PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 10th Oct 2013 18:09

Agree totally.

One thing I can't find in any of the documents on this lot is
if they were born here in Australia.

SOPS 10th Oct 2013 18:23

I was trying to find that out as well, but in every article/report I have read about them, they are described as Lebanese - Australians.

For example

http://www.mako.org.au/Mahmoud-Chami...st-sydney.html

500N 10th Oct 2013 20:39

Have to love the media in this country.

In The Age Article about Clive Palmer and the deal with Muir

"Mr Palmer refused to show Fairfax Media the PUP's memorandum of understanding with Mr Muir."

Sorry, but it sounds like they think they are entitled to see it !


What are everyone's thoughts on this deal to from a
balance of power block ?

MTOW 10th Oct 2013 20:40

Re Clive.. I really hope we haven't been sold a PUP.

500N 10th Oct 2013 21:41

Oh my god, he MIGHT be back !!! KRudd
 
Bill Shorten has left the door open for Kevin Rudd to sit on the opposition frontbench if he wins the Labor leadership contest.


Mr Shorten would not rule out the former prime minister's return but said it was up to caucus to select the front bench.
"I haven't heard that Kevin's interested in a frontbench position," he told ABC Television on Friday.
Mr Shorten said he would like "all of his colleagues who are interested" to serve in senior roles."

Worrals in the wilds 10th Oct 2013 22:43

NOOOOOoooo, anything but Kevin! :ugh:

One thing I can't find in any of the documents on this lot is if they were born here in Australia.
From memory they were, but that's from the time of the original trial so I may have got it wrong. It was also pointed out at the time that if they had been convicted of the same crime in Lebanon they would have been sentenced to the death penalty.

Captain Sand Dune 11th Oct 2013 05:51


Bill Shorten has left the door open for Kevin Rudd to sit on the opposition frontbench if he wins the Labor leadership contest.
Unbelievable!! Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same action over and over in the hope of a different outcome?:hmm:
They really must be mad if they think the Australian public will vote for a Labour Party with KRudd anyway near the front bench.
Or is this a case of keeping your friends closer and your enemies even closer?:E

Andu 11th Oct 2013 06:47

Just watching ABC news and their complaining that "we" are not being given enough information of how the government is dealing with the people smugglers (I refuse to say "asylum seekers"). Having seen part of Scott Morrison's weekly briefing earlier this afternoon, I must say I was impressed at the way he stuck to his message and did not allow himself to be drawn by some of the questions put to him by the chooks demanding to be fed.

I know I'm repeating what others have said before me, but as I watched him, I felt as if the adults were back in charge. If Morrison doesn't fall by the wayside because of some allowances scandal or something similar, I can see him leading the Liberal Party at some time in the future. I think some indication of the Labor Party machine agreeing with my assessment will be given by watching in the immediate future for how hard they go after him in manufacturing some such 'scandal' about him (as they did with Tony Abbott).



As for KRudd's possible return... What can you say? Ever hopeful, he quite obviously is positioning himself for just that, (unless that plumb UN job comes up in the meantime), but if Labor allows it to happen, it shows how incredibly out of touch with reality they are.

The comment of the unknown foreign leader likening Rudd to a pigeon crapping all over the knocked over chess pieces and declaring victory is so close to the bone it's embarrassing.

500N 11th Oct 2013 06:59

Andu

Agree with what you say.

It really did sound like Adults running it and not the Media or
policy on the fly.

7x7 11th Oct 2013 07:56

Those damned Presbyterians again...
 
From the Bolt Report.


Then there is this curious Federal Court case in which the judge deleted any reference to the religion, language and birthplace of the two parties before him, and even gave them Anglo-Saxon pseudonyms although every detail suggests Islam is the issue:

This is a wholly extraordinary case. I hope I never have another like it. For reasons which I hope will become apparent, it has been a proceeding almost impossible properly to control, essentially because of the position adopted by the respondent husband, a position unique in my experience on the Court…

On 27 February 2013 the wife filed an Application for Divorce… The application asserted that the applicant wife was born on (omitted) 1967 in (country omitted) and had lived in Australia since (omitted) 1970. It affirmed that the husband was born on (omitted) 1964 also in (country omitted) and had started living in Australia on (omitted) 1989…

The application further revealed that the husband did not regard Australia as his home, was an Australian citizen by grant of citizenship but had not lived in Australia for the previous twelve months…

On 22 March 2013, the wife filed a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence, or Risk of Family Violence form. This asserted an assault by the husband on the wife in January 2010. It also asserted that in January 2012, a further daughter, U, had been threatened by the father in (country omitted) by pointing a knife to her neck and had had her Australian passport destroyed…

She alleged that the husband verbally, psychologically and financially abused her and used all his earnings for himself and bought properties in (country omitted) and in (country omitted)…

On 11 April 2013, a Divorce Order was made in standard terms by a Registrar of the Court… I note that at paragraph 27, the wife deposed:

“I believe that the Respondent Husband may be avoiding service because he does not believe that under (religion omitted) I have grounds to seek a divorce."…
The respondent husband was served with the Initiating Application and supporting documents ... by the applicant’s solicitor. On 22 May 2013 the matter returned before the Court…

First of all, Mr Irvine stated in the clearest of terms that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the applications before it. This was because, as he put it, his marriage was governed by a contract entered into pursuant to (religion omitted), and it was not open to this Court to interfere with it… It will be noted that the husband repeatedly refused to answer very straightforward direct questions put to him, such as whether he was an Australian citizen or not…

The affidavit filed by Mr Irvine asserts at paragraph 7 that:
“he holds firmly to the fact that his religious beliefs, customs and practices are absolute perfect, sacred and honoured”. He also asserted at paragraph 8: “no other belief, laws or way of life and practices may be regarded as applicable, nor equal or superior and may not be allowed to go or act contrary to, violate or contravene the Commandments and Orders of (omitted)”.

The affidavit went on to say at paragraph 11:

“(religion omitted) must be governed at all times and in all circumstances & conditions, only in accordance with (religion omitted) as a mandatory basis of our religious faith and belief”.

At paragraph 14, the affidavit states:
“(religion omitted) is the only form of law that may be applicable for the conduct, governing and jurisdiction of a (omitted), what is generally termed as a “(omitted)” (marital) relationship between (religion omitted). The official power to make lawful and legal decisions, judgments and the extent of this power, is explicitly limited to the parties who are contractually bound to its terms and conditions in (religion omitted)”.

Paragraph 19 of the affidavit relevantly says:
“… The sole “Parties” to a contract in (omitted) are the (religion omitted) man and (religion omitted) woman only and no third party or entity of any type is a party to any (omitted) contract. Any party wishing to interfere outside is deemed as absent jurisdiction, a third party interloper and any court magistrate or parties acting in such regard commits a tort. ...”

The husband purported to say that he did not understand the proceedings. Nonetheless, it should be noted that his command of English is excellent and he is an educated man… The husband purported to express a lack of understanding as to what was happening both on the day and previously. I should record that while such matters must be approached with caution, everything Mr Irvine did and the way that he did it suggests to me that he is a highly intelligent man who is engaged in an extensive filibuster with a view to enforcing his basic position that the Court does not have jurisdiction…

The wife went on to say that she was being terrorised by the two elder children, V and X…

It is quite apparent from the materials that the husband has filed that it is his view that the wife, under (religion omitted), has no capacity or entitlement to make any decisions, although she is required to be consulted. I indicated on 22 May 2013 that it would be appropriate to give (religion omitted) such consideration as is appropriate in considering the children’s best interests in the final trial. As things have turned out the only emphasis given by the husband to (religion omitted) has been his essential proposition that this Court should not inter-meddle in the matter at all.

It is quite impossible to evaluate the force and effect that should be given to the (religion omitted) background of the parties given the paucity of evidence in this case
.
Full story, including two other examples and many comments here.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

500N 11th Oct 2013 09:23

See, it wasn't too hard to get the Indos to get off their backsides
and do something about the people smugglers.

With the AFP, what did they say, 6 arrests, one arrest warrant issued
and they said they will get him in a few days, a number of boats
stopped from leaving Indonesia and only one boat got through.

I reckon they are on the right track.

And they have taken the heat out of the whole issue.

SOPS 11th Oct 2013 10:03

No its not hard when you actually do something and dont spend your whole time working out what thought bubble to pop up with next on the 6 oclock news, or how you can find anything sexist in the last remark made by Tony Abbott, and how to blame every one of your policy failures on him.

No, its not hard, if you govern.

SOPS 11th Oct 2013 11:01

And I for one, would like to welcome this man and his family back.

And country shoppers please note what he says about half way through the article 'IF YOUR NOT AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN, YOU CAN'T COME'

Greek-Australian citizens look to Australia to escape economic crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

500N 11th Oct 2013 13:22

You have got to love the UN, wankers.

The Gov't should tell them to go take a jump.

"The United Nations has slammed as a possible breach of the Refugee Convention the Abbott government's plans to speedily send a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers home."

"A spokesman for the Canberra office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said fast-tracking or cutting short the assessment of people's asylum claims could well breach the Refugee Convention.

''Any interception and pre-emptive return of people seeking asylum that is carried out without an appropriate assessment of individual protection needs raises very serious issues over compliance with the Refugee Convention, particularly article 33.1,'' he said."


UN slams boat returns as possible rights breach

SOPS 11th Oct 2013 13:55

I have a plan. Shut the office in Canberra of the UNHCR, send those oxygen thieves back to where ever they are from, and then we can get on securing our own borders under our own terms. Sarah Two Dads could be invited to join them as well.

They can take their article 33.1 or whatever and stick it. Don't we articles in OUR constitution about protecting our borders and our sovereignty? Tony Abbott is running the country, not the UNHCR or any of their lefty tree hugging mates...when will this finally sink in? ( rant over)

500N 11th Oct 2013 13:59

SOPS

Oh wouldn't I like to hear Abbott announce that as well
as leaving the UNHCR.

It would make the UN have a heart attack.

I don't think Tony Abbott is going to listen to them anyway,
I honestly think they will just say "tough", we need to secure
our borders regardless of what the UNHCR says so bitch and
moan all you like.

SOPS 11th Oct 2013 14:03

Yes, I think you a right. Krudd would be sucking up to them like mad, trying to secure some creamy job in the UN, Tony, I think, couldn't care less about the UN

500N 11th Oct 2013 14:08

SOPS

How about this.

Tony turns round to the UN, says "look, you have two choices.
We make a quick assessment now and send them back to S/L to
live and open or free life or we send them to XYZ island and lock
them up for 2 - 3 years and I mean lock them up and then make
the same assessment
and send them back to S/L."

"The assessment is NOT going to change so they either miss out
on 2 - 3 years of their life or they don't."

That would put the wind up the UN.

SOPS 11th Oct 2013 14:21

The reason this stuff makes me cross is this. I have a son with an intellectual disability. Thanks to a hell of a lot of hard work by his mum ( my darling wife), he is fairly high functioning and independent.

He has been assessed as been eligible for independent living, but government provided places are very thin on the ground due to lack of funding. He gets a disability allowance from Centrelink of $410 a fortnight. The only way he can live independently, and have a somewhat 'normal' life, is if we pay for it...which we do.

If I stuck him on a bloody boat, and dressed him up as an Sri Lankan country shopper, if Sarah Two Dads had her way, or Juliar for that matter, he would probably be better off.

UNHCR..My fat arxe

500N 11th Oct 2013 14:26

SOPS

I can understand. My mother teaches Special education in that and other fields
and is always complaining about the lack of Gov't funding.

I think that whole issue, why doesn't the Gov't spend more money in Aus
than on these "shoppers" is one of the main reasons the country turned
from being left to being right (when it came to shoppers, not immigrants
or AS in general).


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.