Outsiders, Sky News, 16 February 2020
High Court Ruling is a Low Blow to Equality and Democracy
Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 17 February 2020
The High Court decision to introduce a race-based test for the differential treatment of criminals under Australian law is undemocratic. It transfers the authority to determine who enters Australia from millions of citizens and our elected parliament to unelected lawyers. It establishes race privilege — racism — as a right. It poses a threat to social cohesion by dividing Australians into racial categories and offering special protections to a minority. And it threatens the safety of law-abiding citizens by providing for a criminal class that cannot be deported.
The perverse incentive created by the High Court is that if a foreign national with indigenous status commits a violent crime in Australia, they won’t have to leave.
The two men granted special recognition by the High Court were facing deportation on character grounds because they committed violent crimes against people in Australia. New Zealander Brendan Thoms was convicted of a domestic violence offence. Daniel Love, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm. Neither of them has Australian citizenship.
Radical High Court Divides Australia by Race, IPA – The Institute of Public Affairs
“The decision of the High Court today to exclude a specific group from the scope of the constitutional aliens power is the most radical instance of judicial activism in Australian history,” said Morgan Begg, research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Today the High Court handed down its decision in Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thomas v Commonwealth of Australia  HCA 3. A majority of the justices decided that non-citizens who were descended from Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders did not fall within the scope of the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with regards to “aliens”.
“The High Court has created a new class of citizenship based according to identity which offends the basic moral principle of racial equality,” said Mr Begg.
“This decision has led to the absurd position that a person can be a non-citizen but not subject to Australia’s migration laws.” Read on…
By J.D. Morecambe
This article appeared in a September issue of Spectator Australia. The author has kindly allowed me to post it here.
On Monday morning (16 September), voting began to elect the new ‘First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria‘. This ‘voice for Aboriginal communities’ seeks to represent all ‘self-identifying’ Victorian aboriginals in a process which will establish a ‘treaty or treaties’ with the Victorian State Government.
The election will decide 21 of 32 ‘gender-balanced’ seats on the new Assembly, with the remaining 11 set aside for a kind of aboriginal House of Lords, appointed (or ‘self-determined’) by a network of ‘Traditional Owner Groups’ or ‘Aboriginal Corporations‘.Continue reading A corroboree of jobbery: Daniel Andrews’ First People’s Assembly
The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) has produced a video about a First Persons Assembly (as in Victoria) and a separate representative body for Australians of Aboriginal Ancestry written into the constitution. The IPA must be commended for injecting some sanity into the political discourse about people of Aboriginal Ancestry and their needs.
From time out of mind groups of people have been everywhere on the move. Groups settled and sometimes merged with other groups to form a new independent people or nation which endured as long as the people had the cultural confidence and strength to do so. So has been the case of with Australia. The arrival of the First Fleet heralded the origination of a new independent country into which the Aboriginals (the British name for the many sparse nomadic tribes) would naturally merged. The new incorporation of people, whatever their background, is now known as Australia – Australia as distinct from a mass of land between geographical coordinates. It exists under one form of government, law and justice that is applicable to all. The rights and duties of citizenship extend to all whatever their background. There is no other system, however one wants to conceive it. One people under one flag as a symbol.
The High Court Mabo Judgement which recognised the ownership of the Murray Islands by the Meriam people was an example of judicial activism driven by a political purpose. The dissenting High Court judge Justice Dawson explained in his judgement why the Mabo Judgement was not based on or followed the established law. The Meriam people’s ownership of the Murray Islands, for which there was a strong commonsense case, could have been established without recourse to the High Court of Australia. Even if the judgement’s reasoning established that the Meriam people owned their islands, there was no logical or analogical or substantial basis for applying the same reasoning to the continent of Australia. None, except the political motivation, and the political objective. The politics wound up to fever pitch by the interested parties rammed the Native Title Act through parliament. Another powerful front for the subversion of Australia had been opened up.
The Native Title Act is the foundation of a far advanced plan to establish a system of apartheid in Australia – an apartheid that sets up a minority superior class to whom great expanses of the continent will be given and who will be the pensioners on the soldier ants who do all the work and produce all the wealth.