Not really vilification though, is it? Just trolling.
Brandis’ speech
1 Like
Racial vilification is illegal in ACT.
can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion.
1 Like
But would she be protected by parliamentary privilege?
3 Likes
Yes - but could be held in content of the parliament. Though perhaps they will try to give her as little attention as possible.
1 Like
There’s an interesting distinction between the areas of Canberra the federal gov’t control (via the National Capital Authority, who give you a parking ticket within the parliamentary triangle), and the rest of the ACT, so even without the protection of parliamentary privilege I suspect laws passed by the ACT parliament don’t apply inside the federal areas.
On another recent topic, Richard Ackland has put together a nice history piece on past violations of s44 (including by an American), what was considered more important by the British, etc:
1 Like
Paul Murray defending Pauline on sky now…no outrage from him…saying why the burqa etc, not a mocking of Islam, saying that he doesn’t see it as an issue. Fuck me dead this cunt is actually defending her. He doesn’t even see it as disrespect to the parliament of Australia. As usual these far right clowns won’t ever call her out on the shitmshe says.
2 Likes
Not again!
2 Likes
Funny how this latest revelation came at the end of parliament sitting.
This is also being announced on ABC News Canberra right now.
PS: Nash told the Senate the PM had told her she had “…no reason to stand aside…” - the gov’t position is an appalling load of crap; she should resign from parliament tonight - and now the LNP are going to wait until parliament’s next sitting before referring her to the High Court.
No, first step in legislative interpretation is always the words used themselves - if there is no ambiguity, then there is little avenue to skip past clear wording to look at intention.
Hanson - open mouthed shock when I saw this earlier today - the woman has some balls!
Of course the wording is first, but sometimes where ambiguity needs to be clarified, intent has been looked at (where it can be determined, for example the implied right of political expression).
On Lateline the A-G was referring to an earlier HC case on s44, and trying to stretch it, beyond logical reason I believe, to try to cover his colleague’s arses.
And there is very little ambiguity in the relevant part of section 44 to allow that to happen!
She could have had anything in there for all we know!
2 Likes
Haha!
The s44 multi-citizenship thing is becoming a farce:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nick-xenophon-checking-whether-hes-a-british-citizen-in-shock-new-twist-in-citizenship-crisis-20170818-gxyzo2.html
It seems the LNP’s dual-citizens refusal to resign until the High Court forces them has lowered the standard:
Dual Nash-onal
A third Turnbull government minister has been caught up in the dual citizenship crisis that has rocked parliament, with Nationals senator Fiona Nash advising she is a British citizen by descent.
Attorney-General George Brandis … defended the decision to withhold announcing Senator Nash’s citizenship issues for almost a week.
The NSW senator received advice from the British Home Office on Monday she was a dual citizen through her Scottish-born father, but did not announce it to Parliament until the dying moments of the last sitting fortnight.
Defending the indefensible.
The government remains confident its three MPs will be found to eligible to remain in Parliament.
People used to be confident the Earth was flat, but that too was wrong.
Everyone who has been verbally critical of others caught in the dual-citisenzhip fiasco is eating a bit of humble pie right about now…
https://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/stories/foreign-pollies
1 Like
Now that the UK gov’t has confirmed Xenophon is a British citizen, and with Turnbull keeping dual citizens in the ministry (i.e. Joyce, Nash), the cross-bench is withdrawing support from the gov’t which shortly won’t have a majority on the floor of the House of Reps:
It’s a sad day for democracy when the chief law officer of the land says his colleagues intend to keep violating the highest law of the land.
This is twisting the constitution…
Brandis said the legal advice he had received said there was no problem with Joyce and Nash remaining in the cabinet and making executive decisions.
The constitution allows appointment of ministers provided they become MPs within a limited timeframe, but what the gov’t are doing here goes beyond that by insisting that these illegible MPs would keep voting on the floor of the House of Reps & Senate, and that’s clearly violating the constitution.
Shorten stated what should be obvious but the LNP last week decided to ignore/deny:
“Perhaps this is a problem in terms of the constitution that has been ignored but it is still the constitution of Australia and, until the constitution is changed, it’s the law.”
And finally some honesty from the LNP; a long overdue (albeit small) concession to reality:
The senior Nationals MP Darren Chester conceded it had been a “rotten few weeks” for his party. “We need to be better at our vetting process when people nominate to be a candidate,” he told ABC television.
Bernardi was right in calling for Parliament to be prorogued. This is almost a constitutional crisis - I am happy if the Government suspends itself while Joyce and Nash are processed into dog food in the High Court.
1 Like