On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:05:50 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:54:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:38:09 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 12:32:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 09:08:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 04:08:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 22:05:07 +1100, petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>>> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>> SNIP
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> > The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>>>> > indigenous veto on any Government law! That, to a degree, is
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> > "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>>>>>>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently,
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If up to me one would have to be active in the culture they claim
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> belong to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck that, there is FAR too much of that wanking already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For some reason Australia is claiming you have to have blood of the
>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>> No minimum, but it is never checked by DNA, so there are 80% bogus
>>>>>>> claims out
>>>>>>> there maybe even more.
>>>>>>> I've even seen white blond Germans in Tasmania claiming Aboriginal
>>>>>>> ancestry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The was in a documentary
>>>>>>> Blackfella, Whitefella, Four Corners / Aired Order / Season 2002 /
>>>>>>> Episode 29
>>>>>>> In tranquil Tasmania the race is on to claim Aboriginal ancestry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that without proof of Aboriginality those who have a
>>>>>>> lot to gain are afflicting true Aboriginals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The if not the whole
>>>>>>> number of claims being made by false "Aboriginals"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing it for purely
>>>>>>> personal pecuniary gains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or some posuturing, like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good expose of the racket was done by 4 corners some time ago
>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s659321.htm
>>>>
>>>>> Surely DNA analysis can determine "aboriginality" given that
>>>>> population was isolated in Oz for "40,000 years".
>>>>
>>>> It is very far from clear how isolated they actually were.
>>>>
>>>> There must have been some cross fucking with others from
>>>> what became indonesia, PNG, Torres Islanders etc.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless this would still clear the British colonists.
>>
>> There aren't any of them left and it wouldn't
>> clear the brats of those into fucking the abos.
>
> Quite. The DNA then should indicate, as a probability, the paternity
> of the spawn.

> I take it that there are no "pure bloods" left.

There may be one or two given that there were still a tiny handful
who had first contact with white men or mongrels just after the war.

>>>>> The concept of divergent evolution says evolution started in Africa
>>>>> but when the first individuals left (wouldn't anyone) only to
>>>>> continue
>>>>> separately in destination areas, which is why the Chinks look like
>>>>> that, the Greek & Italians are hairy, and the Nordic country denizens
>>>>> look like Tinkerbell ....etc.
>>>>> And the English....God save us all!

On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 12:29:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 09:01:01 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 04:08:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 22:05:07 +1100, petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> SNIP
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> There is no veto involved.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>> > indigenous veto on any Government law! That, to a degree, is what
>>>>> the
>>>>> > "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>>>> How far can you go??
>>>>>
>>>>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
>>>>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply for a
>>>>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>>>>
>>>>> How far do you go??
>>>
>>>> If up to me one would have to be active in the culture they claim to
>>>> belong to.
>>>
>>> Fuck that, there is FAR too much of that wanking already.
>>>
>>>> For some reason Australia is claiming you have to have blood of the
>>>> culture.
>>>> No minimum, but it is never checked by DNA, so there are 80% bogus
>>>> claims out
>>>> there maybe even more.
>>>> I've even seen white blond Germans in Tasmania claiming Aboriginal
>>>> ancestry,
>>>
>>> And you.
>>
>> Not made any claims to Government based on my Aboriginal ancestry
>
>But you have claimed Aboriginal ancestry in here.
>
I have never denied my ancestry any ware, just never made formal
claims to government for lurks and perks.

>>>> The was in a documentary
>>>> Blackfella, Whitefella, Four Corners / Aired Order / Season 2002 /
>>>> Episode 29
>>>> In tranquil Tasmania the race is on to claim Aboriginal ancestry.
>>>
>>> And you doing that.
>
>> Not made any claims to Government based on my Aboriginal ancestry
>
>But you have claimed Aboriginal ancestry in here.
>
>>>> The problem is that without proof of Aboriginality those who have a
>>>> lot to gain are afflicting true Aboriginals.
>>>
>>> No such animal.
>>>
>>>> The if not the whole
>>>> number of claims being made by false "Aboriginals"
>>>
>>> Like you.
>>>
>> Not made any claims to Government based on my Aboriginal ancestry
>
>But you have claimed Aboriginal ancestry in here.
>
I have never denied my ancestry any ware, just never made formal
claims to government for lurks and perks.

>>>> doing it for purely
>>>> personal pecuniary gains.
>>>
>>> Or some posuturing, like you.
>
>> Not made any claims to Government based on my Aboriginal ancestry
>
>But you have claimed Aboriginal ancestry in here.
>
I have never denied my ancestry any ware, just never made formal
claims to government for lurks and perks.

>>>> A good expose of the racket was done by 4 corners some time ago
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s659321.htm
--
Petzl
There are none so blind as those who will not see

On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:08:35 +1100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:05:50 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:54:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:38:09 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 12:32:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 09:08:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 04:08:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 22:05:07 +1100, petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>>>> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>>> SNIP
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> > The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>>>>> > indigenous veto on any Government law! That, to a degree, is
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>>>>>>>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>>>>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If up to me one would have to be active in the culture they claim
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> belong to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck that, there is FAR too much of that wanking already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For some reason Australia is claiming you have to have blood of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>>> No minimum, but it is never checked by DNA, so there are 80% bogus
>>>>>>>> claims out
>>>>>>>> there maybe even more.
>>>>>>>> I've even seen white blond Germans in Tasmania claiming Aboriginal
>>>>>>>> ancestry,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The was in a documentary
>>>>>>>> Blackfella, Whitefella, Four Corners / Aired Order / Season 2002 /
>>>>>>>> Episode 29
>>>>>>>> In tranquil Tasmania the race is on to claim Aboriginal ancestry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you doing that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that without proof of Aboriginality those who have
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> lot to gain are afflicting true Aboriginals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such animal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The if not the whole
>>>>>>>> number of claims being made by false "Aboriginals"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> doing it for purely
>>>>>>>> personal pecuniary gains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or some posuturing, like you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A good expose of the racket was done by 4 corners some time ago
>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s659321.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely DNA analysis can determine "aboriginality" given that
>>>>>> population was isolated in Oz for "40,000 years".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very far from clear how isolated they actually were.
>>>>>
>>>>> There must have been some cross fucking with others from
>>>>> what became indonesia, PNG, Torres Islanders etc.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless this would still clear the British colonists.
>>>
>>> There aren't any of them left and it wouldn't
>>> clear the brats of those into fucking the abos.
>>
>> Quite. The DNA then should indicate, as a probability, the paternity
>> of the spawn.
>
>> I take it that there are no "pure bloods" left.
>
> There may be one or two given that there were still a tiny handful
> who had first contact with white men or mongrels just after the war.

Maybe not given that they die at a lot younger age than we do unless
their brats only fucked other full bloods.

>>>>>> The concept of divergent evolution says evolution started in Africa
>>>>>> but when the first individuals left (wouldn't anyone) only to
>>>>>> continue
>>>>>> separately in destination areas, which is why the Chinks look like
>>>>>> that, the Greek & Italians are hairy, and the Nordic country
>>>>>> denizens
>>>>>> look like Tinkerbell ....etc.
>>>>>> And the English....God save us all!

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 10:28:24 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:

> 'Seeking advice' is quite different to how the Voice will work.

Yeah, it's all just innocent fun and virtue signalling until the day somebody goes to Court claiming they weren't given a "Voice" properly, as per the spirit of the Constitution as amended following the successful Voice referendum; the case makes it to the High Court; activist judges do a Mabo and invent a whole new threat to national sovereignty including suborning the function of our houses of parliament by effectively adding a 3rd, unelected, Bunyip aristocracy additional House.

Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>
>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>
>>>> There is no veto involved.
>
> Correct.
>
>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>
> Wrong.
>
> That, to a degree, is what the
>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>
>> How far can you go??
>>
>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply for a
>> Croatian Passport.
>>
>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>
>> How far do you go??
>
> That is one issue with the Voice.  Just because someone has an
> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be 'indigneous'?
> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.

Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the clan,
you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so ago!!
--
Daniel

On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>
>>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
>>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>>
>>> How far can you go??
>>>
>>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
>>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply for a
>>> Croatian Passport.
>>>
>>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>>
>>> How far do you go??
>>
>> That is one issue with the Voice.  Just because someone has an
>> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be 'indigneous'?
>> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>
> Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the clan,
> you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so ago!!

Yep. I'm sure that still applies.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> >>
> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
> >>>>>> government decisions!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> That, to a degree, is what the
> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
> >>>
> >>> How far can you go??
> >>>
> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply for a
> >>> Croatian Passport.
> >>>
> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
> >>>
> >>> How far do you go??
> >>
> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be 'indigneous'?
> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
> >
> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the clan,
> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so ago!!
> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes national law?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
<screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> >>
>> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
>> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>> >>>>>> government decisions!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >>
>> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >>
>> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>> >>>
>> >>> How far can you go??
>> >>>
>> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
>> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
>> for a
>> >>> Croatian Passport.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>> >>>
>> >>> How far do you go??
>> >>
>> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be 'indigneous'?
>> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>> >
>> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the clan,
>> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so
>> ago!!
>
>> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
> So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes
> national law?

There is no relevant national law.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> How far can you go??
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian. Recently, my
> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
> >> for a
> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> How far do you go??
> >> >>
> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be 'indigneous'?
> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the clan,
> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so
> >> ago!!
> >
> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes
> > national law?
> There is no relevant national law.

Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
Australian Citizenship Act 2007
What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national legislation.
The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's sovereignty.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
<screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>> Recently, my
>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
>> >> for a
>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>> 'indigneous'?
>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>> >> >
>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
>> clan,
>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so
>> >> ago!!
>> >
>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes
>> > national law?

>> There is no relevant national law.

> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
> Australian Citizenship Act 2007

That says nothing about who is an abo.

> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national
> legislation.

Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.

> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
> sovereignty.

BULLSHIT.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
><screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are not)
>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Correct.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New Zealand!
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>> Recently, my
>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to apply
>>> >> for a
>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth Croatian!!
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>> 'indigneous'?
>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
>>> clan,
>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so
>>> >> ago!!
>>> >
>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes
>>> > national law?
>
>>> There is no relevant national law.
>
>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>
>That says nothing about who is an abo.
>
>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national
>> legislation.
>
>Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>
>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>> sovereignty.
>
>BULLSHIT.

The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
Authorization and authority!
This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal Australian
Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
His Majesty the King Charles III.
--
Petzl
Our parliaments need to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law
"Dieu et mon droit" God is my legal right

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are
>>>> not)
>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>> Zealand!
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>> Recently, my
>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>> apply
>>>> >> for a
>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>> Croatian!!
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
>>>> clan,
>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or
>>>> so
>>>> >> ago!!
>>>> >
>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>> supersedes
>>>> > national law?
>>
>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>
>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>
>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>
>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national
>>> legislation.
>>
>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>
>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>> sovereignty.
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>
> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct

Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.

> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do

The constitution says nothing of the sort.

> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
> Authorization and authority!

Wrong, as always.

> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal Australian
> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
> His Majesty the King Charles III.

Wrong, as always.

Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are
>>>>> not)
>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>>> apply
>>>>> >> for a
>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
>>>>> clan,
>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or
>>>>> so
>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>> supersedes
>>>>> > national law?
>>>
>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>
>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>
>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>
>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national
>>>> legislation.
>>>
>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>>
>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>> sovereignty.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT.
>>
>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>
>Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>
>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
>
>The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>
>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>> Authorization and authority!
>
>Wrong, as always.
>
>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal Australian
>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>
>Wrong, as always.
>
>Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.
>
Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful authority.

"I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ... It is
part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
us when we settled these colonies..."
Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)

The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice
The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.
Judges derive their authority from the Crown and are, officially,
appointed by the Crown.
--
Petzl
Our parliaments need to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law
"Dieu et mon droit" God is my legal right

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:03:48 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are
>>>>>> not)
>>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>>>> apply
>>>>>> >> for a
>>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> clan,
>>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>>> supersedes
>>>>>> > national law?
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>>
>>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>>
>>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>>
>>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>>>>> national
>>>>> legislation.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>>>
>>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>>> sovereignty.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>
>>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>>
>> Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>>
>>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
>>
>> The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>>
>>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>>> Authorization and authority!
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal Australian
>>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
>>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.

> Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful authority.

Nothing like given that that's so easy to fake.

And even someone as blind as you should be able
to work out what is a court without there needing
to be anything stuck on the wall inside.

> "I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
> Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ...

There is no English Constitution.

> It is
> part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
> us when we settled these colonies..."
> Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)

Pity about what has happened since.

We actually got real radical and had our own
constitution in which Sect 116 actually bans the
federal govt from restricting the rights of those
not stupid enough grovel to your particular sky fairy.

> The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
> The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice

BULLSHIT.

> The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.

But doesnt above magistrates.

> Judges derive their authority from the Crown

BULLSHIT.

> and are, officially,
> appointed by the Crown.

BULLSHIT.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:52:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:03:48 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but are
>>>>>>> not)
>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to veto
>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>> >> for a
>>>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has an
>>>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> clan,
>>>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>>>> supersedes
>>>>>>> > national law?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>>>
>>>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>>>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>>>> sovereignty.
>>>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>>>
>>> Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>>>
>>>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
>>>
>>> The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>>>
>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>>>> Authorization and authority!
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal Australian
>>>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
>>>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.
>
>> Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful authority.
>
>Nothing like given that that's so easy to fake.
>
>And even someone as blind as you should be able
>to work out what is a court without there needing
>to be anything stuck on the wall inside.
>
>> "I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
>> Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ...
>
>There is no English Constitution.
>
>> It is
>> part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
>> us when we settled these colonies..."
>> Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)
>
>Pity about what has happened since.
>
>We actually got real radical and had our own
>constitution in which Sect 116 actually bans the
>federal govt from restricting the rights of those
>not stupid enough grovel to your particular sky fairy.
>
>> The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
>> The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
>> The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.
>
>But doesnt above magistrates.
>
>> Judges derive their authority from the Crown
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
>> and are, officially,
>> appointed by the Crown.
>
>BULLSHIT.
>
Australia's head of state is our ruling Monarch.
--
Petzl
As Winston Churchill once said;

The Monarchy is important,
not for the power it wields,
but for the power it denies others.

"Dieu et mon droit" God is my legal right
<https://www.yourdictionary.com/droit>

On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:32:24 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:52:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:03:48 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> not)
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to
>>>>>>>> veto
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>> >> for a
>>>>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> clan,
>>>>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>>>>> supersedes
>>>>>>>> > national law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>> legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>>>>> sovereignty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>>>>
>>>>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
>>>>
>>>> The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>>>>
>>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>>>>> Authorization and authority!
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal
>>>>> Australian
>>>>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
>>>>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.
>>
>>> Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful authority.
>>
>> Nothing like given that that's so easy to fake.
>>
>> And even someone as blind as you should be able
>> to work out what is a court without there needing
>> to be anything stuck on the wall inside.
>>
>>> "I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
>>> Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ...
>>
>> There is no English Constitution.
>>
>>> It is
>>> part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
>>> us when we settled these colonies..."
>>> Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)
>>
>> Pity about what has happened since.
>>
>> We actually got real radical and had our own
>> constitution in which Sect 116 actually bans the
>> federal govt from restricting the rights of those
>> not stupid enough grovel to your particular sky fairy.
>>
>>> The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
>>> The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>>
>>> The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.
>>
>> But doesnt above magistrates.
>>
>>> Judges derive their authority from the Crown
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>>
>>> and are, officially,
>>> appointed by the Crown.
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>>
> Australia's head of state is our ruling Monarch.

Irrelevant to your mindless pig ignorant
shit about what is on the wall of a court
and what some stupid god botherer claimed
about some non existent english constitution.

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 8:43:35 AM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
> >> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
> >> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:

> >> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
> >> clan,
> >> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years or so
> >> >> ago!!
> >> >
> >> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
> >> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already supersedes
> >> > national law?
>
> >> There is no relevant national law.
>
> > Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
> > Australian Citizenship Act 2007
> That says nothing about who is an abo.
> > What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
> > non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that national
> > legislation.
> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
The High Court had an activist moment and decided to make a decision based on their vibe to the effect that Aboriginal shenanigans supersedes the Australian Citizenship Act - a non-citizen was allowed to stay in Australia based on his having been adopted by some clan despite the Citizenship Act clearly dictating that as a non-citizen and unauthorised person, he should be deported.

> > The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
> > sovereignty.
> BULLSHIT.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:05:02 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
<screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 8:43:35 AM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>> >> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>> >> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>
>> >> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into the
>> >> clan,
>> >> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years
>> or so
>> >> >> ago!!
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>> >> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>> supersedes
>> >> > national law?
>>
>> >> There is no relevant national law.
>>
>> > Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>> > Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>> > What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found that
>> > non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>> national
>> > legislation.

>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.

> The High Court had an activist moment and decided to make a decision
> based on their vibe to the effect that Aboriginal shenanigans supersedes
> the Australian Citizenship Act

It did nothing even remotely like that.

> - a non-citizen was allowed to stay in Australia based on his having
> been adopted by some clan despite the Citizenship Act clearly dictating
> that as a non-citizen and unauthorised person, he should be deported.

Utterly mangled all over again, wogchild.

>> > The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>> > sovereignty.
>> BULLSHIT.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:48:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:32:24 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:52:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:03:48 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not)
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to
>>>>>>>>> veto
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right for a
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled to
>>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>>> >> for a
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you into
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> clan,
>>>>>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty years
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>>>>>> supersedes
>>>>>>>>> > national law?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>>>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>>> legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>>>>>> sovereignty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must do
>>>>>
>>>>> The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>>>>>> Authorization and authority!
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal
>>>>>> Australian
>>>>>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our Monarch,
>>>>>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.
>>>
>>>> Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful authority.
>>>
>>> Nothing like given that that's so easy to fake.
>>>
>>> And even someone as blind as you should be able
>>> to work out what is a court without there needing
>>> to be anything stuck on the wall inside.
>>>
>>>> "I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
>>>> Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ...
>>>
>>> There is no English Constitution.
>>>
>>>> It is
>>>> part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
>>>> us when we settled these colonies..."
>>>> Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)
>>>
>>> Pity about what has happened since.
>>>
>>> We actually got real radical and had our own
>>> constitution in which Sect 116 actually bans the
>>> federal govt from restricting the rights of those
>>> not stupid enough grovel to your particular sky fairy.
>>>
>>>> The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
>>>> The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>
>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.
>>>
>>> But doesnt above magistrates.
>>>
>>>> Judges derive their authority from the Crown
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>
>>>> and are, officially,
>>>> appointed by the Crown.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>
>> Australia's head of state is our ruling Monarch.
>
>Irrelevant to your mindless pig ignorant
>shit about what is on the wall of a court
>and what some stupid god botherer claimed
>about some non existent english constitution.
>
>And Big Ears rules nothing. The most that ever
>happens anymore is the pom PM shows up at
>his place most weeks and the talk to each other
>for a bit.
>
Give him a chance.
He had through his mother Gough Whitlam parliment sacked for treason
--
Petzl
<https://consortiumnews.com/2022/11/14/the-queens-coup/>

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 12:05:02 -0800 (PST), Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
<screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>
>The High Court had an activist moment and decided to make a decision based on their vibe to the effect that Aboriginal shenanigans supersedes the Australian Citizenship Act - a non-citizen was allowed to stay in Australia based on his having been adopted by some clan despite the Citizenship Act clearly dictating that as a non-citizen and unauthorised person, he should be deported.
>
>> > The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>> > sovereignty.
>
Completly agree
--
Petzl
<https://consortiumnews.com/2022/11/14/the-queens-coup/>

The entire Parliament was sacked,for treason under Whitlam
Constitutionally Parties are not recognised. So when a Government was
found to be removing ties to USA and Britain's orbit moving towards
that of the Communist and Third World powers, with strong support for
the "Arab lobby", Britain and USA would of found that treachery.

Arab financiers offered lower interest rates on governmental loans
than US banks/financiers. The Middle East at the time was awash with
"petro-dollars", as the price of oil quadrupled between 1973 and 1974.
Whitlam allowed Saudi Arabs to build a Mosque in Sydney/Lakemba.
Whitlam was a immoral communist working to remove ties to USA and
Britain's orbit moving towards that of the Communist and Third World
powers, with strong support for the "Arab lobby".
https://is.gd/IzhkxL

Whitlam did not want anti-communists to settle in Australia,
irrespective of whether they were genuine asylum seekers. Here his
stance differed from the position he took following the overthrow of
Salvador Allende's left-wing government in Chile in 1973.

Whitlam said on the ABC that Australia did not want “another
­reactionary right-wing minority”. Foreign minister Don Willesee
pleaded with him to take more. Whitlam replied: “I’m not having those
f..king Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious
and political prejudices against us.”

Whitlam opposed the entry of Vietnamese refugees, saying they stirred
no sympathy in him. He added: “There will be some resentment about the
people coming to Australia at a time of unemployment, and also people
from a very different way of life.”

In other words, Whitlam consciously stirred up ethnic and racial
prejudice against Vietnamese ­because he thought they might be
politically hostile to Labor.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:39:47 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 12:05:02 -0800 (PST), Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
><screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national law.
>>
>>The High Court had an activist moment and decided to make a decision based on their vibe to the effect that Aboriginal shenanigans supersedes the Australian Citizenship Act - a non-citizen was allowed to stay in Australia based on his having been adopted by some clan despite the Citizenship Act clearly dictating that as a non-citizen and unauthorised person, he should be deported.
>>
>>> > The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>> > sovereignty.
>>
>Completly agree

And the "Native Title" disaster proves it!

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:38:22 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:48:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:32:24 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:52:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 19:03:48 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:09:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 10:11:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:43:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 07:01:51 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>>> <screaming.nutbag@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 1:44:58 PM UTC+11, Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:21:29 +1100, Lions Growl of Butchers Foul
>>>>>>>>>> <screamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:26:28 AM UTC+11, Fran
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> On 7/02/2023 9:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Fran wrote on 7/2/23 10:22 am:
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> On 6/02/2023 8:59 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Petzl wrote on 5/2/23 11:51 pm:
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 14:05:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> Albo is going to give those that claim to be ABO (but
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> not)
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> the "Voice" which will be the constitutional right to
>>>>>>>>>> veto
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> government decisions!
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> There is no veto involved.
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Correct.
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> The "Voice" is about giving the Aboriginal's a right
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> indigenous veto on any Government law!
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> That, to a degree, is what the
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>> "Treaty of Waitangi" does, to a resisted degree in New
>>>>>>>>>> Zealand!
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far can you go??
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> I am mainly English & Irish and am one eighth Croatian.
>>>>>>>>>> Recently, my
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> nephew (my sister's son) found out he is still entitled
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>>>> >> for a
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Croatian Passport.
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> So I'm one eight Croatian, my Nephew is one sixteenth
>>>>>>>>>> Croatian!!
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> How far do you go??
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> That is one issue with the Voice. Just because someone has
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Aboriginal ancestor should they now be considered to be
>>>>>>>>>> 'indigneous'?
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> IMO, no but currently, saying so is not acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> > Worse than that .... if an Aboriginal family accept you
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> clan,
>>>>>>>>>> >> > you ARE an Aborigine ..... or, at least you were twenty
>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> >> ago!!
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> Yep. I'm sure that still applies.
>>>>>>>>>> > So you admit that non-legal aboriginal shenanigans already
>>>>>>>>>> supersedes
>>>>>>>>>> > national law?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no relevant national law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not even https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00309 ?
>>>>>>>>> Australian Citizenship Act 2007
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That says nothing about who is an abo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What Fran might be thinking of is that the High Court has found
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> non-citizens can using aboriginal shenanigans to override that
>>>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>>>> legislation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit the High Court has and that doesnt supersede national
>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The High Court is a dangerous body keen to white-ant Australia's
>>>>>>>>> sovereignty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "Lions Growl of Butchers Foul" is correct
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that decision didn't override any national law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The High Court no longer operate under our Monarchy which it must
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The constitution says nothing of the sort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms must be displayed in ALL court rooms to show
>>>>>>> Authorization and authority!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been replaced by the non-constitutional, non-legal
>>>>>>> Australian
>>>>>>> Coat of Arms which does not give the court authority of our
>>>>>>> Monarch,
>>>>>>> His Majesty the King Charles III.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter a damn what is stuck on the wall.
>>>>
>>>>> Like a Policeman's badge, shows them as a recognized lawful
>>>>> authority.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing like given that that's so easy to fake.
>>>>
>>>> And even someone as blind as you should be able
>>>> to work out what is a court without there needing
>>>> to be anything stuck on the wall inside.
>>>>
>>>>> "I don't know whether it has occurred to Honorable Members that the
>>>>> Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution ...
>>>>
>>>> There is no English Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>> It is
>>>>> part of the Law of England which I think we undoubtedly brought with
>>>>> us when we settled these colonies..."
>>>>> Sir John Downer, Kings Concil (KC)
>>>>
>>>> Pity about what has happened since.
>>>>
>>>> We actually got real radical and had our own
>>>> constitution in which Sect 116 actually bans the
>>>> federal govt from restricting the rights of those
>>>> not stupid enough grovel to your particular sky fairy.
>>>>
>>>>> The link between the Crown and the law is not incidental.
>>>>> The Crown is considered to be the source of all justice
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>>> The Royal Coat of Arms that hangs above the judge.
>>>>
>>>> But doesnt above magistrates.
>>>>
>>>>> Judges derive their authority from the Crown
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>>> and are, officially,
>>>>> appointed by the Crown.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>> Australia's head of state is our ruling Monarch.
>>
>> Irrelevant to your mindless pig ignorant
>> shit about what is on the wall of a court
>> and what some stupid god botherer claimed
>> about some non existent english constitution.
>>
>> And Big Ears rules nothing. The most that ever
>> happens anymore is the pom PM shows up at
>> his place most weeks and the talk to each other
>> for a bit.