web analytics
≡ Menu

 Racism as applied by the High Court

12.02.20. This contentious issue can do nothing more than foster derision in the community between black and white, all at a time when the government via Morrison and Wyatt are preparing to shove constitutional change for Aborigines down our throats. If the majority lay down for this they deserve all they get—and it will be expensive. That won’t be a problem for the present politicians and law makers who will be long gone, living on clover for life when the social unrest of their making turns nasty!
The lunacy at the heart of the latest­ decision by the High Court comes down to this: this is pure racism­ built upon an illegitimate exercise of judicial power. By the narrowest of margins, the nation’s highest court has elevat­ed a racial distinction to a position of constitutional privil­ege that would never be accepted if such a question were put to the people at a referendum. 

Source: Chris Merritt, Legal Affairs Editor, News Corp

‘Lunacy protects foreigners over us’

Four of the court’s seven judges have pre-empted the people of this nation by injecting a new ­racist concept in the Constitution that can only be overturned by referendum or a future High Court.
This shameful ruling has punched a hole in the principle that everyone is equal before Australian law and has eroded the federal government’s ability to protect the community from foreign­ criminals who have never tried to become citizens.
Even when born overseas and holding the citizenship of another country, foreign criminals with Aboriginal ancestry can no longer be treated as aliens for the purposes of migration law.
There will be those who will say the impact can be confined to the specific facts of the case. But a dreadful precedent has been set.
Click here to see how the judges ruled
In this case, the High Court majority has effectively created a new right for foreigners that comes at the expense of Australians who expect their governments to protect them from criminals, regardless of their race.
The majority has decided that foreign citizens with Aboriginal ancestry have such a special connection with Australia that it would be inconsistent with that special connection to treat them as aliens for the purposes of mig­ration law. This principle was applied even though the men who brought this challenge never tried to become Australian citizens.
Common sense has gone out the window. The majority has in­vent­ed a new, illogical category in migration law that applies only to Aborigines who hold foreign citizenship: they can simultan­eous­ly be non-citizens and non-aliens.
The implications of this mess are endless. In times of inter­national trouble, will the federal government be expected to scour the planet in order to come to ­the rescue of non-citizens who claim Aboriginal ancestry?
Because a crucial part of the test for Aboriginality depends on the views of communities or their leaders, this means Aboriginal communities — and not parliament — will have the power to determine when the normal­ migra­tion law will apply.
This was too much for Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, who differed strongly with the majority and pointed out that such a mechanism “would be to attribute to the group the kind of sovereignty which was implicitly rejected by (the Mabo decision)”.
Kiefel’s dissent goes a long way to limiting the damage to the court’s reputation. Four judges went off on a frolic: Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon, James Edel­man and Virginia Bell. Kiefel was steadfast, backed by Stephen Gageler and Patrick Keane.
The Chief Justice points out in her dissent that it is settled law that it is up to parliament, relying on the Constitution, to create and define the concept of citizenship and determine who is an alien.
She also argues that “questions of constitutional interpretation cannot depend on what the court perceives to be a desirable policy regarding the subject of who should be aliens and the desirabi­lity of Aboriginal non-citizen­s continuing to reside in Australia”.
“In the absence of a relevant constitutional prohibition or exception, express or implied, it is not a proper function of a court to limit the method of exercise of legislative power,” Kiefel wrote.
The great tragedy of this decis­ion is that it will inevitably be used to attack the arguments of those, like this writer, who have argued for a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal voice to federal parliament.
The judges in the majority are massively out of step with community values and the core principle of equality before the law. They have done a disservice to the legitimate aspir­ations of indigenous Australians.

{ 20 comments… add one }
  • DT 12/02/2020, 6:51 am

    It’s a kind of madness and it’s spreading far and wide, poor fella our nation.

  • Cliff 12/02/2020, 7:06 am

    Not for the first time, I remind myself that since the times of the Ancient Greeks (and I suspect, far earlier than that), every older generation has felt that the new generation is buggering things up – and badly.

    The big difference for us Baby Boomers, now fast approaching our ‘use by date’, is that we KNOW this next mob are!

    I can’t believe how our government and courts get damn near everything so utterly wrong with damn near every decision they make regarding aborigines. Equality my arse. We are plunging head first, seemingly eagerly, into quite the opposite of ‘equality’.

    • Eliza 12/02/2020, 10:01 am

      Spot on Cliff. Apartheid in reverse and just how “woke” are those 3 judges. Sick is all I can say. Divide and conquer.

  • Big Al 12/02/2020, 7:22 am

    The “questions of constitutional interpretation [now] depend on what the court perceives to be a desirable policy regarding [any] subject” under the Constitution, which then renders it meaningless, imho.

    This is ready made for the heirs of Aye Dolf and company to do whatever they wish; heaven will not help us.

    • Red 12/02/2020, 9:28 am

      Regarding judges. Do they really represent the best and come to the table with clean hands?
      Read: Love Letters from the Bar Table by Shane Dowling.
      How much don’t we know?

  • PeterW 12/02/2020, 7:23 am

    I’ll be peeved off if Scotland rejects me after 170 years of absence.

  • Albert 12/02/2020, 8:03 am

    I was left speechless yesterday after listening to a lawyer explain that there are two legal tests to determine Aboriginality. The first is to simply identify as an Aborigine and the second is to be accepted by a body Aborigines. That’s it?
    Such nonsense is doing nothing to create a position of harmonious equality and in fact is breeding blatant racism and growing division.

  • Honeybadger 12/02/2020, 8:09 am

    Bypassing parliament, referendums, democracy and the people with this constitutional interpretation is entrenching apartheid. Should not be able to happen. It’s social engineering by leftie judges devoid of common sense, but with born to rule arrogance. The precedent and ramifications of this, if not reversed are alarming.
    Put it to the people along with Kanga Kens nonsense referendum next year, Scott Morrison and we’ll tell those 4 moronic ‘legal minds’ what we think of their ‘brilliant’ brains.

  • Botswana O'Hooligan 12/02/2020, 8:27 am

    Every cloud has a silver lining and this affair will probably ensure that any referendum fails. You have to feel sorry for the majority of people who are aboriginal and are just ordinary folk plodding along like the rest of us.

    • Lorraine 12/02/2020, 8:51 am

      they are not plodding along like the rest of us, they get $30 billions dollars spent on them and extra help in all fields . As I see it many Australians may line up to the local Aunty and get the blessings an then identify as Aborigine , take a long walk about with the dreaming and the welcome to my Country when all have learnt the art of the wipe out paint. You are right Bots the vote will go nowhere and Morrison and Wyatt had better watch out

      • Honeybadger 12/02/2020, 10:21 am

        Good point about the huge financial largesse to aborigines Lorraine. a. As regards the Aunties. I’m sure there could be a ‘little reward’ to them for welcoming a blow-in into the ‘tribe’.

    • Aktosplatz 12/02/2020, 8:54 am

      That’s the way I see it too, Bots. This will be counter productive

  • DT 12/02/2020, 8:41 am

    Just because a few people support a claim should not be the accepted basis for access to privileges not available to all Australians.

    The requirements must include DNA testing, it’s very easy to do just remove some blood.

    And there must also be a benchmark, I understand that for cattle 90 per cent of one breed is required?

  • Eliza 12/02/2020, 10:09 am

    Question 1 How many generations back can these or any claimant go?
    Question 2 Why is DNA testing not compulsory before you can claim any so called aboriginalty.

    • C. Paul Barreira 12/02/2020, 11:59 am

      The questions are probably reasonable. Q.2 assumes that Aboriginality is evident in DNA. I’ve no idea. In a way, I hope not.

      Q.1 could use the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 as a guide but these were, when compared with practices here of recent years, really quite tight.

      What a ridiculous High Court to provoke such questions. It bodes ill for Cardinal Pell’s appeal.

  • Biking Voter 12/02/2020, 10:26 am

    We are being inclusive by being divisive (in the extreme)

  • Pensioner Pete 12/02/2020, 11:33 am

    We elect a government to make laws for the betterment of all Australians, and should a situation arise such as this one, then the government have a responsibility to create legislation to prevent a repeat.

    ScoMo does not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with this, however, I believe Peter Dutton possesses more than enough mongrel to get this sorted quicktime should he become Prime Minister.

    Time for a PM change methinks.

  • Penguinite 12/02/2020, 11:59 am

    NO!SCOMO!NO!

  • Finn 12/02/2020, 2:23 pm

    For about 6 years I was the Grand Pooh Bah of the Celtic Council of Australia. We had a running joke that a Celt is defined as anyone who thinks him or herself a Celt.

    Plainly, we were ahead of our times and deserve a spot on the High Court Bench.

    • Pensioner Pete 12/02/2020, 2:40 pm

      You do indeed. Pity you didn’t as we could do with some sound logical thinking unbiased judges at the bench.

Leave a Comment