My response to MR KIRBY that is he that wants we Australians to be flooded out with more non whites in our school/educate dept to counter racism and that we are racist towards boat ppl. Firstly kirby we are already flooded out so you really are saying I HATE WHITES and I want them gone. YOUR ANTI WHITE LOGIC IS DISGUSTING YOU ARE THE REAL HATER FOR THAT I ve been drawn to proudly support
Human Rights are bestowed onto us by the Laws of Nature at conception. Universal Declaration is manmade edicts labeled as rights implemented, at will, by an oligarchy.
@ParmenionMakedon Is anyone concerned about Australia unwillingness to legislate a Human Rights Charter. Australian Attorney General Bob Mclellan said last month that the Australian government will not legislate a HRC untill they run an educational campaign because they did not want seperation/devision within the community.I wondered who would disagree with protection of human rights.Then I realised that those who have benefited from breaching HR's have the problem. Eg mining industry,govt etc
@thegamblergambler The High Court in the last two decades has found implied rights in the Constitution. We do not have an official Bill of Rights like in the US, but that country doesn't exactly have a good record for human rights despite that. Australia takes after England whereby Parliament has sovereignty of law, though within the limits of the Constitution. There are other mechanisms in our political system that help us protect our rights, so we arguably don't need a federal bill of rights.
@andymusmaximus Hmmm, what are these "other mechanisms". Is that the same "mechanism" that intervened after the "Mabo" case (10 points of how to Adhere to self-serving means) ??? The aboriginals would argue your point andy. But then again, the aboriginals continue their legitimate claim to be the sovereign legal "jurisdiction" of that land. I'm not arguing here, I respect your view. Can you answer me something???...What is Australia's claim to "sovereignty", over the top of the aboriginals????
@thegamblergambler The High Court in the Mabo case you referred to has found that Native Title rights exist in relation to property rights of the 'Aborigines' in a common law sense (Aboriginal is actually an adjective. Aborigine is the noun... and to be politically correct it is Indigenous Australian). The sovereignty of anglo-saxon settlers in this country was upheld due to the dubious interpretation of terra nullius - as well as the interests of legal framework stability.
@andymusmaximus It is a legal paradox, if the High Court, as an entity capable of recognising which laws are invalid, were to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty over British, it would invalidate its own existence, thereby undermining the very decision it recognised in the first place (if it recognised Aboriginal sovereignty). The Mabo case even before Parliament sought to limit the applicability of Native Title, only recognised common law rights of Indigenous Australians with respect to property.
@andymusmaximus - And in Australia, statute legislation overrides common law, where Parliament has the power to create laws to that effect, and therefore, from a legal perspective, Mabo did not recognise Aboriginal sovereignty in that sense - whether that can be considered justice is a different story. But that is the reason for lack of Aboriginal sovereignty. Furthermore, any recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty would be problematic because each group recognises its own laws and traditions.
@andymusmaximus How was the sovereignty of anglo saxon "settlers" ("settlers" debatable but moving on) upheld if terra nullius was found to be a LEGAL FICTION.Nothing was upheld for anglo-saxons within the High Court.You are correct that the HIgh Court found that the aboriginal/indigenous people's land rights are protected under British/English common law. It was the parliament that made discriminatory laws to water down the indigenous rights (a 1st in the western world).Know history correctly!
Your arguments are deeply flawed. You're clearly one of those Aussies who can point to US rights abuses -- which occur mostly because our take on free speech and defamation, as well as our competitive and vigilant news media -- make such occurrences widely known -- but deny your own problems.
Rights abuses in Australia seldom happen in rosy eastern suburbs to good Anglo-ockers -- and they're almost never covered in the papers. Kable. Fardon. Kruger... etc.
@Bobby3OOO Apologies for the miscommunication. I was using the US as an example that having a Bill of Rights will not necessarily improve the protection of human rights in Australia. And yet despite not having a codified bill of rights, we have still managed to protect them in some capacity. My argument never said Australia lacked examples of human rights contravention. Al'Kateeb is another prominent case. My arguments aren't flawed just because you disagree with them though. That's just glib
HUH So much we white human rights.
My response to MR KIRBY that is he that wants we Australians to be flooded out with more non whites in our school/educate dept to counter racism and that we are racist towards boat ppl. Firstly kirby we are already flooded out so you really are saying I HATE WHITES and I want them gone. YOUR ANTI WHITE LOGIC IS DISGUSTING YOU ARE THE REAL HATER FOR THAT I ve been drawn to proudly support
DR DAVID DUKE
STORMFRONT for information!
Imonepercent 3 months ago
SICKEST CUNT!
kickmeout1 5 months ago
What a role model! I have the utmost respectfor you, Kirby.
anna4tory 8 months ago
youtubers, just for fun, where are u studying law? melbourne uni
missineichen 11 months ago
The greatest dissenter of all time :) I love you, Kirby.
katiegracemiloo 1 year ago 11
@katiegracemiloo He disagree with many of his brother judges???
sparkaleshish 5 months ago
Human Rights are bestowed onto us by the Laws of Nature at conception. Universal Declaration is manmade edicts labeled as rights implemented, at will, by an oligarchy.
Mike10four 1 year ago
Inspirational
brismike65 1 year ago
I was in the court room taking notes for my research when his retirement was announced in Sydney.
Good judge.
A note on Human Rights: it’s for the more equal peoples.
ParmenionMakedon 1 year ago
@ParmenionMakedon Is anyone concerned about Australia unwillingness to legislate a Human Rights Charter. Australian Attorney General Bob Mclellan said last month that the Australian government will not legislate a HRC untill they run an educational campaign because they did not want seperation/devision within the community.I wondered who would disagree with protection of human rights.Then I realised that those who have benefited from breaching HR's have the problem. Eg mining industry,govt etc
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler The High Court in the last two decades has found implied rights in the Constitution. We do not have an official Bill of Rights like in the US, but that country doesn't exactly have a good record for human rights despite that. Australia takes after England whereby Parliament has sovereignty of law, though within the limits of the Constitution. There are other mechanisms in our political system that help us protect our rights, so we arguably don't need a federal bill of rights.
andymusmaximus 9 months ago
@andymusmaximus Hmmm, what are these "other mechanisms". Is that the same "mechanism" that intervened after the "Mabo" case (10 points of how to Adhere to self-serving means) ??? The aboriginals would argue your point andy. But then again, the aboriginals continue their legitimate claim to be the sovereign legal "jurisdiction" of that land. I'm not arguing here, I respect your view. Can you answer me something???...What is Australia's claim to "sovereignty", over the top of the aboriginals????
thegamblergambler 9 months ago
@thegamblergambler The High Court in the Mabo case you referred to has found that Native Title rights exist in relation to property rights of the 'Aborigines' in a common law sense (Aboriginal is actually an adjective. Aborigine is the noun... and to be politically correct it is Indigenous Australian). The sovereignty of anglo-saxon settlers in this country was upheld due to the dubious interpretation of terra nullius - as well as the interests of legal framework stability.
andymusmaximus 8 months ago
@andymusmaximus It is a legal paradox, if the High Court, as an entity capable of recognising which laws are invalid, were to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty over British, it would invalidate its own existence, thereby undermining the very decision it recognised in the first place (if it recognised Aboriginal sovereignty). The Mabo case even before Parliament sought to limit the applicability of Native Title, only recognised common law rights of Indigenous Australians with respect to property.
andymusmaximus 8 months ago
@andymusmaximus - And in Australia, statute legislation overrides common law, where Parliament has the power to create laws to that effect, and therefore, from a legal perspective, Mabo did not recognise Aboriginal sovereignty in that sense - whether that can be considered justice is a different story. But that is the reason for lack of Aboriginal sovereignty. Furthermore, any recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty would be problematic because each group recognises its own laws and traditions.
andymusmaximus 8 months ago
@andymusmaximus How was the sovereignty of anglo saxon "settlers" ("settlers" debatable but moving on) upheld if terra nullius was found to be a LEGAL FICTION.Nothing was upheld for anglo-saxons within the High Court.You are correct that the HIgh Court found that the aboriginal/indigenous people's land rights are protected under British/English common law. It was the parliament that made discriminatory laws to water down the indigenous rights (a 1st in the western world).Know history correctly!
thegamblergambler 8 months ago
@andymusmaximus
Your arguments are deeply flawed. You're clearly one of those Aussies who can point to US rights abuses -- which occur mostly because our take on free speech and defamation, as well as our competitive and vigilant news media -- make such occurrences widely known -- but deny your own problems.
Rights abuses in Australia seldom happen in rosy eastern suburbs to good Anglo-ockers -- and they're almost never covered in the papers. Kable. Fardon. Kruger... etc.
Bobby3OOO 3 months ago
@Bobby3OOO Apologies for the miscommunication. I was using the US as an example that having a Bill of Rights will not necessarily improve the protection of human rights in Australia. And yet despite not having a codified bill of rights, we have still managed to protect them in some capacity. My argument never said Australia lacked examples of human rights contravention. Al'Kateeb is another prominent case. My arguments aren't flawed just because you disagree with them though. That's just glib
andymusmaximus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Poofter
wallya1 2 years ago
Yes he is. So?
GrimaceGrunson 2 years ago
@wallya1 How is that relevant?
KateFenwick12 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@KateFenwick12 He is a sodomite. And they do not deserve to be in any sort of position of power.
wallya1 1 year ago
@wallya1 Unfortunately, that is your opinion. Place your dirty comments elsewhere.
KateFenwick12 1 year ago
Good luck for your retirement Justice Kirby. You will be missed.
widgit007 3 years ago 26