Yet another case of judges interfering in politics
Sep 11th 2001, 9:00 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
With over 90% of Australia in support of not accepting the "illegal immigrants",
"queue jumpers", "asylum seekers", (call them what you want but they committed an
act of piracy by forcing the Norwegian ship to change course.....so I'll call them
pirates), the High Court has in its wisdom decided that the Howard Government has
acted illegally and ordered it to accept the pirates into Australia for processing.
If we as a nation elect politicians to do our bidding, and obviously in this case
they have as all opinion polls have shown, WHY can our courts overrule a perfectly
amicable solution for the Australian people?? How is it that lawyers and judges can
overrule our own appointed leaders in a matter of policy?? If a referendum were held
today on whether we could change the constitution to allow the Government the
authority to protect our borders from illegal entries, and to say "enough is enough"
we've done our bit for refugees now they'll have to find somewhere else, it would be
a landslide the likes of which have never been seen before. The simple fact is, we
have a detention policy because there are lots of economic migrants amongst the
genuine asylum seekers. I love my country - it has it's problems and faults, but
this is a relatively trouble free country. Do we want whole suburbs and towns being
overrun by ethnic groups in a short period of time alienating the already
established communities resulting in race riots like those seen recently in Britain?
Do we want crowds of neo-nazis roaming the streets because they feel disaffected,
are unemployed, and have nothing better to do than take out their hate and
frustration on anyone who is not of Aryan origin? The courts are supposed to uphold
the laws put in place by our representatives as the will of our nation, thus
creating the impression of justice. In this case the courts have given a clear
message that they run the country and we no longer live in a democracy ruled by the
people for the people. I'd be interested on Mr Lombard's comments on this post and
anyone else with any interest.
Regards, Radu [email protected]
"queue jumpers", "asylum seekers", (call them what you want but they committed an
act of piracy by forcing the Norwegian ship to change course.....so I'll call them
pirates), the High Court has in its wisdom decided that the Howard Government has
acted illegally and ordered it to accept the pirates into Australia for processing.
If we as a nation elect politicians to do our bidding, and obviously in this case
they have as all opinion polls have shown, WHY can our courts overrule a perfectly
amicable solution for the Australian people?? How is it that lawyers and judges can
overrule our own appointed leaders in a matter of policy?? If a referendum were held
today on whether we could change the constitution to allow the Government the
authority to protect our borders from illegal entries, and to say "enough is enough"
we've done our bit for refugees now they'll have to find somewhere else, it would be
a landslide the likes of which have never been seen before. The simple fact is, we
have a detention policy because there are lots of economic migrants amongst the
genuine asylum seekers. I love my country - it has it's problems and faults, but
this is a relatively trouble free country. Do we want whole suburbs and towns being
overrun by ethnic groups in a short period of time alienating the already
established communities resulting in race riots like those seen recently in Britain?
Do we want crowds of neo-nazis roaming the streets because they feel disaffected,
are unemployed, and have nothing better to do than take out their hate and
frustration on anyone who is not of Aryan origin? The courts are supposed to uphold
the laws put in place by our representatives as the will of our nation, thus
creating the impression of justice. In this case the courts have given a clear
message that they run the country and we no longer live in a democracy ruled by the
people for the people. I'd be interested on Mr Lombard's comments on this post and
anyone else with any interest.
Regards, Radu [email protected]
Sep 11th 2001, 12:33 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Radu,
You asked for my views, here they are in square brackets...
>
>
>
in support of not accepting the "illegal
>
>
>
, the High Court [a single judge of the Federal Court is not the High Court]
has in its wisdom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[the role of the courts, the so-called "rule of law", is to protect us all from a
government which abuses its power. You wouldn't be safe on the streets without the
courts, and it is a mistake to think that by inoculating immigration from judicial
review you make it easier for immigration people to do their work. All you would get
would be more arbitrary decision making. The abiding impression of the whole Tampa
saga is a failure to plan. Why Nauru? Because only Nauru would co-operate in an 11th
hour diplomatic offensive. The Australian government has had 50 years to plan a more
effective regional co-operation strategy.]
Cheers
George Lombard
www.austimmigration.com.au
You asked for my views, here they are in square brackets...
>
>
>
in support of not accepting the "illegal
>
>
>
, the High Court [a single judge of the Federal Court is not the High Court]
has in its wisdom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[the role of the courts, the so-called "rule of law", is to protect us all from a
government which abuses its power. You wouldn't be safe on the streets without the
courts, and it is a mistake to think that by inoculating immigration from judicial
review you make it easier for immigration people to do their work. All you would get
would be more arbitrary decision making. The abiding impression of the whole Tampa
saga is a failure to plan. Why Nauru? Because only Nauru would co-operate in an 11th
hour diplomatic offensive. The Australian government has had 50 years to plan a more
effective regional co-operation strategy.]
Cheers
George Lombard
www.austimmigration.com.au
