|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
14th August 2017, 04:39 AM | #721 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
Nah, this isn't going to be a problem for Barnaby. He was never - sorry, he claims never to have been aware - that he was a NZ citizen. He can claim to have acted in ignorance on the matter. Perhaps the first and last time he'll ever do that.
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
14th August 2017, 04:44 AM | #722 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
He still has to convince the high court about that. As a matter of fact, the word "entitled" in section 44 could even bite the backside of politicians who have renouonced foreign citizenship since not every country recognizes renounciation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-2...nators/8754586
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
15th August 2017, 03:29 AM | #723 |
Adelaidean
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
|
I don't know if "I didn't know" would count as a defence. I would assume that it would be argued that he would have been required to do due diligence in ensuring that he wasn't a dual national when he was running for office.
I would say Barnaby's "I didn't know" defence will depend on what the High Court says about Canavan since he seems to be the one most similar to Barnaby's situation. |
__________________
|
|
15th August 2017, 03:45 AM | #724 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
15th August 2017, 04:33 AM | #725 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
15th August 2017, 05:15 AM | #726 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
Not sure what the High Court will say, but I doubt if they will say ignorance is an excuse. After all the constitution uses the word entitled not knowledge. As I see it either the High Court will make the section almost meaningless or will make a referendum almost inevitable in order to stop so many politicians from being disqualified. Problem: We are about to vote on the definition of marriage, we may have to have a general election, who wants to vote in a referendum as well?
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
15th August 2017, 12:42 PM | #727 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
There is absolutely no way that an amendment to section 44 would be passed in a referendum (an xenophobic campaign would see to that) and you can be pretty sure that parliament wouldn't consider trying.
In any case, I have no sympathy for politicians who don't do their homework. I am of Dutch descent but I am pretty sure that I have no Dutch citizenship (Holland has a habit of trying to strip citizenship off of non-residents). However, if I were to consider running for parliament then you can be sure that I would make all the necessary enquiries first and do what was necessary to renounce any foreign citizenship if it came to that. The bigger mystery is why anybody can get Australian citizenship and still keep their foreign citizenship (or obtain foreign citizenship and not lose their Australian citizenship). You would think that anybody wishing to become naturalized would have to first demonstrate that they have renounced all foreign ties. |
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
15th August 2017, 03:29 PM | #728 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
For starters you can be born in Australia and still be ELIGIBLE for foreign citizenship. Second, how can you prove that you have renounced all foreign ties? Remember foreign governments may not be cooperative.
Getting a referendum passed would be difficult. This would be true if the no campaign said vote no to bash politicians. Or, as you suggest, vote no and keep foreigners out of parliament, even if they are Australian citizens. |
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
15th August 2017, 09:42 PM | #729 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
This video lists 5 reasons against gay marriage and why they are not valid.
https://www.facebook.com/onslowartsc...iCUZis&fref=nf Stated reasons 1. It perverts the religious definition of marriage 2. Marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman. 3. Marriage is for procreation and raising children 4. Saying no to gay marriage will stop PC in its tracks 5. Saying no to gay marriage is about protecting religious freedom Caution. Rule 10 violations within this video. Are there any other common arguments against gay marriage? I cannot think of any. |
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
16th August 2017, 04:28 PM | #730 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
6. It is a slippery slope, to being allowed to marry animals.
By the way. If you are supporting the YES vote - the subject is marriage equality. Calling it gay marriage or same-sex marriage goes the route of Brexit. Brexit is short for Britain Exit and its constant use poisoned the well and IMO influenced, even subconsciously, people's attitude to the subject in a negative way. Constantly referring to "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "equality" also plays to the bigots side of the discussion by reiterating their only objection to marriage equality - anyone that is not them. Calling it "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "Marriage Equality" only helps the NO argument. |
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
17th August 2017, 12:54 AM | #731 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
Just to prove your point it could lead to people marrying the harbour bridge. Stupid? Yes but it was said. Ref: https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkma...Pva#.txkmbz3RZ
The link called it gay marriage. |
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
17th August 2017, 01:43 AM | #732 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
A friend of mine in interviewed in this article.
Rainbow Christian Alliance: What's it like to be a Christian and part of the LGBTIQ rainbow family?
Quote:
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
19th August 2017, 10:16 AM | #733 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Will there any senators left at the end of the current round of "What do you mean, I have dual citizenship?!"
|
19th August 2017, 06:13 PM | #734 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
There's quite a lot of them to get through, and the Census showed that 70% of Australians were born in Australia.
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
19th August 2017, 07:29 PM | #735 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
It is not the upper house that is the problem. If any of them get declared ineligible then they can be replaced by someone else in the same party. It is the lower house that is the issue. Any of the Liberals get declared ineligible then here comes a by-election, maybe in November. If one or two lose to the Labour party then for the first time for a long time we get a new Government without a general election. Unless Turnbull seeing the writing on the wall goes to the polls first. That could mean no change in the marriage act until next year.
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
19th August 2017, 08:16 PM | #736 |
Quester of Doglets
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,799
|
The entitlement thing is the tricky part. Being born in Australia does not in any way stop a person from being "entitled" to citizenship in another country.
The court has created a precedent that if a person takes all reasonable steps to repudiate their entitlement or citizenship elsewhere, that is sufficient in the cases where countries do not allow someone to give up their citizenship. "Ignorance is not a defence" is a legal maxim. |
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato. |
|
20th August 2017, 03:49 PM | #737 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Ironically, under section 34 of the constitution, a subject of the Queen is eligible to be elected to parliament. Yet Great Britain is a "foreign power".
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
20th August 2017, 05:59 PM | #738 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping. |
|
21st August 2017, 02:43 AM | #739 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
I believe that is the source of the trouble. In 1899 Great Britain was NOT a foreign power and most people in Australia had British Ancestry. Hence section 34 was reasonable. Now, as you say, Great Britain is a foreign power and many Australians have parents born outside of Australia (and even Great Britain).
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
28th August 2017, 09:54 PM | #740 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
Nother one
Labor Senator Katy Gallagher's mother was born in Ecuador. Ecuador says that makes Katy one of theirs. |
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping. |
|
28th August 2017, 10:09 PM | #741 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 141
|
Looks like News Corp has been working hard to pull their enemy into this mess.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-2...enship/8851006
Quote:
|
29th August 2017, 04:14 AM | #742 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
29th August 2017, 04:45 AM | #743 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
Why stop at one politician. Imagine what would happen if the leader of a hostile nation said "We have no wish to be hostile to Australia. As a peace gesture we will make all Australian politicians citizens of our nation."
In a month or two when the High Court makes its rulings we will find out if the above is just a joke or something which could happen. If the later then a referendum would almost certainly would be inevitable. |
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
20th September 2017, 06:27 PM | #744 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Same sex marriage survey
Postal ballot forms have been sent to all voters in Australia regarding same sex marriage. They ask, "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" and voters are to mark either the "yes" box or the "no" box. https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/si...ple_survey.pdf
This is the Turnbull government's way of skirting around a plebiscite bill which was earlier blocked by the Senate. Malcolm Turnbull (a same sex marriage supporter) has come under criticism for not simply changing the law already and sparing taxpayers the cost of a survey. OTOH although Turnbull has said that "religious freedom will be guaranteed", no bill has been drafted yet and conservative opponents have seized on this to say that this guarantee can not be trusted. Australians are asked to return their forms by 27 October. The survey closes on 7 November and results are expected a week later. https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/postal-forms |
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
20th September 2017, 09:20 PM | #745 |
Adelaidean
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
|
I'm going to say yes, even if a yes does actually mean maybe.
|
__________________
|
|
20th September 2017, 09:50 PM | #746 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".
I'm all in favour of same sex marriage provided that it is performed by a celebrant who WANTS to perform same sex marriages and this is not guaranteed. Obviously there is no way that Catholic priests who refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony would be jailed but there is every prospect that a civil celebrant's licence or job may be on the line. |
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
20th September 2017, 10:01 PM | #747 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
|
20th September 2017, 10:48 PM | #748 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
20th September 2017, 11:33 PM | #749 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
20th September 2017, 11:38 PM | #750 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
21st September 2017, 12:50 AM | #751 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
|
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
21st September 2017, 01:12 AM | #752 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
No, this is not true. The question is very simple. Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? That's it. One simple question. Should the law be changed? Yes, it should. We agree on that, right? It's very obvious that a majority of Australians agree with that statement. It is one question and it is asking only one thing.
Turnbull has committed to the policy that if the survey returns a majority yes vote, then the law will be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. When the survey returns that result, then we can start thinking exactly how the law should be changed. If it doesn't, then we don't need to think about that at all. Nothing else matters at this point - only the question of whether the law should be changed or not. If you think the law should be changed, then vote yes. It's a very simple question. Howard and Abbott and whoever else is saying that the question of religious freedom will need to be addressed and whatever other irrelevancies are distractions, and I think that's why they're doing it. |
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
21st September 2017, 01:36 AM | #753 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
21st September 2017, 01:58 AM | #754 |
Adelaidean
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
|
|
__________________
|
|
21st September 2017, 01:59 AM | #755 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
|
No, the first question is correct, the second is just ******** - parliament will not pass legislation to that effect.
I am surprised you even consider it an issue. Sure Howard/Abbot the most dishonest/disingenuous politicians ever will promote it as an issue, but it isn't an honest argument. Can it be a tactic to scare people, of course - that is Howard/Abbots standard ploy. A legitimate concern never. |
21st September 2017, 02:02 AM | #756 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
|
The second question is a bit stupid.
Purely just in my opinion though. The whole thing to me is. Who cares. Doesn't affect anybody. Marry who you want as long as it's mutual and the right age. The second question will directly affect people. Albeit, backward people imo Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk |
21st September 2017, 02:14 AM | #757 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
21st September 2017, 02:37 AM | #758 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
|
|
21st September 2017, 02:53 AM | #759 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
21st September 2017, 03:08 AM | #760 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|