
(Please, Supreme Being, make America sane again - before we all become totally and irreversibly 'Trumpified'.)

"Sovereign Citizen" is a contraction in terms.

Everyone should be able to enjoy their inherent and natural sovereignty over their life: this planet does not belong to any person or any group of people, so one should be able to walk its face and use its resources at their pleasure.

Nobody is to be automatically assumed to belong to a group and be subject to its laws only because they live on this earth and breath its air. Nobody has the moral right to count you in their group without your consent (explicit or implicit).

However, it is hypocritical to willingly benefit from group-membership while denying the obligations that come with it - such behaviour is not on and ought to be laughed at!

It is most unfortunate and wrong that, due to extreme human overpopulation, this whole planet is being controlled by one society, leaving no space for anyone else. Even while this society is divided into many "sovereign" countries, it is still the same society so long as these countries recognise each other as such.

How should we refer to someone who chooses not to belong to our society?

- I suggest we refer to them as AN ANIMAL (but not in any derogatory sense).

Animals share earth's space and resources, and while they may have rules and territorial boundaries within their species, there are no rules or boundaries overall, so no animal ever complains that animals of a different species fail to obey their laws!

While it is ridiculous to charge, convict or punish an animal for breaking human laws, humans, like all other species, may act in self-defense, so when a wild animal is believed to be infectious to humans, necessary steps can legitimately be taken to keep it away from human settlement.

Dear Paul,

If you're a resident in Australia you must abide by
Australian law. There's no way that a person can opt
out of Australian law by declaring themselves to be ...
whatever they want to be.
There's no legal basis for the claims of someone
"whatsoever" for their claims that they are above
the law.

I had assumed this "Sovereign Citizen" rubbish was
an American fad. It apparently has reached Australia
but is only a small minority.

In any case if these people refuse to wear masks - perhaps
people can simply refuse to allow them into their premises -
be it in stores, doctor's offices, hospitals, or anywhere
else that they wish to go?

there are a number of blackfella's in Australia who claim not to be under 'British' law. But of course that's 'ok'.

Dear Foxy,

«If you're a resident in Australia you must abide by
Australian law.»

ANY resident?

Do you also include cat residents? Possum residents?

If not, why not? What then, in your view, could justify such blatant discrimination against a whole species?

In any case if these people refuse to wear masks - perhaps
people can simply refuse to allow them into their premises -
be it in stores, doctor's offices, hospitals, or anywhere
else that they wish to go?
Foxy,
Dead right ! Their potential victims have rights also !

I wonder if those SC half-wits observed the 75th anniversary of the end of the War in Asia by commenting, "Well, I wouldn't have gone - nobody can deny me my sovereign right not to defend my country."

Yeah, they would have let others do it for them. Forty thousand Australians died for them, and all of us, during the War.

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

Now you're just being silly.

I expected more from you.

Dear Foxy,

This is not about me or my presumed silliness - it is a serious question which you are avoiding:

Animals can roam around wherever they like so long as they do not harm or threaten humans (including their livestock, pets, barns, etc.). Nobody expects them to follow laws or blames them for breaking them.
If they do, then they are chased away or killed, but never prosecuted!

Why are humans not afforded the same?
Why can't humans elect to NOT be part of the dominant society and instead be treated as animals, no better and no worse?

This is a gross discrimination against humans, for which you provided no justification.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Read your own post on age two of this discussion.
You've answered your own question.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Some people do 'go bush' and live off the land, bothering no-one, but if they get sick or hurt and need help then there are people who help them. They may not be an Aussie citizen, or they may be. Either way they will get help - that is of course if others are aware of their presence and become aware that they have a problem.

It is called belonging to the human race.

Anyone can choose not to be a citizen, but they will still be a citizen - of somewhere - because they are a human being.

You may wish to stop being a human being, but biology determines that is not possible - even if you were to cut your own throat.

You must face it - we are a human Animal, yes, and a human citizen of somewhere, whether we like it or not.

Go bush if you like, but by your definition if you end up needing help, what will you do then?

Forget about being 'Sovereign', there really is no such thing - just people, and therefore a 'citizen' of somewhere (by birth).

A "Sovereign Citizen" is the term applied to those who wish to feel independent of their otherwise held obligations, whether social, legal or other.

.

A 'Libertarian' "is the term applied to those who wish to feel independent of their otherwise held obligations, whether social, legal or other."

However, Libertarians do not believe in Liberty for anyone but themselves.

Egotistical, self-absorbed, and the most selfish of all citizens - decrying all monitoring as 'an invasion of privacy', and thereby condemning everyone to an almost limitless continuation of any pandemic until all are infected, and all the susceptible are dead.
Such wonderful citizens.

Sovereignty belongs to 'The Crown' - either of a duly elected government, or by historical birthright of a notional, implied Head of State (and, in this case, without any real power except in a dictatorship or a similarly repressive setting).

Liberty has responsibilities and obligations both to and from the citizenry - and there can be no freedom without vigilance, both external and internal.

Those who demand freedom but without allegiance or obligation are a blight on any prospect of genuine Humanity, any realization of universal equality of opportunity among peoples, and any prospect for the realization of lasting peace among nations.

Dear Saltpetre,

«Some people do 'go bush' and live off the land»

This is one example, but not the only.
Another option is to join/form another society, unrelated to the dominant one.

«but if they get sick or hurt and need help then there are people who help them.»

You assume that they want your help or your-kind-of help.
There's the old example of the boy-scout who "helps" an old lady cross the street, notwithstanding her destination was on the original side.

«Either way they will get help»

They will get something unasked which you like to call "help", but possibly an utter disservice.

«It is called belonging to the human race.»

This is playing with dual/loaded language, trying to rename a social club after a biological fact.

«Anyone can choose not to be a citizen«

The problem is that at present, others will still count them as a "citizen of such-and-such-country".

«but they will still be a citizen - of somewhere - because they are a human being.»

No, they will still be who they are, they will only be COUNTED as citizens - and that is morally wrong.

«You may wish to stop being a human being»

That's a story for another day.
What I referred to was that one may still want to be a human being, but without joining this particular social club of "nations".

«we are a human Animal, yes, and a human citizen of somewhere, whether we like it or not.»

My body is a Homosapien-sapien, this does not automatically make me a member of any given social-club.

«Go bush if you like, but by your definition if you end up needing help, what will you do then?»

That would be my own problem, not yours.

«However, Libertarians do not believe in Liberty for anyone but themselves.

Egotistical, self-absorbed, and the most selfish of all citizens»

Well, if indeed this is what "libertarian" means, then please don't count me among them.

Yuyutsu,

So, genius, how would you organise 'another society' ? Would you use the internet ? The post ? Or go door-to-door ? i.e. using the footpaths, roads, etc. ?

In other words, how would you conduct any business without using pre-existing mechanisms and channels which, like everybody else, you're entitled to use IF you are part of this society ?

After all, there is an implicit compact between us all, that we can use the products of other people on the understanding that we contribute, in one way or another, a roughly equivalent amount of our own effort and talents.

No able-bodied person has the right to live off the labour and ingenuity of others without contributing. We left feudalism behind centuries ago.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Before proceeding, let me clarify that this is not a personal matter and I am not seeking to create my own new society. Overall I have personally little to complain about the existing society, except that I do not want to be part of, or support, a society that forces itself on others who want nothing to do with it.

I will therefore leave the nitty-gritti on how to form a new society for others who are personally interested in it. I am sure that if there is a will then there is a way. After all, new human societies were created at times when not only was there no internet, post or roads, but not even a language!

As for relations between independent societies (or between societies and individuals who belong to none), all we need is to observe and learn from the relations between different species, so if another species impinges on your accumulated efforts, you go into pest-control mode (if you can). What you don't do, is to feel betrayed and prosecute them as if they broke some covenant with you.

BTW, Australia already has a fuzzy sort of an alternative society, albeit for aboriginal people only. This includes parallel native titles that cross "conventional" land-titles and some traditional rights to hunt, fish and be nude that non-aboriginals (wrongly) do not enjoy.

There's more to things than what there seems.
Me personally, I think everyone has a right to live however they want so long as it doesn't affect others in a negative or detrimental manner.

With that in mind I say 'Wear the damn mask, for your own sake and the sake of others, and stay home.'
The sooner we comply the sooner it will be over.

That said I won't support ANY long term law changes based on this one event.

Why? Because the whole thing is a global set up.
I support a full investigation instead.

People who don't really contribute to society are Bogan ! Be they on Welfare or filthy rich !

Yuyutsu,

Aboriginal people in the North or in remote areas don't do much hunting and gathering these days, except maybe 'hunting' by rifle and Toyota - and they've been doing that for eighty or ninety years now - Albert Namatjira was interviewed in the 1930s and asked about his favourite pastimes. Hunting roos, he said. From the back of a truck with a .303.

And they certainly don't get around nude, except involuntarily in situations of domestic violence.

Are you writing from a century ago, and time-travelling to 2020 ?

Joe

I think a lot more progress could be made in matters indigenous if those with no experience with indigenous stayed out of the debates !

Sort of on-topic: the sentencing of that terrorist for the murder of 51 innocent Muslims and attempted murder of forty more:

http://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/christchurch-massacre-mosque-gunmans-miserable-life-to-come-in-violent-prison/news-story/6c15f4fa02d6d0127bdae3c650bdda0d

Did any of those murdered hurt any other people ? Blow them up ? Shoot them ? Even harass them ? It doesn't seem so. So they certainly didn't deserve to die.

So this trash will spend the rest of his life - and I hope it's a very long life - in the confines of Paremoremo, in Auckland, where he can preach his race-supremacy to some pretty tough inmates. Perhaps Polynesian Panthers (are they still around ?) and various extreme anti-pakeha Maori groups.

Justice might grind slow, but it grinds surely.

Joe