Remove this Banner Ad

Banter RDT CXCII - TDDS

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Carbine Chaos said:
The High Court denying Candace Owens entry into Australia is a disturbing development.

Agree with her or not, debate and discussion should not be suppressed.
Click to expand...
Sorry to be a legal nerd here, but the High Court didn't deny the visa. It had to determine whether the section of the Act that Tony Burke invoked was constitutionally invalid. They rightly determined it was not.
 
Dazzler9 said:
Sorry to be a legal nerd here, but the High Court didn't deny the visa. It had to determine whether the section of the Act that Tony Burke invoked was constitutionally invalid. They rightly determined it was not.
Click to expand...
Semantics. They've supported the decision which is essentially doing the same.

Ironically all they've done is probably point more people towards her social media content anyway.
 
Carbine Chaos said:
Semantics. They've supported the decision which is essentially doing the same.

Ironically all they've done is probably point more people towards her social media content anyway.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not semantics. They High Court wasn't asked whether they agreed with the decision to revoke the visa. They were asked to determine whether it was constitutionally legal to do so. That is basically their whole role.

By all means, point the finger at Tony Burke. But the High Court was just doing its job.
 
Dazzler9 said:
It's definitely not semantics. They High Court wasn't asked whether they agreed with the decision to revoke the visa. They were asked to determine whether it was constitutionally legal to do so. That is basically their whole role.

By all means, point the finger at Tony Burke. But the High Court was just doing its job.
Click to expand...
If the High Court believes healthy political debate will incite discord then yes, it's doing its job. A poor job.

I'd rather not live in a society that suppresses voices rather than debates them. Especially when truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.

Anyway. That's my morning rant.
 
Carbine Chaos said:
If the High Court believes healthy political debate will incite discord then yes, it's doing its job. A poor job.

I'd rather not live in a society that suppresses voices rather than debates them. Especially when truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.

Anyway. That's my morning rant.
Click to expand...
I think you've entirely missed my argument CC.

Anyways, it's a side issue to your main point, for which you are entitled to feel ranty.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Carbine Chaos said:
If the High Court believes healthy political debate will incite discord then yes, it's doing its job. A poor job.

I'd rather not live in a society that suppresses voices rather than debates them. Especially when truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.

Anyway. That's my morning rant.
Click to expand...
The less American conservatives we have here, the better. Political discourse is healthy, provided it is conducted in good faith.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Carbine Chaos said:
I'd rather not live in a society that suppresses voices rather than debates them. Especially when truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

Deplatforming bad people is good, and works.

When was the last time anyone heard of Milo Yiannopolis?
 
Candace Owens is a grifter of the highest order with absolutely zero integrity. What is factual is the last thing on her mind when she speaks.
That's separate to the issue of whether she should be allowed here of course.
 
Carbine Chaos said:
If the High Court believes healthy political debate will incite discord then yes, it's doing its job. A poor job.

I'd rather not live in a society that suppresses voices rather than debates them. Especially when truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.

Anyway. That's my morning rant.
Click to expand...
Candace Owens does not contribute to healthy political debate.
 
Carbine Chaos said:
If the High Court believes healthy political debate will incite discord then yes, it's doing its job. A poor job.
Click to expand...
No, that's not their job. Their job was to determine whether the legislation that Tony Burke invoked to make the decision was Constitutionally valid. If it was, the Burke's decision would stand.

Whether the HC believes it will incite discord is not even slightly relevant to their decision. The right under the law to make that determination is not invested in them, it's invested in the relevant Minister, and the courts can only overrule that on a matter of law, not opinion on whether the Minister is correct.

If Burke invokes it, then that's the decision, and the High Court cannot overturn it for feels, only if the legislation itself is faulty. They aren't "supporting" or "opposing" the decision, just determining if the decision was legally made. Which is their only role.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

WCErevival
  • Locked
Banter RDT CXCIII - Two kinds of music
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
23K
larrikin
larrikin
Keys
Banter RDT CXCIV - Your favourite cover chocolate
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
2K
Mr Q
Mr Q
Mr Eagle
  • Locked
Banter RDT CXCI - Time for a new RDT thread
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
26K
Bender_
Bender_
Keys
  • Locked
Banter RDT CXC - Cut Loose Keys Is
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
26K
THE A5
THE A5
Miguel Sanchez
  • Locked
Banter RDT CLXXXIX - The Usual Suspect
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
32K
Bender_
Bender_
Godfather32
  • Locked
Banter RDT CLXXXVIII - Big Weather
41 42 43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
39K
Forward Press
Forward Press
Keys
  • Locked
Banter RDT CLXXXVII - Rinse and Repeat
36 37 38 39 40
Replies
999
Views
42K
Ljp86
Ljp86

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top