Foxy

The problem is that I, but that you don't understanding what you're talking about.

It's that I point out that what you're saying is self-contradictory, racist, jingoist, and hypocritical, and you have no answer but to repeat yourself.

You don't want to live under others' authority when it makes no difference in practice to anything in your life. Why should others have to live under your authority when it involves an exclusive race-based grievance-entitled priviligentsia, entrenched in the Constitution, in which you set up a conflict that does not now exist between the head of state and head of government?

Plus it would *not* have the effect of "cutting the strings", because it would sit TOTALLY WITHIN a UK, not an Australian statute, nor of preserving a Westminster system, because that involves the authority.

It is a garbled confusion on your part, that is all.

Sorry, correction:

1.
The problem is not that I don't understand what you're talking about. I understand it alright. The problem is that you don't understand what you're talking about.

2.The Westminster system involves the authority of the Crown as the Head of State, not a popularly elected President, because what you are suggesting, without understanding, would set up a conflict of power between the Head of State and the Head of Government *that it was the purpose of the Westminster system to resolve by neutering the Crown. You reform would undo this. It would multiply Whitlam 1975 situations.

NOW do you understand?

I know you don't understand because I know that you're against what you're suggesting.

Goebbels,
Were I to start a list Lidia Thorpe might top it.
She at least admits to lying to get into Parliament.

Perhaps you believe that to swear loyalty to the King and then try to remove him from the kingdom is not being disloyal and not breaking the oath, self delusion will keep you happy no doubt.

Hi Issy,

What if Charles Windsor goes voluntarily? Are MP's then considered disloyal if there is no monarch. Malcolm Turnbull was a well known republican who swore allegiance to the Queen, he made it right to the top of the heap, was that a problem for you?.

I would much prefer our parliamentarians to swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia, and its people. Isn't that a novel idea.

BTW; My name is not Goebbels, that's your uncle Joe, its Gobbles; like Charles I have lots of names, my full name is; Paul Horatio Hornblower Chicken Fried Gobbles.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Foxy wrote :

« .People have every right to practice their religion . . . and the rest of us have every right to reject, mock, and criticize, these beliefs … »

I don’t think I have ever mocked anyone or anything in my life and I can’t imagine that I ever would. It’s just not in my nature. I don’t know about Foxy, but I do believe she has the right to mock religious beliefs if she wants to.

That right is accorded to her under Article 15 Freedom of Expression of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 of the state of Victoria where I understand she lives.

I say that for two reasons :

1. Foxy stipulated specifically “religious beliefs”, not some particular person or persons

2. Because the law protects not only the expression of opinions that are uncontroversial but also those that “offend, shock or disturb”, as is the case with mockery. Limits on freedom of expression can only be justified where it is strictly necessary to do so, for example in the case of hate speech.

Although there is no universally accepted definition, hate speech is generally understood to describe forms of expression which incite violence, hatred, or discrimination against other persons.

As a matter of fact, I don’t think the legal situation would be any different in any other state of Australia under common law, even though Australia is the only democratic country in the world that does not have a Bill of Rights.

The ACT was, of course, the first to legislate on Human Rights with Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

So, I suspect that if you are so inclined, Is Mise, you too could mock religious belief, provided, of course, you take the precaution not to target anyone in particular nor menace anyone.

If you do it with a smile you should be ok.

.

Goebbels,

I despise Turnbull.