Tony Abbott's cabinet revolts over plan to strip Australians of citizenship
26 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Six members of the Abbott cabinet have risen up against an extraordinary proposal to give a minister the power to strip an Australian of their sole citizenship.
"Isn't that what we have courts for?"
The idea, proposed by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton with the support of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, divided a meeting of the cabinet on Monday night.
The hour-long debate was described by participants as tense and sometimes heated.
The cabinet members who spoke against the proposal were Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, Foreign Affairs Minister and deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop, Attorney-General George Brandis, Agriculture Minister and deputy Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, Education Minister Christopher Pyne and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, according to people present in the room.
The same plan had divided the cabinet's national security committee.
The idea is that even an Australian-born citizen, without any other citizenship, could be stripped of Australian citizenship at the discretion of the immigration minister alone, without a suspect being charged or facing a court.
Under the proposal, the only protection against an Australian being rendered stateless is that they must also be eligible to apply for citizenship of another country, even if they do not actually hold that second citizenship.
Ms Bishop posed to the cabinet meeting this question: if Australia were to strip one of its people of citizenship on suspicion of terrorism, would another country be likely to approve that person's application to become a citizen?
The core objection was that an Australian effectively can be rendered stateless, losing fundamental rights and in violation of international law, without due process.
A related proposal – that dual citizens could be stripped of Australian citizenship on suspicion of terrorism – has been accepted.
According to participants, Senator Brandis, in opposing the plan, told the cabinet meeting: "I am the Attorney-General. It is my job to stand for the rule of law."
Mr Joyce put to the meeting: "Isn't that what we have courts for?", according to people present.
Mr Andrews is said to have pointed out to the meeting that, if concern about the proposal was so widespread, community concern was likely to be even greater.
Because the idea had divided cabinet's national security committee, it was not presented to Monday night's cabinet meeting as proposed law but as part of a "discussion paper".
The six-page discussion paper was distributed during the meeting, angering some that it had not been circulated in advance, as matters for cabinet are supposed to be.
Mr Turnbull asked Mr Abbott in the meeting whether The Daily Telegraph had been briefed on the idea for Tuesday morning's newspaper, according to people present.
Briefing the newspaper, a favoured channel for leaking the Prime Minister's moves in advance, would have effectively pre-empted the cabinet, which met from 7pm.
Mr Abbott replied that the newspaper had not been briefed. Page five of The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday morning carried a report that said in part: "Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce today, after cabinet last night approved the policy, that a bill will be introduced before the end of June that would strip dual national terrorist sympathisers of their Australian citizenship.
"Included in the bill will be controversial measures based on the UK model to also strip nationality from Australians who hold sole Australian citizenship but only if they have legal access to citizenship of another country – getting around international law preventing countries from making people stateless."
Ministers were angry that Mr Abbott and his office were apparently riding roughshod over the national security committee of the cabinet and the full cabinet. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cabinet-revolt-over-tony-abbott-and-peter-dutton-plan-to-strip-australians-of-citizenship-20150526-gh9q8y.html[/url]
no-confidence! no-confidence! no-confidence!
I don't have a problem with the concept of stripping citizenship, but I do have a problem with a politician or a bureaucrat having that power.
If you are fighting for ISIS then you are fighting against Australia, which is treason. If you are committing treason then you should be tried for it before a judge and jury, and then, if you're found guilty, you should be stripped of citizenship.
Yeah, its gotta go through the courts or it could simply come down to what could be considered arbitrarily removal of citizenship which then becomes a violation of human rights.
[QUOTE=download;47814841]I don't have a problem with the concept of stripping citizenship, but I do have a problem with a politician or a bureaucrat having that power.
If you are fighting for ISIS then you are fighting against Australia, which is treason. If you are committing treason then you should be tried for it before a judge and jury, and then, if you're found guilty, you should be stripped of citizenship.[/QUOTE]
Stripping of [I]sole citizenship[/I] pretty much screws someone over in a pretty immense manner.
There have been efforts for years to decrease the number of stateless persons and prevent it from increasing. This is contradictory to that.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47814906]Stripping of [I]sole citizenship[/I] pretty much screws someone over in a pretty immense manner.
There have been efforts for years to decrease the number of stateless persons and prevent it from increasing. This is contradictory to that.[/QUOTE]
If you're fighting for ISIS then I don't care, at all.
[QUOTE=download;47814914]If you're fighting for ISIS then I don't care, at all.[/QUOTE]
And what about after isis has been dealt with?
Does this government power suddenly go away? Or do they continue to reserve it for use against those who might be detrimental to the state?
This isn't just about what they are doing in other countries, but rather the new power the government will gain from it, which is contradictory to international law.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47814922]And what about after isis has been dealt with?
Does this government power suddenly go away? Or do they continue to reserve it for use against those who might be detrimental to the state?
This isn't just about what they are doing in other countries, but rather the new power the government will gain from it, which is contradictory to international law.[/QUOTE]
If you commit treason you should lose your citizenship. Treason is [I]very[/I] clearly defined in the law and not once in Australia's history has someone been tried for treason. It is a very rare event.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47814906]Stripping of [I]sole citizenship[/I] pretty much screws someone over in a pretty immense manner.
There have been efforts for years to decrease the number of stateless persons and prevent it from increasing. This is contradictory to that.[/QUOTE]
I believe in the concept of situational banishment. If you go off to fight for ISIS in Syria and Iraq, you can stay there. Rape, murder, and pillage in the name of piety and you no longer get the privilege of being in a secular society. I shed no tears if someone ends up "Stateless" as a result of those actions. To act as if you can let them back into the country is to let them loose on the civilian population.
[QUOTE=download;47814971]If you commit treason you should lose your citizenship. Treason is [I]very[/I] clearly defined in the law and not once in Australia's history has someone been tried for treason. It is a very rare event.[/QUOTE]
Generally citizenship loss is only for when the person has dual citizenship, thus they will still have somewhere to go after the conviction rather than being stuck in limbo.
Just a question, do you even recognize how severe it is to lose your only citizenship?
[QUOTE=deadoon;47815054]Generally citizinship loss is only for when the person has dual citizenship, thus they will still have somewhere to go after the conviction rather than being stuck in limbo.[/QUOTE]
Again, why do I care that a murdering, raping, treasoning piece of shit no longer has a place to call home?
[QUOTE=download;47815059]Again, why do I care that a murdering, raping, treasoning piece of shit no longer has a place to call home?[/QUOTE]
Because this would grant power that would be contradictory to the a couple of international conventions you are a signatory to.
Also, if they're stripped of their citizenship and become stateless, what's preventing another country from legally granting them citizenship?
[QUOTE=download;47814914]If you're fighting for ISIS then I don't care, at all.[/QUOTE]
If the evidence is wrong, and it turns out they were in fact, fighting IS (because under the current law, it's ambiguously worded, and technically those people can be punished even for fighting IS) then it's good to have a trial.
If it can be reasonably done, there should always be a trial, and it should always be innocent until proven guilty.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47815090]Also, if they're stripped of their citizenship and become stateless, what's preventing another country from legally granting them citizenship?[/QUOTE]
You aren't supposed to strip someone of their citizenship by treaty unless they already have a secondary citizenship, as there is no guarantee that another country would grant it, nor is there any reason for them to do so.
[QUOTE=IForgotPassword;47815102]If the evidence is wrong, and it turns out they were in fact, fighting IS (because under the current law, it's ambiguously worded, and technically those people can be punished even for fighting IS) then it's good to have a trial.
If it can be reasonably done, there should always be a trial, and it should always be innocent until proven guilty.[/QUOTE]
I already made it clear a trial needed to be involved in this process.
[editline]27th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47815090]Also, if they're stripped of their citizenship and become stateless, what's preventing another country from legally granting them citizenship?[/QUOTE]
What's preventing another country legally granting them citizenship now? It's really no different.
[QUOTE=download;47815114]I already made it clear a trial needed to be involved in this process.[/QUOTE]
The way this is suggested to be implemented is that none would be needed. If you are supporting this law, you are supporting the use of executive power to effectively leave someone to rot with the only support being that of international entities which cannot manage the number of people in similar situations.
Oh, and since these guys would technically be war criminals, they are not eligible for any assistance, thus rather than simply jailing them and hoping they repent, you are basically saying:you fucked up and will never be allowed to ever become civilized ever again.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47815138]The way this is suggested to be implemented is that none would be needed. If you are supporting this law, you are supporting the use of executive power to effectively leave someone to rot with the only support being that of international entities which cannot manage the number of people in similar situations.[/quote]
Did I? I could've I swore I posted this:
[quote]I don't have a problem with the concept of stripping citizenship, but I do have a problem with a politician or a bureaucrat having that power.
If you are fighting for ISIS then you are fighting against Australia, which is treason. If you are committing treason then you should be tried for it before a judge and jury, and then, if you're found guilty, you should be stripped of citizenship.[/quote]
[quote][QUOTE=deadoon;47814922]And what about after isis has been dealt with?
Does this government power suddenly go away? Or do they continue to reserve it for use against those who might be detrimental to the state?
This isn't just about what they are doing in other countries, but rather the new power the government will gain from it, which is contradictory to international law.[/QUOTE]
If you commit treason you should lose your citizenship. Treason is [I]very[/I] clearly defined in the law and not once in Australia's history has someone been tried for treason. It is a very rare event.[/quote]
Oh wait, I did.
[quote]
Oh, and since these guys would technically be war criminals, they are not eligible for any assistance, thus rather than simply jailing them and hoping they repent, you are basically saying:you fucked up and will never be allowed to ever become civilized ever again.[/QUOTE]
These are some of the single most despicable human beings on the face of the planet. They walk among people like Hitler, Himmler, Mengele, Stalin and other war criminals. They are done for and will never be allowed back into civilized society. This will make sure of it.
[QUOTE=download;47815177]Did I? I could've I swore I posted this:
Oh wait, I did.
These are some of the single most despicable human beings on the face of the planet. They walk among people like Hitler, Himmler, Mengele, Stalin and other war criminals. They are done for and will never be allowed back into civilized society. This will make sure of it.[/QUOTE]
Not you, the proposal this thread is literally about. If you read what I specifically stated by "this law", you would know that, but apparently you are so evidently determined that I can do no right by defending the security of ones ability to return to a place that they could call home.
Why not actually do what your law states and simply throw them in jail for life? They might actually appeal and get out in those circumstances rather than being left with nothing and no hope.
If anything, you may as well just kill them yourselves, that is what you are effectively consigning them to after all.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47815368]Not you, the proposal this thread is literally about. If you read what I specifically stated by "this law", you would know that, but apparently you are so evidently determined that I can do no right by defending the security of ones ability to return to a place that they could call home.
Why not actually do what your law states and simply throw them in jail for life? They might actually appeal and get out in those circumstances rather than being left with nothing and no hope.
If anything, you may as well just kill them yourselves, that is what you are effectively consigning them to after all.[/QUOTE]
I made it quite clear a trial was needed and if you want to argue about something because you can't read I'm not arguing with you.
[QUOTE=download;47815464]I made it quite clear a trial was needed and if you want to argue about something because you can't read I'm not arguing with you.[/QUOTE]
Here is a very simple question for you then:
Do you or do you not support the proposal that this thread is about?
[QUOTE=deadoon;47815515]Here is a very simple question for you then:
Do you or do you not support the proposal that this thread is about?[/QUOTE]
I think I answered that quite clearly in the second post of this thread.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;47815551]Lmao dude that post said you supported the notion but you wouldn't support a minister having the right to do it, which is the entire notion.
People who join Isis already lose their citizenship because they are fighting in a foreign army that is an enemy of Australia, its one of the only current ways to lose citizenship right off the bat.
You have it in your head that this is only targeting people in war, and while I'm not going to entirely blame you for thinking that you fail to grasp just how fucking retarded the whole idea of granting this power to people is.
We already deal with people joining foreign armies, we don't need this in any form right now.[/QUOTE]
I'm paraphrasing
[quote]Giving a politician the power to revoke citizenship[/quote]
and, again paraphrasing
[quote]A person [I]convicted[/I] of treason having their citizenship revoked[/quote]
They are in no way the same thing.
I said I agree with the notion of there being a legal pathway to revoke citizenship and that a politician or a bureaucrat [I]should not[/I] hav that power which is the complete opposite to what is being suggested in the article.
[QUOTE=download;47814971]If you commit treason you should lose your citizenship. Treason is [I]very[/I] clearly defined in the law and not once in Australia's history has someone been tried for treason. It is a very rare event.[/QUOTE]
The US has had to deal with tons more people fighting as terrorists and we don't even arbitrarily strip citizenship, the courts don't prosecute it as such, they can be tried and locked away without resorting to measures that make the rest of the world scratch their heads and the UN human Rights council draft sanctions.
[quote] at the discretion of the immigration minister alone, without a suspect being charged or facing a court.[/quote]
how the actual shit did they think that would be in any way a good idea?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.