Abbott wants the Govt to be able to strip citizenship status

[Malifice]

"Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but, realistically, the strong always rules" - Ghaddafi made this critique of his government but it can be applied nearly anywhere there is "democracy" at anytime

The poster I quoted above has previously come out in support of libertatian views.

Like most of the 'libertarians' I've met. Dig a bit deeper and theyre just right wing conservative nationalists in sheeps clothing.

 

[deltablues]

What a chilling thing to think.

It is never in the public good for the Rule of Law to be suspended. Ever.

My post on which you comment was in bold about a war or extreme times [e.g. a government coup] scenario. There is precedent, in a war context, where the suspension of parts of the rule of law was decided, on balance, to be for the public good.

Admittedly it is a very slippery slope indeed to embark upon, plus, as can be seen from some comments here, a discussion on it can degenerate into partisan politics and barnyard hyperbolic language, as opposed to a general philosophical discussion on what the rule of law is all about.

PS I agree with your observations about the slow erosion of the separation of powers. Here in the States it is a real problem, with unelected czars and soviet-style apparatchiks by-passing, for example, Congress.

 

[Malifice]

My post on which you comment was in bold about a war or extreme times [e.g. a government coup] scenario. There is precedent, in a war context, where the suspension of parts of the rule of law was decided, on balance, to be for the public good.

Nope. Even in the event of a revolution, war or coup it is never in the public good for the State to abrogate the Rule of Law. Never ever ever under any circumstances I can think of. The State must always be beholden to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is inviolable. Any other option is a tyranny.

In a liberal society, the rights and freedoms of the individual come before the interests of the State. We (as individuals) create the State and grant it power only as long as the State governs according to the Rule of Law. They break it and they cease to be a legitimate government.

As an individual you can never step outside the Rule of Law. The State (with its comparatively near infinite power compared to the individual) sure as hell can't either.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Do you know what a platitude is (can you even spell it?)? Because an opinion about actual real world parameters and societal forces (democracy) is not a platitude if the message can be expanded to explain the intent of the message. A platitude is meant to end a debate with no meaning to the message. That was not an example of it.

There are many foundations of democracy. The point is that it works and it protects us from losing the ability to correct the poor decisions of our representatives. That's why I'm not worried about this proposal. Please demonstrate how weakening the separation of powers in this scenario weakens the power of our vote to make change.

I will disagree with you about interventionism and its outcomes and bring the debate back to whether intervening previously in the war on terror means that this change in law will necessarily fail. Please demonstrate how the first proves the second.

I am actually kind of impressed. Three small paragraphs, which say what amounts to, I don't agree, democracy is great, you have nothing to fear.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The government is formed by representative citizens of a western society. Sorry that I minced words, it's not like it wasn't understood what I meant

It's more a criticism of you jamming vague ideas and topical sounding words together and thinking it makes an argument.

 

[deltablues]

Nope. Even in the event of a revolution, war or coup it is never in the public good for the State to abrogate the Rule of Law. Never ever ever under any circumstances I can think of. The State must always be beholden to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is inviolable. Any other option is a tyranny.

In a liberal society, the rights and freedoms of the individual come before the interests of the State. We (as individuals) create the State and grant it power only as long as the State governs according to the Rule of Law. They break it and they cease to be a legitimate government.

As an individual you can never step outside the Rule of Law. The State (with its comparatively near infinite power compared to the individual) sure as hell can't either.

Aside from rehashing Civics 101, which we all agree with as a motherhood principle, the liberal society concept and its attendant rule of law and jurisprudential/political constructs depend on that society continuing to be liberal and on all sides buying in to the give-and-take of the "liberal society".

But when one side does not subscribe to it (and this goes back, for example, to extreme Islam and this thread title) then history has shown what can happen to the rule of law if not defended in dire circumstances by special means. That is my point. It is a question of balance and of attempting to weigh the likely consequences. And it has happened in time of war (and ever since 9/11 we are at war again with radical Islam, like it or not).

Anyway, from what you and I have written we both may have to agree to disagree on the emergency measures point, and hope it never happens.

 

[Malifice]

Aside from rehashing Civics 101, which we all agree with as a motherhood principle, the liberal society concept and its attendant rule of law and jurisprudential/political constructs depend on that society continuing to be liberal and on all sides buying in to the give-and-take of the "liberal society".

In a liberal society, the individual has the sole right to live their lives free from unreasonable interference from others. They have the right not to have other people mess with their Liberty. To ensure this happens they create (and subject themselves to) the State.

That's the only reason the State exists. Prevention of tyranny. Protection of the rights of the individual.

We place a lot of safeguards in place. Separation of the powers. Democratic and judicial accountability. Constitutional protections. A guarantee of the Rule of Law by both the governed and the government.

If the State deviates from the Rule of Law it breaks the social contract. It loses all legitimacy. It is acting contrary to its purpose. It's become the tyranny it exists to prevent.

A State that acts outside the Rule of law is no longer a liberal State. It can never be justified.

 

[Number37]

Aside from rehashing Civics 101, which we all agree with as a motherhood principle, the liberal society concept and its attendant rule of law and jurisprudential/political constructs depend on that society continuing to be liberal and on all sides buying in to the give-and-take of the "liberal society".

But when one side does not subscribe to it (and this goes back, for example, to extreme Islam and this thread title) then history has shown what can happen to the rule of law if not defended in dire circumstances by special means. That is my point. It is a question of balance and of attempting to weigh the likely consequences. And it has happened in time of war (and ever since 9/11 we are at war again with radical Islam, like it or not).

Anyway, from what you and I have written we both may have to agree to disagree on the emergency measures point, and hope it never happens.

Civics 101?
What about Law101?
The rule of law is ONE OF the foundations of democracy or representative government. Some would argue that enforcement of property rights is just as important.
Not sure where or how your bit about 'liberal society' is applicable. Sounds a lot like the nonsense we hear from Brandis and co.

 

[deltablues]

Civics 101?
What about Law101?
The rule of law is ONE OF the foundations of democracy or representative government. Some would argue that enforcement of property rights is just as important.
Not sure where or how your bit about 'liberal society' is applicable. Sounds a lot like the nonsense we hear from Brandis and co.

Oh yes, I agree re the rule of law, but civics embraces law, and vice versa, so you are engaging in semantics on that.

I also agree with your post in bold, but if you re-read my posts you will see that I was addressing extreme instances (war/civil insurrection etc - I am not going to repeat what I said here) which you seem to have brushed out of the picture you are seeking to construct, re my comments.

As for Brandis, I don't live in Oz so am not sure what you mean (I guess I could look it up on the net) but your comment is an example of my earlier observation - i.e. that this sort of topic can turn into a binary game (yes/no, with no shades of gray) if viewed through the prism of partisan politics.

I mean, you haven't actually answered or debated (by your own admission) my comment about liberal society - instead you have sought to paint me into a corner by reference to your own view of your local politics and your own local political anti-heroes and attempted to tar me with the same brush.

PS re property rights - the rule of law comes first - all else follows: without the rule of law there would be no property rights.

 

[deltablues]

Oh yes, I agree re the rule of law, but civics embraces law, and vice versa, so you are engaging in semantics on that.

I also agree with your post in bold, but if you re-read my posts you will see that I was addressing extreme instances (war/civil insurrection etc - I am not going to repeat what I said here) which you seem to have brushed out of the picture you are seeking to construct, re my comments.

As for Brandis, I don't live in Oz so am not sure what you mean (I guess I could look it up on the net) but your comment is an example of my earlier observation - i.e. that this sort of topic can turn into a binary game (yes/no, with no shades of gray) if viewed through the prism of partisan politics.

I mean, you haven't actually answered or debated (by your own admission) my comment about liberal society - instead you have sought to paint me into a corner by reference to your own view of your local politics and your own local political anti-heroes and attempted to tar me with the same brush.

PS re property rights - the rule of law comes first - all else follows: without the rule of law there would be no property rights.

I edit my bold by saying that you could argue that the rule of law was developed from property rights - especially under Justinian or Roman law, which was very big on property rights, especially relating to slaves. I think I may still have one of my old Roman Law books somewhere

 

[B4Bear]

I am actually kind of impressed. Three small paragraphs, which say what amounts to, I don't agree, democracy is great, you have nothing to fear.

It is pretty simple really.

Are you happy to see an Australian citizen stripped of their rights to be a citizen on order from a minister of the government of the day without ever having a conviction recorded against them in a court of law.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Number37]

Oh yes, I agree re the rule of law, but civics embraces law, and vice versa, so you are engaging in semantics on that.

I also agree with your post in bold, but if you re-read my posts you will see that I was addressing extreme instances (war/civil insurrection etc - I am not going to repeat what I said here) which you seem to have brushed out of the picture you are seeking to construct, re my comments.

As for Brandis, I don't live in Oz so am not sure what you mean (I guess I could look it up on the net) but your comment is an example of my earlier observation - i.e. that this sort of topic can turn into a binary game (yes/no, with no shades of gray) if viewed through the prism of partisan politics.

I mean, you haven't actually answered or debated (by your own admission) my comment about liberal society - instead you have sought to paint me into a corner by reference to your own view of your local politics and your own local political anti-heroes and attempted to tar me with the same brush.

PS re property rights - the rule of law comes first - all else follows: without the rule of law there would be no property rights.

You painted yourself into a corner.
Topical for the day, the Magna Carta came about in opposition to the 'divine right of kings'. There was nothing 'liberal' about British society at the time & opposition to the 'divine right of kings' had little (NOTHING) to do with liberal society and everything to do with the King thinking he can make sh!t up as he went along. Arbitrary use of power is despised as much in liberal society as it is in any other society.

 

[Power Raid]

PR some members of cabinet haven't seen this legislation, it's still being barneyed over, and yet you've seen it, and assure me it's good policy. Spare me.

did you bother reading it?

 

[Lester Burnham]

It is pretty simple really.

Are you happy to see an Australian citizen stripped of their rights to be a citizen on order from a minister of the government of the day without ever having a conviction recorded against them in a court of law.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

It's a "no" from me.

As Barnaby Joyce said "Isn't that what we have courts for?"

 

[Play by Numbers]

It is pretty simple really.

Are you happy to see an Australian citizen stripped of their rights to be a citizen on order from a minister of the government of the day without ever having a conviction recorded against them in a court of law.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course not.

And I think you mistook the tone of my post.

 

[deltablues]

You painted yourself into a corner.
Topical for the day, the Magna Carta came about in opposition to the 'divine right of kings'. There was nothing 'liberal' about British society at the time & opposition to the 'divine right of kings' had little (NOTHING) to do with liberal society and everything to do with the King thinking he can make sh!t up as he went along. Arbitrary use of power is despised as much in liberal society as it is in any other society.

Your comment misses my point entirely.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I ask people, how can you trust such a dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic government.

First they misrepresented the recommendations of an expert whose job they made redundant.

Then when caught out, lied and said he has changed his mind.

Now it turns out they havnt or wont even let cabinet read the legislation.

Abbott is a power drunk crypto fascist, who appoints like minded nutters, devoid of conscience.

The bill will be abused or mistakes made

 

[Play by Numbers]

smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/former-terrorism-law-watchdog-bret-walker-demands-apology-from-tony-abbott-20150618-ghrmv4.html

 

[Number37]

Your comment misses my point entirely.

You can always change it ....again.
This time you might be right, who knows.

 

[Northalives]

This is the type of s**t that happens in the "Evil Empires" and happened in Communist Russia, Fascist Germany, anywhere that democracy is non existent.

So much for the separation of powers.

This is a most dangerous development and shows once again just how lacking in ethics and morals this disgraceful government of ours is.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I mean, these are the same people who were alerted by a violent gunman that he would attack.

The Attorney generals office received the letter and ignored it.

Then post attack, used it as an excuse to rush through all sorts of Orwellian laws.

When the inquiry into the attack was underway, the government failed to provide said letter, evidence that the security service could have prevented the attack.

Then they lied and said they had provided it.

Then after the inquiry had ended it's submission stage, said government said the letter should not be available for public scrutiny.

Oh and it was caused by clerical error.

Either mind boggling incompetence, or corruption.

How can such people be trusted with such power

 

[deltablues]

You can always change it ....again.
This time you might be right, who knows.

I said in an earlier post in this thread that I fully appreciate the importance of the rule of law. Are you able to process that? On that you are pushing on an open door - we are in furious agreement. And have you seen my earlier posts on this topic?

What I was talking about and the point I was making was extreme case exceptions, on which there is legal precedent (look it up if you are capable of doing so - not my opinion, bud, but legal precedent).

You are either wilfully ignoring the distinction or are intellectually incapable of grasping it.

Good day to you.

 

[Number37]

I said in an earlier post in this thread that I fully appreciate the importance of the rule of law. Are you able to process that? On that you are pushing on an open door - we are in furious agreement. And have you seen my earlier posts on this topic?

What I was talking about and the point I was making was extreme case exceptions, on which there is legal precedent (look it up if you are capable of doing so - not my opinion, bud, but legal precedent).

You are either wilfully ignoring the distinction or are intellectually incapable of grasping it.

Good day to you.

Actually, you tried to make it something about liberal society, which is bollocks.

Legal precedent for abrogating the rule of law? You may want to think about that concept just a little more.

 

[deltablues]

Actually, you tried to make it something about liberal society, which is bollocks.

Legal precedent for abrogating the rule of law? You may want to think about that concept just a little more.

Final comment: read my earlier posts, especially in the context of liberal society and buying into the rule of law (e.g. muslim extremism) and exceptions in times of civil insurrection/war. You seem to have missed that entirely and have just indulged in some mindless knee-jerk response about the sacrosanct rule of law.

Re legal precedent in wartime etc - it's precedent, bud - do some legal research on it and then come back to me with a substantive rebuttal.

 

[Number37]

Final comment: read my earlier posts, especially in the context of liberal society and buying into the rule of law (e.g. muslim extremism) and exceptions in times of civil insurrection/war. You seem to have missed that entirely and have just indulged in some mindless knee-jerk response about the sacrosanct rule of law.

Re legal precedent in wartime etc - it's precedent, bud - do some legal research on it and then come back to me with a substantive rebuttal.

So you clearly don't understand that there is no need for anyone to 'buy into' the rule of law. Thanks for clearing that up.