IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


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.
Reply
Old 2nd June 2023, 10:52 AM   #801
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 28,613
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I didn't see a thread about this specifically. Perhaps there should have been.

Ben Roberts-Smith loses mammoth defamation battle against newspapers, reporters



So it's true. He's a war criminal and a scumbag.
Over in SI&CE. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=366260
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2023, 01:40 AM   #802
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,715
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The problem is that the Solicitor General is not a High Court judge and can't predict how they would rule on a dispute between the Aboriginal community and the government.
When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases. Why is it wrong to assume that the HCA will continue to apply the precedent in these cases? Why would you expect the HCA to suddenly ignore over a century of precedent simply because the petitioners are Indigenous?

Quote:
Albo could have short circuited this by inserting the words "non binding representations" in the proposed section 129(ii). Instead he dug his heels in and claimed that the opposition isn't genuine about their criticisms. Although this is true, there are many other Australians who are concerned about the wording of the change and Albo has disregarded them completely.
Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding?
__________________
Wildy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2023, 08:34 PM   #803
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 20,170
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases.
There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.

Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding?
Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?
__________________
"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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:36 AM   #804
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,479
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.


Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?
Albo will remain silent until it is too late. Already polling shows the Yes vote is weakening. Given the peculiarities of referenda, even if polling stays steady I doubt we will see a majority in a majority of states.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:09 PM   #805
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,715
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.
How would the constitution granting the Voice the right to make representations to government be "new territory" on cases based on decisions made by Parliament or the Executive government? Why would prior precedent not apply here?

I can see it if there was a case where the Voice was prevented from make a representation, but not if they had made a representation and the government didn't follow the advice given.

Quote:
Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?
Because it's an advisory body. Government hears advice from a bunch of different groups. They may even ask for advice in certain matters. None of that is binding on the Government to follow, if it were we wouldn't be having a Royal Commission into Robodebt because they would have been bound by the legal advice saying it was unlawful.

Why would I expect this new advisory body to be any different from previous advisory bodies in this matter?

For some reason you seem to think that the advice from the Voice will be binding, and because of that you want the wording changed based on this unknown reason. The thing is that I honestly can't see the leap between "Constitution will say that the Voice is required to exist and can give advice to government" and "Any advice given by the Voice will be legally binding".
__________________
Wildy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.