In article <3f45cef1$0$15136$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
(1) Australia was not built on a democratic fabric. It was founded as a prison colony. It still doesn't have basic rights like freedom of speech built into its constitution.

1) Freedom of speech has been deemed within the consitution. The
constitution states that members of parliment must be voted in by the
people. Therefore in order to have a democracy on must have free speech
and therefore the courts have ruled that yes Freespeech is held within
the Australian constitution... but you knew that didn't you?
(2) Her only crime was a technical breach of Queensland's laws. She did not "demean the electoral system". That is the province of major parties that stack branches and collude to keep competitors out of Parliament.

I call registering a party without the required number of members is
quite a major breach and the fact that on the basis of this breach she
managed to get something like 10 people into the QLD parliment and
recieved money from the tax payer (regardless of if it was paid back
this was only done once she was caught) is demeaning the electoral
system.

In article <3f45d7a8$0$15135$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
I knew that the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution to grant a limited immunity from the coverage of defamation laws in some cases where Members of Parliament are involved. I was not aware that Australia had an entrenched Constitutionwhich explicitly guaranteed general freedom of speech in all areas, and which was founded on something more secure than the whims of judicial activism. Perhaps you could point me to this?

From my notes (which is a mess) the case should be

Australian Capital TV Pty Ltd v Cth (1992) 177 CLR 106

Fact is the constitution was created at Federation, the start of the
nation (as opposed to State colonies) and therefore the country was
based on a democary and not a colony, the colony just developed into
the nation, but Australia didn't exist in any real legal state until
Federation. The constitution states a lot of things, unlike America
which explicitly states things which aren't needed. There's a **** load
of rights, like the right to vote, yet this isn't stated in the
constitution but we have it and there's no possible way to have this
removed, as with the freedom of speech.

Not much good has come from an explicite bill of rights.
I am at a loss as to how you might interpret participation in an election at which the voters decided to support the party as "demeaning the electoral system".

Because they were supporting a fictional party. Would these members
have gotten into Parliment if they were independents? Probably not.
The issue of registering a political party by using the names of supporters instead of members is purely a technical detail. It carries no ethical weight of wrongdoing. It could even be argued that a law which places restrictions on the registration of political parties is itself a diminution of democracy.

It could be but that's the law. I don't know how accurate the papers
are but during the trial they reported she knowingly registered in that
way and made a joke at some function how she and the other guy were the
only actual members of the party.

"Peter" <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote in message
news:220820031758190967%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net... In article <3f45cef1$0$15136$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: (1) Australia was not built on a democratic fabric. It was founded as a prison colony. It still doesn't have basic rights like freedom of speech built into its constitution. 1) Freedom of speech has been deemed within the consitution. The constitution states that members of parliment must be voted in by the people. Therefore in order to have a democracy on must have free speech and therefore the courts have ruled that yes Freespeech is held within the Australian constitution... but you knew that didn't you?

I knew that the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution
to grant a limited immunity from the coverage of defamation
laws in some cases where Members of Parliament are involved.

I was not aware that Australia had an entrenched Constitutionwhich
explicitly guaranteed general freedom of speech in all areas, and which
was founded on something more secure than the whims of judicial
activism. Perhaps you could point me to this?
(2) Her only crime was a technical breach of Queensland's laws. She did not "demean the electoral system". That is the province of major parties that stack branches and collude to keep competitors out of Parliament. I call registering a party without the required number of members is quite a major breach and the fact that on the basis of this breach she managed to get something like 10 people into the QLD parliment and recieved money from the tax payer (regardless of if it was paid back this was only done once she was caught) is demeaning the electoral system.

I am at a loss as to how you might interpret participation in an election
at which the voters decided to support the party as "demeaning the
electoral system".

The issue of registering a political party by using the names of supporters
instead of members is purely a technical detail. It carries no ethical
weight
of wrongdoing. It could even be argued that a law which places restrictions
on the registration of political parties is itself a diminution of
democracy.

--
http://evilpundit.blogspot.com

"Peter" <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote in message
news:220820031836225485%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net... In article <3f45d7a8$0$15135$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: I knew that the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution to grant a limited immunity from the coverage of defamation laws in some cases where Members of Parliament are involved. I was not aware that Australia had an entrenched Constitutionwhich explicitly guaranteed general freedom of speech in all areas, and which was founded on something more secure than the whims of judicial activism. Perhaps you could point me to this? From my notes (which is a mess) the case should be Australian Capital TV Pty Ltd v Cth (1992) 177 CLR 106 Fact is the constitution was created at Federation, the start of the nation (as opposed to State colonies) and therefore the country was based on a democary and not a colony, the colony just developed into the nation, but Australia didn't exist in any real legal state until Federation.

Fair enough. The point about whether Australia began as a democracy
depends on where we define the beginning of "Australia".
The constitution states a lot of things, unlike America which explicitly states things which aren't needed. There's a **** load of rights, like the right to vote, yet this isn't stated in the constitution but we have it and there's no possible way to have this removed, as with the freedom of speech.

Certain rights are implied in the Constitution, but I would
prefer to have some of the most essential ones explicitly
stated. As for freedom of speech, it is only constitutionally
guaranteed to the degree that it is necessary for the provisions
of the Constitution to be able to be implemented. I would like
a guarantee of the right to discuss a bit more than who we
should vote for.
Not much good has come from an explicite bill of rights. I am at a loss as to how you might interpret participation in an
election at which the voters decided to support the party as "demeaning the electoral system". Because they were supporting a fictional party. Would these members have gotten into Parliment if they were independents? Probably not. The issue of registering a political party by using the names of
supporters instead of members is purely a technical detail. It carries no ethical weight of wrongdoing. It could even be argued that a law which places
restrictions on the registration of political parties is itself a diminution of democracy. It could be but that's the law. I don't know how accurate the papers are but during the trial they reported she knowingly registered in that way and made a joke at some function how she and the other guy were the only actual members of the party.

If she knowingly registered in an unlawful way, then she may be
less dumb-and-innocent than I previously believed.

Nevertheless, I think the sentence is disproportionate to the offence.

--
http://evilpundit.blogspot.com

In article <3f45faa7$0$15131$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Certain rights are implied in the Constitution, but I would prefer to have some of the most essential ones explicitly stated. As for freedom of speech, it is only constitutionally guaranteed to the degree that it is necessary for the provisions of the Constitution to be able to be implemented. I would like a guarantee of the right to discuss a bit more than who we should vote for.

But it is. The fact we have political freedom means full freedom of
speech (with obvious exceptions such as slander). One cannot have a
full discourse without freedom of speech, it's further than who you
want to vote for.

"Peter" <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote in message
news:220820032201051535%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net... In article <3f45faa7$0$15131$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: Certain rights are implied in the Constitution, but I would prefer to have some of the most essential ones explicitly stated. As for freedom of speech, it is only constitutionally guaranteed to the degree that it is necessary for the provisions of the Constitution to be able to be implemented. I would like a guarantee of the right to discuss a bit more than who we should vote for. But it is. The fact we have political freedom means full freedom of speech (with obvious exceptions such as slander). One cannot have a full discourse without freedom of speech, it's further than who you want to vote for.

It's only a guarantee until such point as a government decides to
legislate against certain speech (as in the slew of pornography,
vilification and offensive language laws we have). Then the
High Court is not free to overturn such laws as there
is no implied or explicit guarantee of a right to non-political
speech.

Such is not the case in the United States, where many legislative
attempts to ban speech of various kinds have been tossed out
by the Supreme Court. Having the right specifically enshrined
in the Constitution gives it far greater strength.

--
http://evilpundit.blogspot.com

In article <3f461982$0$15131$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, EvilPundit
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
It's only a guarantee until such point as a government decides to legislate against certain speech (as in the slew of pornography, vilification and offensive language laws we have). Then the High Court is not free to overturn such laws as there is no implied or explicit guarantee of a right to non-political speech.

The theory is all speech is policitcal in nature. But if the government
went too far the HC could shut it down as invalid pretty quickly on
constitutional grounds.

Such is not the case in the United States, where many legislative attempts to ban speech of various kinds have been tossed out by the Supreme Court. Having the right specifically enshrined in the Constitution gives it far greater strength.

Yeah and look at the rest of their rights. Because of their god given
right to bare arms there are 12,000 gun deaths in the US per year. Here
there's something like 350.

In article <3F47A847.7152@alphalink.com.au>, Jacques Guy
<jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Peter wrote: Yeah and look at the rest of their rights. Because of their god given right to bare arms there are 12,000 gun deaths in the US per year. They should make it compulsory to wear long-sleeved shirts, then. Here there's something like 350. A natural consequence of covering up to avoid skin cancer?

LOL

"Jacques Guy" <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F47A847.7152@alphalink.com.au... Peter wrote: Yeah and look at the rest of their rights. Because of their god given right to bare arms there are 12,000 gun deaths in the US per year. They should make it compulsory to wear long-sleeved shirts, then.

LOL !