On 04/08/2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au> wrote: > Hi Bret, > > On 3/08/2014 8:47 PM, Bret Busby wrote: >>>> Actually we are subject to a bill of rights, see here: >>>> http://www.clrg.info/2011/02/validity-of-bill-of-rights-1688/ >>>> >>> That applies only to Victoria - I believe that, like motor vehicle >>> roadworthiness testing, human rights legislation applies to only two >>> states of Australia. >>> >> >> I apologise - after posting my response, I realise that the material >> on that web page, went beyond the first letter, which applies only to >> Victoria. Thus, that web page relates to two other states, I believ, >> in addition to Victoria. > > Even so, it might be something that could be challenged by other states > if needed. > >> However, please read the text below, and, please read the citation of >> what Michael Kirby said - he is much more an authority on the matter, >> at the Australian federal level. > > Thanks. > > I wonder about Kirby myself. To me, it shouldn't be the court deciding > a matter of fact via *their* opinion. If the law says "xa" and the > opinion says "xb" ... then it is up to the parliament to correct the > situation if it is faulty, not the courts to decide "xb" instead of the > letter of the law that is "xa". I could never understand how the courts > could get away with that. Judges should not be judge and jury as they > often are, they should only rely on the facts, 100% facts of the law, > not their opinion to make a judgement against the facts and Kirby seems > to be a great offender of my view of what is required here. > >>>> Don't let them screw with our constitution either, under false >>>> pretenses. Local councils corporations operate as local government >>>> bodies today, but without the rights to do what they are doing ... >>>> legitimize those corporations and they'll go gang busters -- give them >>>> an inch, they'll take a 100 miles! >>> >>> It depends on how you regard the status of local governments in >>> Australia. > > We are over-governed already, I DO NOT EVER want local council > corporations getting more power than they already have; heck I'm not > even sure there is a place for local government meddling at all, let > alone all their fees and /localized/ sub-laws (that should not be > binding on the people). Already they have far too much power and they > are just corporations that we are effectively *forced* to do business > with whether we like it or not! > >>>> And as for the recognition of >>>> Aboriginals in AU ... that is also completely unnecessary; any person, >>>> no matter what, if they set foot in Australian, then they are covered >>>> by >>>> our constitution. Aboriginals are no different to other Australians, >>>> every person is covered. They want to screw the Constitution under the >>>> guise of /fixing/ these things, instead they'll f*** things right up >>>> and >>>> we'll lose even more rights. >>> >>> Regarding the issue of the Aboriginals, and, any other race; I do not >>> know whether you have read the Australian Constitution Act, but, >>> apartheid (= "apartness" - racial segregation and racial >>> discrimination) is constitutionally legal and enforceable, in >>> Australia. > > Regardless of that fact, if it is true or not, it is not practiced in > this day and age. It is completely unnecessary to risk changing the > Constitution to fix this issue that is /fixed/ otherwise current > practices and other laws relating to how all persons are treated in AU. > We don't have slavery and separation in AU, and if there was a problem > then it is often addressed via the "guilt" adverts. like those of Adam > Goodes (an AFL footballer). We have full integration as a > multi-cultural society and non-racist people are by far the majority in > many areas of AU. There may well be more of an issue of reverse > discrimination trying to right the wrongs of the past, that's another > matter, not one that needs constitutional *destruction*. > > Leave the AU Constitution in tact, create new laws if necessary, but > only if necessary to /fix/ issues and problems that really do need to be > addressed, but definitely do not risk the integrity of the Constitution > under any circumstances, it really is not worth the risk and changes may > very well lead to it being effectively useless, ala not worth the paper > it is printed on. > > Cheers > A. > >
Hello. I think that this sub-thread has digressed from both the original post, and, from the nature of the mailing list, too far. I disagree with you on a number of points, but, I believe, it would be inappropriate to further discuss these points, in this thread, and, on this list. So, I leave this particular fork. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 .................................................... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACX6j8Nq6W8hszmO-MXboQ27=0Er6m=WXSSLxfYiYn9v=f7...@mail.gmail.com
