‘It’s the vibe of the thing’ claims One Nation loon in High Court

Life imitating art today as the One Nation fruit cakes take their turn in the High Court:

Dividing people into different classes of citizens based on whether or not they are born in Australia is “fundamentally unAustralian”, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts’ barrister told the High Court on Thursday morning.

…”There should be no place in Australian law let alone Constitutional law in 2016 for some line to be drawn between so-called ‘natural-born Australians’ and… what would we call them… immigrant Australians?”

…The assumptions made that Senator Roberts was not natural-born because he was born in India, that “something happened” in 1974 when he received his Australian citizenship certificate, and on every day until 2016 by doing nothing somehow “voluntarily adopted a British citizenship”, were either “wrong or irrelevant”, he said.

The bench, in particular Justice Virginia Bell, appeared to bristle at his submissions.

“Putting to one side what people may or may not have thought, we are to determine this on the facts that have been found,” interjected Justice Bell.

And here it is live:

Comments

  1. haha… wasn’t he the one very vocal about ‘not allowing foreigners from becoming australians’ .. or ‘ go back to where you came from’ idealogue?

  2. Is it the case that other nations (USA, Canada, India, etc) can change the constitution without having a referendum while AUS requires a referendum to change the constitution?

    The United Kingdom has no constitution apparently.


      • UK Constitution is passed through generations through interpretative dance…

        As a consequence, one imagines it changes any time someone misses a step or performs a step incorrectly.

      • UK Constitution is passed through generations through interpretative dance…

        It is a little known fact that Kate Bush’s Wuthering Heights is actually the traditional repositorial instruction for Droit du seigneur.

    • The US does not use a referendum process to amend its constitution; amendments are passed by the Federal Government (either by 2/3 majorities in both Senate and the House, or via a convention) , and then sent to the States for ratification (either in the state legislatures or by state level conventions).

      • Right. That is how USA banned alcohol for a decade. And now they even allow the advertising of alcohol.

  3. Dividing people into different classes of citizens based on whether or not they are born in Australia is “fundamentally unAustralian”

    Are you kidding me? This, from the party whose founder has literally complained about being swamped by Asians? Isn’t dividing people based on where they are born THE WHOLE POINT OF ONE NATION??

    • The argument is not only hypocritical, it’s fundamentally wrong.

      There’s no problem with not being born in Australia so long as you’ve a) been naturalised and b) renounced any other citizenship(s) you may hold.

      The question at hand – some aspects of MB commentary aside – is not how “Australian” you are, it’s whether or not you’re “foreign”, at all.

    • To be a bit pedantic, One Nation’s platform was that there would be 1 rule applied equally to all citizens. This was sort of a dog whistle on stuff like Aboriginal tribal rights amongst other things. Its in their name. There are plenty of examples where governments do the politically necessary rather than the strictly legal definition of law enforcement. Those situations feed groups like One Nation.

      So there isn’t really a contradiction here with their previous position. Its just that their position was always fucked because while they get upset about things like ‘Native Title’, they don’t get upset about things like “Hey whities get treated way better than other people by the law”.

      • There something wrong with a system that allows a man with 77 primary votes and screwball ideas about science to sit making laws in Canberra. Something terribly f\/cking wrong.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        @R2M
        Well get ready for Robert’s replacement , he got 17 votes.
        Ain’t democracy grand?

  4. Oh so its so ok to divide people in Australia up when you don’t like the way they look or the language they speak, that’s fine. But when it is one of the One Nation Senators, dividing people in Australia on the basis of whether they were born here or not is un Australian. It really is the vibe.

    • MB constantly rails against the way Chinese money and immigrants in general are being used to prop up Australia’s GDP. They’ll bring up the way visas are structured so that 6yo kids’ guardians can buy property in Australia. Bring up 457s constantly. Point out how far we are above the average 70k net we used to be. You can’t go a day without MB mentioning immigrants and their connection to lowering living standards/affordability.

      Not so different from ON’s stance on Japanese money back in the 90s. I see you’re a member, so that makes you a literal card carrying member of a political organisation that is against migration.

      Yes I’m fully aware that whereas ON did want to make a racial distinction about migrants (they termed it as cultural and financial similarity, ie Europeans and Americans) whereas MB are racially neutral, but do you think many people on the “left” will make that distinction? They will just think that MB are like the alt-right. Nazis who learned to stop being open and honest and play the PR game properly.

  5. So Malcolm Roberts found at lawyer who’s as screwy as him!

    Fitz, was that you repping for former Sen. Mal? Just kidding!

  6. I think you have diluted the strength of your argument against Sen. Balcolm Boberts by using that video. That video shows a genuine unjustice being meeted out by a property developer to a layman and the lawyer hopeless making a fool of himself, even though the layman had a strong and a just case! Sen. Balcolm Boberts case is exact opposite, genuinely wrong/non-compliant/thieving man is making a fool of himself.

  7. Roberts is no more nutty than most of the rest of the swamp creatures we’ve let inhabit our parliament. Hell, we even let one become PM

    • There is a line of tshirts amd other clothing in that idea

      I can see them now being sold at left leaning weekend fairs in all our major cities. And ultimately being worn by Todd Sampson on gruen.

      I’m off to get printing quotes.

      • Be sure to send me one.
        And, if you make any money, send me some of that as well. It’s safety money, Lady footsore would do terrible things to me if she found out you’re profiting if my pop culture appropriations.

  8. i really enjoyed when he used to tweet chinese character scripts at sam daystari. i will miss him.

  9. Ronin8317MEMBER

    I actually think the ‘un-Australian’ argument is a better defense than not knowing he was a British citizen 😛

    • alterbrainMEMBER

      Yes, except the issue is not where one was born, it is whether or not one has Australian citizenship alone, and not dual. In other words, undivided loyalty… At least on paper.

  10. Jake GittesMEMBER

    Roberts’s barrister should appear before the bar for that argument. Roberts should be put into one of Dutton’s concentration camps.

  11. Saint MatthewMEMBER

    In keeping with the theme of life and art, from Badboy Bubby – “if that’s all we’ve got, then we’re stuffed”

  12. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Don’t worry folks, you’ll still get your regular dose of fruitloop logic from this clown. One of the moving picture wireless stations will take him on as an ‘expert commentator’.

    I’d like to see him team up with Kochie’s Cash Cow. Some sort of song and dance routine with the bust the recession girlies would be good too.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        But they’ve got Bronwyn fruitloop to the fore.

        Geez, imagine a conversation between those two.

    • The problem with tv is that what you say is governed by rules and laws and stuff. Unlike parliamentary privilege which is a crapshoot without consequence.

      My money’s on a guest spot on Infowars or even setting up his own channel

  13. Xenophon’s counsel yesterday claim the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia were the same thing which from a legal point of view is not true (they are like separate companies with the same CEO). That is a bad argument to make in a University legal class let alone in front of the High Court Justices.

    The Greens counsel basically got to told sit down as he was wasting the court’s time making a political justification of the Greens action.

    Justin Gleeson (the ex-solicitor general) is about the only one who hasn’t irritated the judges. And he is only representing tony Windsor against Joyce. Getting a bit of revenge on George Brandis?

    The Friend of the Court put forward some fairly clear arguments about why they should all go and he is probably the closest to the judges thinking on the issues (after all they appointed him to do their research).

    • Cornflakes, the Xenophon argument should have been “I am not eligible for a British passport”. And I think he is not because he is called a “British Overseas Citizen” (bizarre hangover title from the Empire).

      • It is one of those bizarre hangovers of the empire and they did try the argument that it is not a true citizenship. But that is not helped by the fact that is called “British Overseas Citizenship”.

      • Hong Kong before 1997 I remember the Brits had a citizenship dodge to stop mass migration of the colonists to UK on handover to China. Might Xenophon benefit from that?

    • Xenophon’s claim was certainly true at the time the Constitution was written. Section 44 is either outdated or it isn’t. Cherry picking makes no sense at all.

  14. Now that’s some fabululous shit right there. One Nation dudes saying it’s unfair to discriminate against people because of where they were born? Nyuk nyuk nyuk….

    I feel like I’ve slipped through a trans-dimensional wormhole into some sort of alternative Idiocracy-comedy-irony-surrealist-stupidity timeline. The Sydney 2037 nonsense was bad enough, but this is beyond words…

  15. I agree with him. I think this whole episode has been abhorrent. At least now he hopefully knows how One Nation makes people feel.