From 2001 to 2007, and again since 2012, people seeking asylum in Australia have been taken to the Manus Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and held there. On 26 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found that a constitutional amendment made to permit such detentions violates the PNG constitution. The amendment had permitted "holding a foreign national under arrangements made by Papua New Guinea with another country"; the court said the provision was at odds with the guarantee of "the right to personal liberty" elsewhere in the constitution.
A lawyer representing over 900 "current and former" detainees said he would file on 2 May a request for A$125,000 per person and would be "seeking to enforce the judgment against the Commonwealth of Australia."
coverage:
- BBC News on the ruling
- ABC on the ruling
- ABC Pacific Beat (audio)
- ABC on the lawsuit
- Radio New Zealand
- Neos Kosmos
- stuff.co.nz editorial
- Daily Mail
- AAP via The Daily Telegraph
Related Stories
The AAP via the Herald Sun (News Corp) reports on a deal between the Australian government and the former U.S. administration. Under the arrangement, people seeking asylum in Australia—who have, controversially, been detained in centres on Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea—would have been resettled in the United States. However, according to the story, the plan is now in question due to the change in leadership there.
According to The Guardian , "the U.S. could resettle zero refugees from Manus Island and Nauru and still be 'honouring' the deal."
related story:
Manus Island Centre Deemed Illegal; Detainees Seek Compensation
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:02AM
Right or wrong, when the letter of the law violates itself, it's a sure sign that the judge is incompetent or corrupt. The whole point of a constitutional amendment is to amend the constitution. What did I miss?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:17AM
This is just how politics works now, lots of Double Talk, Double Speak and outright lying.
I haven't went and read their Constitution but an almost universal feature is that they require a supermajority to amend. But the court knows the elites greatly desire this policy even if popular opinion required many of them to support the amendment just nulified. So they don't need to fear reprisal, instead the politicians, especially the ones who voted for the amendment, will be all over TV shrugging their shoulders and bleating about how "the court has spoke, none may question their wisdom."
In a sane world every judge who voted or even voted to hear this case would be removed for cause. But we don't live in one of those, I spotted the Enterprise recently on yet another time travel mission and sho nuff, Spock was rockin' a beard.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:09AM
The judge or the body that amended the constitution in the first place?
PNG allows their constitution to be amended by their Parliament [wipo.int] (search for "Subdivision B.—Constitutional Alteration and Organic Laws." in the linked); even when oversaw by constitutional experts, one can never be sure the proposed amendments aren't non-contradictory under all circumstances; much less if the only oversight comes from elected representatives (which are not required to be constitutional experts)
This doesn't mean the amendment in question wasn't actually an act of corruption or incompetence, but only that there are more possible explanations than corruption or incompetence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by BK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:22AM
I wish you were right about this. But...
Amendments can absolutely contradict other parts of a Constitution. That's kind of the point. For example, the amendments made to the USA constitution at the end of our Civil War specifically contradicted the parts of the USA constitution that permitted slavery. I seem to recall that they were ratified by some states more or less at gunpoint.
Now if you think that the USA courts have gotten it wrong by upholding those contradictory amendments, please speak up. Louder please!
The point of amendments is that they do change the underlying law. Whatever you think about justice in this case, the judge here is making the same legal argument that you would need to make to reinstate slavery in the USA.
So what I guess I'm saying here is that the judge is either incompetent. Or bought off. And anyone actively defending him is probably a racist. Probably.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:45AM
In USA... (they're crazy anyway ;) ).
Other countries may not bound by the same ... mmm... I guess the most appropriate term would be coutumes [wikipedia.org] (ancestral/antiquated traditions).
It may well be that other countries prefer a sane self-consistent legal system, who are we to judge?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:49AM
Amendments are merely additions to an existing law. If they're going to change the existing law, they have to explicitly define what is being changed. For example, see the 21st amendment to the US Constitution. It doesn't say that alcohol is legal, it says that the law previously declaring alcohol illegal is now void. Old laws don't automatically disappear just because you passed a new one. If that were the case it would be literally impossible (instead of the current situation where it is only figuratively impossible) to know all of the laws you are expected to obey, because you wouldn't be able to account for the various interactions. Does this new law override ALL of the previous law? Or just that section? Or maybe it just changes that one word? Or adds a new word? You won't find out until a judge decides at your trial. Law requires precision.
If the politicians want to fix it, they can pass a correct and logically consistent amendment. Otherwise the judge has to do that job for them, in whatever way he finds best.
You might as well complain that the compiler is corrupt because it didn't understand that you intended to have a semicolon at the end of that line.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:32AM
You missed this [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:03AM
> a constitutional amendment made to permit such detentions violates the PNG constitution
Are they saying that one part of their constitution is more right than the other? That's an interesting question for scholars to figure out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:15AM
Yes. Common sense: any fair law system (constitution included) should ideally be self-consistent (free of inner contradictions).
In case of contradictions (which may happen to slip in undetected, this is why there are judges), one part will be more right than the other - the better part is the one that serves better the society living under the law system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:39PM
Just sayin'....
Within any language (above a trivial level of complexity), it is possible to create statements that are neither true nor false. Translated into laws, in any finite list of laws (axioms) there will be things that are both legal and illegal, requiring a new law to be added. But then the same thing is true of the new list, etc. So a self-consistent (finite) set of laws is impossible.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:33PM
Not with the set of two rules:
- for citizens "anything that's not specically forbidden is allowed"
- for govt "anything that's not specifically granted, is denied"
You are confusing self-consistency (no internal contradiction) with completeness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:59AM
Law is like code. If the new patch conflicts with something that's been there since 1.0 and has worked fine for years, do you expect the test team to toss out that part of 1.0, or do you expect them to say there's a problem with the new patch and throw it back to the dev--err, legislators to fix? If they want some other piece of code changed, they can submit a proper patch for that too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:56AM
systemd
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:04AM
Forget the specific policy decision the court made here. Just back up and look at the big picture. When a court can declare the Constitution itself "unconstitutional" is there at point any doubt that the Court has declared itself the supreme lawmaking authority? At that point it is the duty of every office holder, indeed every individual Citizen, to take action.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:17AM
We went beyond the looking Glass when r3dhate and d3bian colluded and covered us in the free software world's head with a paper bag and started whacking us in our now-blinded face with a sock full of systemd quarters.
This is small potatoes in comparison, my friend: small potatoes indeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:06AM
Forget the specific policy decision the court made here. ... When a court can declare the Constitution itself "unconstitutional" is there at point any doubt that the Court has declared itself the supreme lawmaking authority.
Er, no. If the constitution is not internally coherent then something has to go. Here's a simplistic example - if the constitution says that all amendments must start with the words "Shrimp on the barbie" but one amendment is voted on passed that does not begin with the words "shrimp on the barbie" then that amendment is de facto unconstitutional regardless of what the amendment actually says.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:21AM
Nope. Order determines. If Amendment or the base document says something and a later amendment disagrees it is assumed it has repealed the older material and prevails. If they are well written, like for example the U.S. Constitution's Amendments, they explicitly state the parts being overridden in the text but that is but a courtesy to future readers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:45AM
> Nope. Order determines.
Why do you think that the structure and precedence of the US constitution defines the constitution of Papua New Guinea?
The world is not defined by America.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:05AM
Reading is fundamental. I used ours as an example, even said that, try reading. The legal concept is pretty much universal since everybody with a written constitution with a formal amendment process is usually copied from the U.S. original example anyway. A Constitution is, by definition, at the apex of the chain so it must never be read in a way as to be contradictory as there is no authority beyond it to appeal other than accepting chaos until the amendment process could work and that usually takes years. It is a fairly recent innovation for judges to make a play to elevate themselves above constitutions and become an appeal beyond the law itself, in effect an ultimate legislature and in some examples to directly exercise the sovereign power itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:07AM
> Reading is fundamental. I used ours as an example, even said that, try reading.
Indeed it is you simpleton, you should take your own advice. I was talking about the part I quoted, specifically the unsupported declaration about a constitution you have never read in a country you could not hope to find on a map without labels.
> The legal concept is pretty much universal
No matter how hard you wish it to be universal, it isn't. Your logic, your examples and your objections are just yankee arrogance based in ignorance of the rest of the world.
What's going on here is that you know jack shit about PNG, but you insist on projecting all your american anxieties on to the country and this story. Surely they have no idea how their own government works, but you are an expert! They are fools and you are wise.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:54AM
That's not true. Lots of countries have different constitutional setups then the States. Canada's constitution is split between a dozen or so documents and includes some unwritten clauses that the courts will enforce. Some parts can be amended by the Federal Parliament on its own, some between one Province and the Federal Parliament such as the recent amendment renaming Newfoundland, many use the 7/50 rule (7 of 10 Provinces containing 50% of the population) and some take all the Provinces agreeing (fundamental changes to the system of government). Would it be legal for the Federal Government to override the Magna Carta and get rid of Habeus Corpus? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would say no as it is a basic right inferred in the Charter of Rights.
It sounds like Papua New Guinea can amend its Constitution by simple Parliamentary majority, which is a path to tyranny and having the courts as a check on that sounds like a good idea and may be in the original Constitution.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:23AM
It sounds like Papua New Guinea can amend its Constitution by simple Parliamentary majority, which is a path to tyranny and having the courts as a check on that sounds like a good idea and may be in the original Constitution.
That would be even lamer that a lot of U.S. States (like mine) that make it too easy to amend, but doesn't change the fact that the sovereign power has to, in theory, reside somewhere. We don't do divine right monarchy anymore, even in the British Empire the monarch is a tourist attraction with no real power, so it generally resides in the written constitution as a stand in for the expressed will of The People who political theory now holds as the ultimate receptacle of the Sovereign Power. Even when a constitution is poorly drafted and poorly designed. If one is Dark Enlightened you too see problems with this theory of government, but it is the system of government we are all supposed to have in the West. All tracing a line of descent from the Magna Carta, the Rights of Englishmen, British Common Law, and most also borrowing heavily from the U.S. Constitution since those guys were on a roll and had a lot of really good ideas and everybody cut/pasted liberally.
Courts act as a check against the Legislative and Executive power, as those others are supposed to, but fail to in most Western countries currently, act as a check on an out of control Judiciary. In the U.S. the States were also supposed to factor into the checks but have currently been effectively eliminated from consideration. With a cumbersome (as you note, not cumbersome enough in some places) the constitution can be amended by some or all of the other branches. But none of them alone are empowered to act as a check on the constitution itself, if you accept that as a legal theory you have accepted that entity as the new receptacle of the Sovereign power. There is simply no other way to reason it out.
Think about it. The Courts have been placed as a check on the Constitution as you propose, by Amendment. So now they can add/delete at will from the Constitution because who checks them? Who says they have exceeded their new authority? You just wrote in that the Constitution doesn't anymore, while the other branches are still limited by what the constitution, now plastic in the hands of the court, says. The people can no longer act, unless the courts say the constitution permits their action. Extralegal power is the only solution to a mistake of that level. The executive orders them shot and if the order is carried out the power is now there, maybe he/she simply leads a process of amendment to fix the problem, maybe he puts on a crown. Maybe a mob just strings people up on lampposts and who knows what happens next. Dangerous any way you look at it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:10AM
Figured I'd look at their Constitution. Seems that the judiciary is involved in amending their Constitution,
Now the whole thing is quite complicated and I'm not a lawyer, though I do note that a PHG lawyer did comment (https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=13388&cid=340529#commentwrap), but from my reading this is constitutional.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Independent_State_of_Papua_New_Guinea/Part_II [wikisource.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:05PM
What fantasy are you imagining where the courts are adding things to the constitution by themselves? Certainly not in this case.
You seem to think having the courts check if a new law is unconstitutional is somehow a bad thing, are you sane? Do you think the parliament or senate or other legislature should be allowed to willy nilly change the constitution, and be the exact supreme authority you are raving about instead?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:59AM
No, it's not [wikisource.org].
First: their constitution can be affected by Constitutional laws that are laws on their own (therefore, not being integral part of the constitution, they actually can end be declared as unconstitutional).
Second, in depending the part of their Constitution that is targeted, the majority needed may be 2/3 or 3/4 or just absolute majority (search on the linked for 17. "Prescribed majority of votes".)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:43AM
This is coming from someone who openly admits [soylentnews.org] "I haven't went and read their Constitution"... but is quick to make damning judgements about them.
If reading is so dear to you, you have the PNG's Constitution here [wikisource.org]
(American exceptionalism... heavy burden to bear).
Letting aside Magna carta, letting aside early (1710) modern constitutions [wikipedia.org] (failed because the state failed under invasion), all the ideas of the modern constitutions (USA included) spawned from the Age of Enlightement [wikipedia.org] in an interval of mostly 30 years [wikipedia.org] (60 years including late comers - like Canada) - well before USA abolished slavery (democracy and slavery together... doesn't sound that modern to me, the ancient Greeks tried it first millennia before)
I find hard to believe everybody was in awe and rushed to copy the American constitutional model; more likely they were busy designing their own... in an age when the Internet just wasn't.
Horror of the horrors... the reality is quite different. (and if you think that all it's required to get into contact with it is to read)
Since 1975, PNG is a monarchy, with the monarch of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, represented by a Governor-General. It goes with the Westminster system [wikipedia.org]. It's also not a federation (thus no "state votes" to modify the constitution) and their "constitutional amendments" are actually... separate Constitutional laws [wikisource.org] (not integral part of the Constitution).
Therefore... yes... a PNG Constitutional Law can actually be declared as unconstitutional by a judge!!!
---
Even more horrifying... there are:
* countries in which amendments to the constitution are subject to a referendum (Switzerland [geschichte-schweiz.ch] and Ireland [wikipedia.org]),
* countries in which not only the amendments don't have any particular difference from another law (except being a Constitutional law) but international treaties can end as part of constitution [wikipedia.org] (Austria).
Now, just imagine... suppose that such a treaty is suddenly broken (for whatever reason, say... the other parties decided to renege it)... lo and behold, a modification to your constitution which goes in without voting!!!
* countries in which both the King/government and the legislative need to agree on the amendment [wikipedia.org] (Belgium),
* countries in which an amendment must be approved twice by two consecutively elected legislatures [wikipedia.org] (Denmark)
A weird world outside US, eh? You only need to get your head out of your ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:13AM
Are you from North Korea????
What exactly is surprising to you about a court deciding what is legal or not?
This is the standard method and is used in just about every country.
Who do you propose gets to decide on whats constitutional? Jesus? Fairies? Donald Trump? You?
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:17AM
From the letters to the editor in today's Sydney Morning Herald :
http://m.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/change-the-casino-control-act-to-shift-packer-development-back-from-waterfront-20160502-gojs2i.html [smh.com.au]
Flaws in Manus solution well known in PNG legal circles
Stuart Littlemore is correct in his assertion that the Australian government should have been aware the Manus solution was doomed to fail in Papua New Guinea's constitutional court (Letters, April 30-May 1).
I have practised law in PNG and lived in the country (with one break) since 1982. It was common knowledge in the PNG legal community that the Manus scheme was unconstitutional and that the attempt to fix the problem was never going to work. If all the local lawyers were aware of this, it's impossible to believe the Australian government was uninformed.
If the relevant attorney-general failed to advise any prime minister from Kevin Rudd to Malcolm Turnbull accordingly, their incompetence leaves Australia liable for substantial damages – at the very least. Peter Dutton's wishful thinking (it is the PNG government's problem) could only be reliant on further legal incompetence.
PNG's prime minister should be congratulated for his statement (prior to the Supreme Court decision) that he was going to close the euphemistically titled "detention centre", which is more rightly called a prison. Can it be that Prime Minister O'Neill's lawyers were giving him better advice than Turnbull's?
Peter Lowing partner, Leahy Lewin Lowing Sullivan Lawyers, Port Moresby
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:30AM
How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional? If a constitution to be unconstitutional with respect to itself how can anything be constitutional? Or unconstitutional? If the law literally doesn't mean what it says, what's the point in relying upon or following the law? If everyone knows that the law is a lie, what does that tell us about the people of PNG?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:41AM
Possibly when the amendment was made after pressure (age money, development grants..) from another country?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:52AM
Well then, that's fixed by another amendment. I know that here in the USA we once amended our Constitution after pressure. Eventually we realized it was a mistake and repealed the amendment. I believe that the amendment in question and the policies implementing it were known as prohibition. You should look it up.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:01AM
Was the pressure from a foreign country? Did revoking prohibition allow incarcerated bootleggers to go free? Did it change their citizenship or residency status?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:06AM
You were going to look that up. I'm pretty sure that it was all tied up with some group or other getting voting rights. They wanted to suffer I guess.
What it did do was change the USA constitution. Twice. And each time it meant what it said. It was like it was a constitution or something.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:48PM
While I disagree that somehow the word "constitution" and "amendment" are magickal power words that mean the same things across nations, even nations that sprang from a similar culture, at least you've correctly identified the feminist involvement in alcohol prohibition.
Of course, feminists of the day learned that if they threw black men under the bus, they could get the USA, in seeming straight-forward violation of its very own 9th amendment, to make something else that offended their busybody senses without even needing to go through the whole amendment process. Thank goodness we're finally get that brain damage repealed. Won't be long now until that great legacy of the temperance movement and great example of feminism's cozy relationship with racism is history.
Feminism should have been disbanded after they achieved suffrage. Rosie the Riveter and the whole situation of World War 2 probably did more to get women in to the workforce than feminism ever has. Feminism has utterly failed to abolish the womyn-born-womyn who of her own fucking free will chooses to be barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant. Instead, feminism has somehow convinced all of us that we have to fund her by giving her subsidized housing, food stamps, and even cash benefits. That's not even getting into the quagmire of child support and alimony.
So, even your beloved "Constitution" power word at the end of the day doesn't even really mean anything any more. I've been saying it but nobody listens to me. I think the FDA is a good idea just to pick one agency among many I don't think I'd want to live without. It's not prefect, but fucking amend the constitution so it has a constitutional basis to exist. Otherwise as far as I can tell, 9th and 10th amendments say it's unconstitutional. The DEA and the Controlled Substances Act are unconstitutional, feminist inventions. In the case of those, let the 9th and 10th amendments continue to ring freedom as each state decides it's had enough with busybody feminist policy and it's time to tap an entirely new market. Just imagine what kind of a blow big pharma will suffer when everyone can grow their own anti-depressant* or pain suppressor, one that's nearly completely unaddictive--at least nowhere near the addiction that SSRIs and opiates cause--, in their own closets. Down with bored rich white bitches hanging off the arm of some rich guy. Down with feminism.
The prison-industrial complex is just a happy consequence of failed policy as far as the lizard people are concerned.
This off topic rant brought to you by... meh, who cares. Now have a completely off-topic footnote.
* Don't believe once the federal "research" that shows that cannabis causes depression. Say it with me: correlation is not causation. There are a lot of people suffering from depression, no exercise doesn't work, no fake it til you make it doesn't work, no a fucking sun lamp doesn't make a difference, no nothing fucking works, and they deserve to have access to one of mom nature's various cures for depression. Every person is different, which is why a lot of entheogens need to be fucking legal. Also repeat after me: it may be natural, but so are poisons, but not every fucking thing that feminists don't want you to have is a poison. You have to accept that DARE and Nancy Reagan and every busybody authoritarian measure going back to the suffragettes (after they achieved their venerable goal and needed something to direct their busybody energies at) may have lied to you.
P.P.S. Please note the role of the cisfemale hunnies in Reefer Madness. The feminists have been playing the cisfemale hunny card for quite a while now, and it really gets people who would otherwise be opposed to the feminist agenda up in arms, just to make sure the cisfemale hunnies are safe and protected like the fragile, vulnerable flowers they apparently are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:19AM
> How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional?
When the constitution defines a hierarchy of rights and the amendment is slotted in at a lower level than the rights it conflicts with.
Just because your conception of a constitution is flat does not mean every other country has to write their constitutions that way.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:49AM
> How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional?
When the constitution defines a hierarchy of rights and the amendment is slotted in at a lower level than the rights it conflicts with.
Just because your conception of a constitution is flat does not mean every other country has to write their constitutions that way.
What, like they equipped it in a ring slot?
Anyway, the idea that you can fix things by formalizing a rigid ordering of rights is silly. People's preferences are partially ordered sets: there are a large number of relative priorities that are indeterminate. People aren't sure which should win out between no quartering of troops or right to a speedy trial. And people who claim to have all of their rights sorted properly are really just picking proxy fights over individual issues. Politics is difficult because people are difficult.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:03AM
Not all Constitutions are as simple as the American one, and I'll note that the American Supreme Court often changes quite clear amendments. 1st is very clear, Congress will pass no law restricting speech or the press. It doesn't mention exceptions for child porn or national security. The 2nd is also very clear, people have the right to bear arms, not just honest people, or just citizens. Rather then fixing these by new amendments, the courts have ruled that really speech just means political speech and the people is actually a subset of people.
Other amendments do need court rulings to clear things up, what is a reasonable search? What is cruel and unusual punishment? These also can change with time.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:29AM
Yes they do change clear Constitutional text. Which is why they need to be assembled with ropes and lampposts into decorative art projects... and warnings to their replacements. Which means in the end it is our fault, We the People lost the spirit of the Revolution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:39AM
Why would Australia be liable, or even care, if another country breaks its own constitution?
(Score: 4, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:49AM
They were technically Australia's asylum seekers.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:18PM
And what happened to them is technically legal in Australia.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:27PM
Very grey area - under the UN trety on refugees, Australia should* have allowed them to come to Australia for processing.
Instead' Australia re-wrote some laws to 'excise' parts of out territory from full Australian law.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:55AM
I think if I were a PNG citizen I'd be celebrating. About time Australia got slapped down for this by someone. It's truly shameful.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:29AM
The newcomers bring a failed, destructive, hostile culture. Our culture, while productive and decent, is rather poor at self-preservation against invaders. We've gone soft, losing the will to deal with them old-style. Half a millenium ago, we had the balls to protect ourselves: men with swords and cannons would sink the invading ships. It is because of that brutal past that we today are thriving, but we deny this ugly unpalatable truth in favor of childish fantasy that "others are just like us" and "immigrants will enrich our culture".
Let me know when places like Saudi Arabia, or heck even Mexico, accepts random Australians/Americans/British/Canadians at all. (Mexico: can't get a job. Saudi Arabia: can't leave a job WTF!!! or own a Bible) We are bending over backwards to tolerate others, while they aren't returning the favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:29AM
> Let me know when places like Saudi Arabia, or heck even Mexico, accepts random Australians/Americans/British/Canadians at all.
How does that work?
Those cultures suck compared to "western culture" and yet they are so great that they forbid immigrants from other cultures.
Our culture is great but actually it sucks because it accepts people from other cultures.
Internal consistency, you aren't doing it right.
Our culture is great precisely because we accept people from other cultures and take the best parts of theirs to blend into ours.
Now, if only we could figure out how to say sayonara to the worst parts of our native culture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:34AM
I do have internal consistency.
Cultures are not good/bad because they forbid immigrants from other cultures. They are wise however, at least if they are keeping out the bad.
If you have something good, and you let in the bad, you are being dumb. If you have something bad, and you keep out the good, you are being dumb.
Our culture improves when we blend in (blending is key!) people from places that are civilized and productive. We could take people from Iceland or Japan. Our culture worsens when we bring in the corrupt and violent who have no desire to accept any of our culture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:36AM
Where is my -5 stupid mod?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:19AM
Australia is a country where all the work is done by imported dark skins, and the anglos sit around collecting handouts and whinging about how all these foreigners are 'taking over' (meaning doing productive work and paying for their bennies and the bludging) while drinking endless barrels of beer.
They should be falling all over themselves to let anyone that doesn't drink themselves blind every night and refuse to do any sort of productive work in the day.
Instead they make a big spectacle of how they don't need to respect human rights and are free to treat refugees like human refuse.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:36AM
Our culture, while productive and decent,
I'll give you decent*, but productive? There's nothing productive about a culture that glorifies trade, law and management over craftsmanship and industry. Not to say there's much of that elsewhere...
is rather poor at self-preservation against invaders.
When was the last time you've seen a non-English speaking film? Hell, do people even read Spanish or French books when they're translated into English? American Anglo-Saxon culture is doing quite well for itself and is dominant worldwide. English sounding brands sell better everywhere while most things European are generally considered superior with very few exceptions. The fact most people consider immigrants as coming from "failed, destructive, hostile culture" shows just how capable the west is at blocking cultural influences.
* Disregarding the odd genocide or two, the west been generally decent at avoiding the worst of what civilization has to offer.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:49AM
> American Anglo-Saxon culture is doing quite well for itself and is dominant worldwide.
I think a defining characteristic of American conservative thinking is a false narrative of themselves as the underdog when they are in fact the top dog.
That probably defines conservative thinking everywhere, but especially so in the US since the country is, by far, top dog.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:26AM
What good is a system that values craftsmanship and industry without free trade to import materials and export goods, or the rule of law that protects those assets?
That our political systems accept only a minimal level of corruption, and the Protestant work ethic (labor shows spiritual success) are two key components of the West's success. Other places that have adapted these concepts to various degrees show poverty-lifting results. The World Bank's days required to start a business [worldbank.org] shows in Papua New Guinea it takes 53 days, Australia takes only 3, and in New Zealand it only takes 1 day.
Don't think that matters? Take a look at these other countries to see how they match up with general economic conditions:
Zimbabwe 90
Haiti 97
Venezuela 144
There are 50 nations that allow a new business in seven days or less. As you can guess, most of them are in the First World or growing economies.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:37AM
First, that ethic is not exclusive to protestants - France and Ireland are mostly catholic and their are doing just fine in the "West" with the same ethic.
Second, in regards with US in special, I think you are using an inappropriate tense.
Did you mean to say
?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:37AM
> There are 50 nations that allow a new business in seven days or less. As you can guess, most of them are in the First World or growing economies.
You've made an unfounded assumption of causation. For all you know it is the reverse, that successful economies have achieved the level of social trust that enables people to easily start a business.
BTW, from that list I can easily find plenty of counter-examples
Afghanistan 7 days
Burundi 4 days
Ivory Coast 7 days
Liberia 4 days
Rwanda 6 days
Senegal 6 days
China 31 days
Israel 13 days
Brazil 84 days
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:17PM
What free trade? Last I checked everything is still done with treaties and tariffs. As for minimal corruption and protestant work ethics, you assume more work leads to higher productivity and better quality of life. I'd argue doing the job of a machine for less purchasing power than a farmer had 100 years ago is hardly an improvement to society or it's individuals.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:28AM
How's this relevant for the matter at hand?
Somebody please explain, seems like I'm thick as a brick today
---
(mmm... yes, some Jethro Tull may help)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dltaylor on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:52AM
If holding them violates the PNG constitution, then PNG is at fault for holding them, regardless of who delivered them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:46AM
The asylum seekers reached the Australian territories and yet they were deported and imprisoned in PNG as direct actions of Australia.
Their situation (illegally imprisoned) and their loss of rights is a result of Australia's actions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dltaylor on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:49AM
Why so? PNG could simply have turned them loose. It's the action of holding them that is unconstitutional in the PNG, and that violation occurred entirely within the PNG.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:12AM
Indeed, they could but...
Instead they bowed to Australian pressure [wikipedia.org], amended their constitution in a contradictory manner and perpetuated a situation going against the human rights in exchange for finacial aid [dfat.gov.au].
In this respect, Australia acted (and perhaps still acts [skynews.com.au]) pretty much as a bully.
Just look at the numbers: financial aid to PNG is some half a billion AUD/year, the money Australia paid for the centre security over two billions/20 months [wikipedia.org]
(the ongoing security of the centre is provided by Wilson Security, which laundered their money through Panama [abc.net.au] and is owned by two brothers convicted of bribery in Hong Kong [abc.net.au])
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:18AM
With money for operating the detention centres coming from Australia, with Australian companies (paid by Australia) providing the security.
Whatever guilt you want to assign to PNG, you cannot actually consider Australia clean in this respect.
Those one-off A$125,000 per person in currently in detention? Believe me, it's much cheaper for the Australian tax payer than the cost of maintaining the detention centre opened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dltaylor on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:00AM
That makes a bit more sense. With Australian companies/personnel involved in the actual detention, then a case could be made for a claim against Australia.
Had the centre been maintained, and staffed, by the PNG, regardless of Australian "incentives", then I don't think so.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:23AM
Maybe, maybe not.
The fact that the asylum seeker were deported and put into an illegal position is still an action of Australia.
The fact that one doesn't know its illegal may not excuse the illegality (even if it can be argued that Australia did "know" it was legal - after all, it paid... errr... "aided PNG" to be legal).
But anyway, the "Pacific solution" was (still is, until dismantled) rife with controversy [wikipedia.org] - given that it spawns over different law systems it will require an international court to arbitrate and decide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:39AM
why is it Australia's problem?
Well, depends on why Australia sent them there in the first place. As an uninformed, but hopefully educated guess, I think part of the reason might been that under Australian law it would have been illegal to detain those people. Failing that, it would probably have been considered immoral by significant parts of Australian society. So, shove the problem out of sight, let others do the dirty work...
And in case Australian society is cynical enough to decide this was neither a legal, nor a moral problem, they'll still have to come up with a new solution...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @09:11AM
Allowing anyone in, just won't work. Just ask the European countries that is under siege by the onslaught by of migrants, that are worthless as qualified workers and tries to make their medieval practices the norm. On top of this, is the constant threat of violence. This in turn has triggered some violent ideologies from the past that makes the problem even more complicated.
This means the legal circus may make a lot of noise but at the end of the day. The security policy of Australia will have to remain because the alternative just isn't sustainable. The migrants that burnt themselves probably have valid reasons to be accepted as refugees but if other people finds out that there's a way in. They will exploit it.
It's a incompatibility between cultures that build and sustain a modern society and the ones that's just more or less bad. The rejection will cause a lot of true misery but that's the way it is.