Average IQ of Australians

[Serial Brain 9]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

No it is not. The UN believes that Asylum Seekers have rights. The Australian Government disagrees quite a lot and hence we have had Manus and Nauru gulags created and funded by the Australian Government. This is completely contrary to the UN Convention on Refugees.

I don't think you have both oars in the water Brian.

We are talking about Australian immigration - We Australians are good like that - too good

What you are talking about is Illegal Immigration.

Two seperate things.

[brian ross]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

No it is not. The UN believes that Asylum Seekers have rights. The Australian Government disagrees quite a lot and hence we have had Manus and Nauru gulags created and funded by the Australian Government. This is completely contrary to the UN Convention on Refugees.

I don't think you have both oars in the water Brian.

We are talking about Australian immigration - We Australians are good like that - too good

What you are talking about is Illegal Immigration.

Two seperate things.

No, I am not. If a migrant requests Asylum, the Australian Government is bound, by the UN Convention on Refugees to judge whether they are genuine or not and grant it if they are considered genuine. The Australian Government has made a big brouhaha about their manner of arrival - if by boat, that makes them naughty, if by plane, that makes them OK. We have had substantially more Asylum Seekers arriving by plane in the last 21 years than we have had by boat. They however, are not shipped off to Nauru.

They are not considered "illegal immigrants" until their application for Asylum has been disallowed. Over 90% of those now housed on Nauru are judged to be genuine refugees by Australia's own immigration department but because they arrived by boat, they are exiled to Nauru. Hardly fair, hey but then most Xenophobes aren't interested in fairness to Asylum Seekers, now are they?

[brian ross]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

The most shocking thing I think is that the Queen of England still rules over Australia. Insane. And Canada... And New Zealand. I think only South Africa is independent now, but it's pretty obvious even anglo-saxons don't need negers.

its neither shocking or insane.

Australia is run independently of any interference from the "Queen".

We have a system that works and thats the way most "sane" Australians like it.

If we go to a republic our constitution will get rewritten.

How do you think that will do?

Our rights will get signed away with a stroke of a pen.

"Rights"? What rights, Serial? There are no rights enunciated in the Australian Constitution. None. Zilch. When you find some, you put them here.

If we become a Republic, little need change in our Constitution. All we need do is eliminate the mention of the monarchy and change the GG's title to President.

[FLEKTARN]

Why are some of you 'men' so damned confrontational? It's really quite juvenile and very boring.

The only confrontation I have had since I have been back here is from people who I guess are female, including you Black Orchid. Why?

I have also noticed that Flektarn (new to me like just about all of you) has been using the most foul language (including the no no tnuc with gay abandon and no restraint. My, things have certainly changed.

I have no filter because I'm not a hypocrite.

What does being a foul mouth have to do with not being a hypocrite?

You need to visit the heading of this thread - I find that most people who are "foul mouthed" in the public are low IQ mishrats.

Don't be a hostile dick. I have proper grammar and I treat the ladies right. I'm not your typical hood gangbanger. Relax, homie.

[FLEKTARN]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

The most shocking thing I think is that the Queen of England still rules over Australia. Insane. And Canada... And New Zealand. I think only South Africa is independent now, but it's pretty obvious even anglo-saxons don't need negers.

its neither shocking or insane.

Australia is run independently of any interference from the "Queen".

We have a system that works and thats the way most "sane" Australians like it.

If we go to a republic our constitution will get rewritten.

How do you think that will do?

Our rights will get signed away with a stroke of a pen.

You're talking shit mate. The Queen is in the Constitution and she has very real power. I've already chewed this up with other people, and now they agree with me. You're a fucking dictatorship! Swallow it whole, man up!

[Wally Raffles]

Why are some of you 'men' so damned confrontational? It's really quite juvenile and very boring.

The only confrontation I have had since I have been back here is from people who I guess are female, including you Black Orchid. Why?

I have also noticed that Flektarn (new to me like just about all of you) has been using the most foul language (including the no no tnuc with gay abandon and no restraint. My, things have certainly changed.

GOLF ....

[brian ross]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

The most shocking thing I think is that the Queen of England still rules over Australia. Insane. And Canada... And New Zealand. I think only South Africa is independent now, but it's pretty obvious even anglo-saxons don't need negers.

its neither shocking or insane.

Australia is run independently of any interference from the "Queen".

We have a system that works and thats the way most "sane" Australians like it.

If we go to a republic our constitution will get rewritten.

How do you think that will do?

Our rights will get signed away with a stroke of a pen.

You're talking shit mate. The Queen is in the Constitution and she has very real power. I've already chewed this up with other people, and now they agree with me. You're a fucking dictatorship! Swallow it whole, man up!

Really? What "power" would that be, Flektarn. Please explain where in our Constitution the Monarch is named...

[Nicole]

Australia is doing what the UN tells it to do in regards to immigration.

Thats why.

The most shocking thing I think is that the Queen of England still rules over Australia. Insane. And Canada... And New Zealand. I think only South Africa is independent now, but it's pretty obvious even anglo-saxons don't need negers.

its neither shocking or insane.

Australia is run independently of any interference from the "Queen".

We have a system that works and thats the way most "sane" Australians like it.

If we go to a republic our constitution will get rewritten.

How do you think that will do?

Our rights will get signed away with a stroke of a pen.

"Rights"? What rights, Serial? There are no rights enunciated in the Australian Constitution. None. Zilch. When you find some, you put them here.

If we become a Republic, little need change in our Constitution. All we need do is eliminate the mention of the monarchy and change the GG's title to President.

We’re already eroding our culture and traditions and now you want us to become a Republic. It’s tokenistic bullshit that won’t achieve anything. Much like Rudds apology which did not improve the lives of aboriginals one iota.

[Neferti]

Really? What "power" would that be, Flektarn. Please explain where in our Constitution the Monarch is named...

She is currently referred to as HER MAJESTY. When our Constitution was drawn up, it was HIS MAJESTY ... as it will be, again, when Charles takes over.

[brian ross]

Really? What "power" would that be, Flektarn. Please explain where in our Constitution the Monarch is named...

She is currently referred to as HER MAJESTY. When our Constitution was drawn up, it was HIS MAJESTY ... as it will be, again, when Charles takes over.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Betraying your ignorance yet again, Neferti. Guess who was the ruler of England between 20 June 1837 until their death on 22 January 1901? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a King. When was the Australian Constitution voted into force? 1900.

In the Constitution, the Monarch is mentioned approximately 20 times. She was however, only named (at the time) three times. The Monarch effectively has little power over Australia and Australians. When she visits, she metaphorically puts on her "Queen of Australia" hat and takes off her "Queen of the UK" hat. When she isn't visiting, the Governor General represents her. The GG is recommended for appointment by the Queen by the Government of the Day.

There have been disputes between the Crown and the Government over who should be appointed, back in the first 40 years of us being a self-governing Dominion. The Government won each one. Isaac Isaacs (GG 1931-1936) was the biggest such dispute. Buckingham Palace didn't like the idea of a Jew being appointed GG. The Australian Government didn't care about his religion and made a point of it. Buckingham Palace gave in.

The GG, with the exception of their "reserve powers" does as they are told by the Prime Minister. The only time the Reserve Powers were exercised, it resulted in a Constitutional crisis which still resounds to this day. When the Monarch is in residence, they do as the Government instructs them, just like the GG.