The secret kiwis among us
Chilling:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...14-gxvvmn.html
http://time.com/4898990/australia-du...ticians-joyce/
Will the law be changed? Will they make an exception in his case? Will Australia retaliate against NZ for their unbelievably cunning infiltration of the Australian govt?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Seems silly to have a person who didn't know they were a citizen be counted as one then excluded due to this. I don't think it is what the founders intended.
If he held a Kiwi passport but didn't declare it then that would be a different matter ...
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I see, the law isn't the law if you're white and didn't bother to check.
Congratulations America
I fail to see how race plays into this. If anything placing extra burdens upon the children of migrants isn't going to make life easier for non-whites.
Mens rea should be an important concept in an issue like this.
Hazir is presumably referring to anti immigrant parties who want similar laws to prevent people with roots in countries like Iran, Morocco and Turkey to be in office. Even though those countries don't allow giving up citizenship and give it to all emigrant's children (and theirs) as well.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Ignorance of the law doesn't absolve you.
Congratulations America
It isn't ignorance of the law that is an issue in mens rea, except in cases where wilful intent was required. The politician knew the law but did not know that he was a Kiwi who doesn't have a Kiwi passport by descent.
There is no reason to believe that absolves him either, until the courts rule to that effect.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
To be fair mens rea (or as the Australians now call it 'fault elements' or 'mental elements') is a requirement in most offences. However I didn't say it does absolve him, I said it "should". Big difference.
You can view it as an offense but this can also be viewed as being equivalent to denying or challenging an insurance claim based on failure to disclose relevant information, or having a patent tossed out, or being disqualified from a prize or honor after the fact due to not being eligible. Absolution or no absolution, he is still disqualified. It would be better to just change the requirement altogether, but it would be questionable to do so retroactively.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think this kind of rule is not about being 'guilty' so knowledge of the law and his double nationality isn't a factor - but now he knows he is no longer allowed to serve and should resign (or the law changed). I figure this entire discussion is only relevant if he did it on purpose and would be charged with that (some sort of fraud I assume) - but that's not the case here.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I would stand by the same principle that failing to declare something on an insurance claim should only apply if the insurance company can demonstrate that the information was known at the time the claim was submitted. IE fraud.
People are not supposed to be omniscient.
He should have the choice to either resign as an MP or to renounce his unclaimed Kiwi citizenship.
It is well established that an innocent failure to disclose relevant information can be grounds for rejection of a claim or a significant reduction in compensation.
No, but they're supposed to do their homework and a modern politician is supposed to be able to use google.People are not supposed to be omniscient.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
He could have known so should have known. It's as simple as that.
Congratulations America
I agree, but there are a number of countries that don't accept it so you can't lose that nationality.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
He didn't have a Kiwi passport so why would he know? If he'd travelled on a Kiwi passport before then absolutely.
I think a letter to the consulate or Parliament saying that you renounce your citizenship should be sufficient in that instance. Otherwise you could have the bizarre situation where we could see a nation eg take payment from the opponent of a politician, then grant an unwanted citizenship to the political opponent thus disqualifying them from Parliament.
Because he knows his ancestry and knows the eligibility criteria for being an MP.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ancestry is a bit of a big blanket for talking about someone's father. For a first generation Australian he had every reason to research his eligibility but he chose not to. I'm certain that a non-white in his position wouldn't have gotten away with it for this long.
Congratulations America
Second generation and no I'm not certain of it. Especially when he was claiming his Australian citizenship on his mother's side and had never claimed his citizenship on his father's side.
This is like the ludicrous "birther" arguments over Obama all over again.
Usually I call people who call 'white privilege' a bunch of snowflake whiners. But here we have it in practise Ladies and Gentlemen; The White boy never saw a reason to check his legal status. Because, after all, he's white and British and never should anyone dare ask him if there's something we schould be aware of.
Also happy you brought up the 'birther' maniacs in the case of President Obama. May I point out that President Obama has as mr Berlusconi phrased it a 'solid tan' ?
Congratulations America
You have made multiple mistakes here.
1: He's not British. New Zealand != Britain.
2: It is entirely consistent to oppose both the birther nonsense and this nonsense. I opposed both so race has nothing to do with it. Seen nothing to suggest this politician was a birther before this came out either.
If you can find someone who was pro-birther but in favour of these white politicians then you may have a point.
It doesn't matter if you oppose it or not; it is in the Australian constitution and it was put in that constitution in 1901. It means that it applies to all people who aspire for elected office, not just to darkies who can be insolently be asked about their ancestry.
As for my previous post, that was based in my - possibly mistaken - reading of what you seemed to write about yourself.
Congratulations America
You're correct, I couldn't think of the right word.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-1...senate/8816886
Because they could smell the sulphur from a mile away."They did not ask to see my face," she said.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Since there's been a string of these, I do suspect some group is digging into everyone trying to find people to spring this on
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's getting ugly:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...r-action-court
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Once the cat is out of the bag.....
But seriously, in my daily life I reject claims of not having known this flimsy with the remark that people could or should have known. If he'd have been designated citizen of a country on the basis of some extremely stretched ties then it could have been different. But if the research basically could have been dealt with by asking his father or another close relative then I'd call it extremely maybe even wilfully negligent.
By the way, I am opposed to this kind of exclusion.
Congratulations America
All this has done is expose the appalling xenophobia of the Australian constitution. Anyone from anywhere should be able to move to Australia and serve in its Parliament.
Do you have any idea what caused them to put it in?
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote