ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries says he tabled a petition in Federal Parliament questioning Muslim immigration because of his belief in the right to free speech.
The petition from three people in Sydney calls for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
It seeks a review of immigration policy be undertaken to ensure priority is given to Christians.
Senator Humphries says he disagrees with the petition and will meet local Muslims to allay their concerns.
"Many muslims are my friends and I hope they'll remain my friends," he said.
"But I hope that they'll also understand that as a member of the Federal Parliament I have an obligation to fulfil or place before the Parliament points of view of citizens if they're on matters that affect the powers and the role of the Federal Parliament," he said.
A leading member of the Muslim community has questioned Senator Humphries' decision to table the petition.
Australian Federation of Islamic Council president Ikebal Patel says if Senator Humphries does not agree with the views expressed then he should not have tabled the petition.
"You either put it in and back it or you take Senator Kate Lundy's view that.. she chose not to put it forward because it was an abhorrent position," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 138945.htm
3 person petition.
3 person petition.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: 3 person petition.
How about this: What if it were possible to demonstrate, by citing "orthodox" Muslim teachings, that the core beliefs of Islam were antithetical to the principles codified in the founding documents of Australia (whatever those might be).
If so, then it might be entirely appropriate for Oz to demand that any Muslim desiring to immigrate sign an affidavit stating that s/he will abide by the laws, etc. in Australia.
Or you could just keep the bastards out.
Your choice.
If so, then it might be entirely appropriate for Oz to demand that any Muslim desiring to immigrate sign an affidavit stating that s/he will abide by the laws, etc. in Australia.
Or you could just keep the bastards out.
Your choice.
Re: 3 person petition.
Orthodox muslim teachings? Please!
Re: 3 person petition.
Well you do have to swear a pledge Dave, if that's what you are thinking..
I did when I became an Aussie.
I did when I became an Aussie.
t is important for all Australian citizens to understand our responsibilities and what it means to be a citizen, whether we are Australian by birth or by choice. It is a critical part of building our nation.
Most people are required to make the Australian Citizenship Pledge at a citizenship ceremony. In doing so you are making a public commitment to Australia and accepting the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Learning the meaning behind the Pledge will give you a greater understanding of what it means to be an Australian and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
You can choose between two versions of the Pledge, one that mentions God and one that does not.
From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey..From this time forward
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: 3 person petition.
Here's something to ponder:
What is to be done if someone who has taken The Pledge violates it?
Say they start or join a political movement to promote Sharia law? They would therefore not share Australia's "democratic beliefs."
Toss them out?
What is to be done if someone who has taken The Pledge violates it?
Say they start or join a political movement to promote Sharia law? They would therefore not share Australia's "democratic beliefs."
Toss them out?
Re: 3 person petition.
Citizenship can be revoked...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: 3 person petition.
Gazza Humpy was a tosser when he was just a local ACT politician, the is a bigger bucket of scum now his is in the Federal arena.
I have had many dealings with him and I think this petition with end his political career.
In which case ... the cakes are on me!
WHOO-HOO
I have had many dealings with him and I think this petition with end his political career.
In which case ... the cakes are on me!
WHOO-HOO
Bah!
Re: 3 person petition.
Australian citizenship can be revoked? U.S. citizenship cannot.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: 3 person petition.
I seem to recall cases involving former Nazis whose citizenship was revoked because they obtained citizenship by lying about their past involvements in war crimes. Am I misremembering?
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: 3 person petition.
Under U.S. constitutional law, citizenship cannot be revoked by the government; it can be lost only by being voluntarily relinquished. That relinquishment can be express, as by formally renouncing one's citizenship before an appropriate consular officer. It can be implied, as by taking up arms against the U.S.
But the relinquishment must demonstrate an intent to relinquish one's citizenship. Merely becoming a citizen of a foreign country does not necessarily relinquish one's citizenship. (Becoming a naturalized citizen, however, does terminate any other, prior citizenship, at least in the eyes of the US government, because the oath of citizenship requires renunciation of any prior citizenship.) If that country is engaged in hostilities against the US, however, the intent to relinquish one's citizenship may be implied.
Even joining a foreign country's military does not necessarily relinquish one's citizenship: Persons with dual US-Israeli citizenship who joined the Israeli military in complicance with Israel's compulsory-service laws have been held not to have relinquished their US citizenship.
(The State Department is fond of telling people that becoming a citizen of another country or joining another country's military will automatically terminate one's US citizenship. Those assertions are false, and the State Department, having been on the wrong side of various Supreme Court cases on the subject, knows that they are false. It just hopes that people will not know that they are false.)
In the case of misrepresentations made in the course of "becoming" a US citizen, the theory is not that one's citizenship is being revoked but that one was never really a citizen at all. Thus, the former Nazis you mention did not "lose" their citizenship; they never had it in the first place.
I went through this in detail, with citations, either at CSB or at DAF once, but I can't find it now.
But the relinquishment must demonstrate an intent to relinquish one's citizenship. Merely becoming a citizen of a foreign country does not necessarily relinquish one's citizenship. (Becoming a naturalized citizen, however, does terminate any other, prior citizenship, at least in the eyes of the US government, because the oath of citizenship requires renunciation of any prior citizenship.) If that country is engaged in hostilities against the US, however, the intent to relinquish one's citizenship may be implied.
Even joining a foreign country's military does not necessarily relinquish one's citizenship: Persons with dual US-Israeli citizenship who joined the Israeli military in complicance with Israel's compulsory-service laws have been held not to have relinquished their US citizenship.
(The State Department is fond of telling people that becoming a citizen of another country or joining another country's military will automatically terminate one's US citizenship. Those assertions are false, and the State Department, having been on the wrong side of various Supreme Court cases on the subject, knows that they are false. It just hopes that people will not know that they are false.)
In the case of misrepresentations made in the course of "becoming" a US citizen, the theory is not that one's citizenship is being revoked but that one was never really a citizen at all. Thus, the former Nazis you mention did not "lose" their citizenship; they never had it in the first place.
I went through this in detail, with citations, either at CSB or at DAF once, but I can't find it now.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: 3 person petition.
Losing your citizenship
Main content
You may have lost or given up your Australian citizenship:
* by acquiring the citizenship of another country before 4 April 2002 (before this date you automatically lost Australian citizenship by becoming the citizen of another country)
* by giving up or renouncing your Australian citizenship to retain or acquire another citizenship or avoid significant hardship
* as a child because your parent or parents ceased to be Australian citizens.
Revoking citizenship
If you became a citizen by application you can have your citizenship taken away if you are found to have committed a serious criminal offence prior to gaining citizenship. Australian citizenship can be revoked if:
* you have been convicted of making a false statement or representation in relation to your application to become an Australian citizen
* you are convicted of a serious criminal offence at any time prior to becoming a citizen involving a sentence of 12 months or more
* your approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of migration-related fraud
* your approval to become an Australian citizen was gained as a result of third party fraud; for example, fraudulent conduct by a migration agent in the citizenship application
* it would be contrary to the public interest for you to remain an Australian citizen.
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/l ... tizenship/
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: 3 person petition.
I am very glad that US law does not permit such a thing. And I am dismayed that Australian law does.... it would be contrary to the public interest for you to remain an Australian citizen."
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: 3 person petition.
I have to agree. When one's citizenship is subject to the whims of the presiding political entities . . . well, one has very little upon which to rely.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: 3 person petition.
This only applies to people who have become citizens, not born and bred Aussies. If there is no chance of losing your acquired citizenship, then doesn't that totally devalue it?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: 3 person petition.
Quite the opposite: US citizenship is far too precious to allow the government to take it away.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: 3 person petition.
But it's the government who grants it? So surely they should have the right to rescind it?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: 3 person petition.
The condition is not sufficient in isolation to revoke citizenship. The document quoted is written badly. The Australian Citizenship Act of 2007 says that revocation can only take place when one of the other conditions is present AND the Minister determines that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen.Andrew D wrote:I am very glad that US law does not permit such a thing. And I am dismayed that Australian law does.... it would be contrary to the public interest for you to remain an Australian citizen."
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: 3 person petition.
True, but I suspect that swearing to uphold Australian laws and values and then trying to force the values of another country, religion or culture on Australia could come under the heading of:
* you have been convicted of making a false statement or representation in relation to your application to become an Australian citizen
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: 3 person petition.
"Trying to force" suggests some sort of violence or coercion. Advocating for social change through democratic means can hardly be considered at odds with Australian citizenship, since Australians have been doing so throughout their history.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose