Re: Skype access cancelled for Debian versions before 7
On 04/08/2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Bret,
>
> On 3/08/2014 8:47 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
>>>> Actually we are subject to a bill of rights, see here:
>>>> http://www.clrg.info/2011/02/validity-of-bill-of-rights-1688/
>>>>
>>> That applies only to Victoria - I believe that, like motor vehicle
>>> roadworthiness testing, human rights legislation applies to only two
>>> states of Australia.
>>>
>>
>> I apologise - after posting my response, I realise that the material
>> on that web page, went beyond the first letter, which applies only to
>> Victoria. Thus, that web page relates to two other states, I believ,
>> in addition to Victoria.
>
> Even so, it might be something that could be challenged by other states
> if needed.
>
>> However, please read the text below, and, please read the citation of
>> what Michael Kirby said - he is much more an authority on the matter,
>> at the Australian federal level.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I wonder about Kirby myself. To me, it shouldn't be the court deciding
> a matter of fact via *their* opinion. If the law says "xa" and the
> opinion says "xb" ... then it is up to the parliament to correct the
> situation if it is faulty, not the courts to decide "xb" instead of the
> letter of the law that is "xa". I could never understand how the courts
> could get away with that. Judges should not be judge and jury as they
> often are, they should only rely on the facts, 100% facts of the law,
> not their opinion to make a judgement against the facts and Kirby seems
> to be a great offender of my view of what is required here.
>
>>>> Don't let them screw with our constitution either, under false
>>>> pretenses. Local councils corporations operate as local government
>>>> bodies today, but without the rights to do what they are doing ...
>>>> legitimize those corporations and they'll go gang busters -- give them
>>>> an inch, they'll take a 100 miles!
>>>
>>> It depends on how you regard the status of local governments in
>>> Australia.
>
> We are over-governed already, I DO NOT EVER want local council
> corporations getting more power than they already have; heck I'm not
> even sure there is a place for local government meddling at all, let
> alone all their fees and /localized/ sub-laws (that should not be
> binding on the people). Already they have far too much power and they
> are just corporations that we are effectively *forced* to do business
> with whether we like it or not!
>
>>>> And as for the recognition of
>>>> Aboriginals in AU ... that is also completely unnecessary; any person,
>>>> no matter what, if they set foot in Australian, then they are covered
>>>> by
>>>> our constitution. Aboriginals are no different to other Australians,
>>>> every person is covered. They want to screw the Constitution under the
>>>> guise of /fixing/ these things, instead they'll f*** things right up
>>>> and
>>>> we'll lose even more rights.
>>>
>>> Regarding the issue of the Aboriginals, and, any other race; I do not
>>> know whether you have read the Australian Constitution Act, but,
>>> apartheid (= "apartness" - racial segregation and racial
>>> discrimination) is constitutionally legal and enforceable, in
>>> Australia.
>
> Regardless of that fact, if it is true or not, it is not practiced in
> this day and age. It is completely unnecessary to risk changing the
> Constitution to fix this issue that is /fixed/ otherwise current
> practices and other laws relating to how all persons are treated in AU.
> We don't have slavery and separation in AU, and if there was a problem
> then it is often addressed via the "guilt" adverts. like those of Adam
> Goodes (an AFL footballer). We have full integration as a
> multi-cultural society and non-racist people are by far the majority in
> many areas of AU. There may well be more of an issue of reverse
> discrimination trying to right the wrongs of the past, that's another
> matter, not one that needs constitutional *destruction*.
>
> Leave the AU Constitution in tact, create new laws if necessary, but
> only if necessary to /fix/ issues and problems that really do need to be
> addressed, but definitely do not risk the integrity of the Constitution
> under any circumstances, it really is not worth the risk and changes may
> very well lead to it being effectively useless, ala not worth the paper
> it is printed on.
>
> Cheers
> A.
>
>
Hello.
I think that this sub-thread has digressed from both the original
post, and, from the nature of the mailing list, too far.
I disagree with you on a number of points, but, I believe, it would be
inappropriate to further discuss these points, in this thread, and, on
this list.
So, I leave this particular fork.
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................
Reply to: