interesting that this has peaked during the peak of anti-terror activity

personally I think some of the anti-terror stuff lends to a distraction from some homegrown terror of an informal sort, nicely nested in its opposite, transparency and such.

it wasn’t so far back the head of a social media platform was hailing privacy is dead, and in conversation these days if you hear someone say people don’t care what they gossip about anymore, you’ll sense the licensing is out there, it’s permeated the social aether, a contagion.

much is made of privacy, noises, yet many people couldn’t write a paragraph on the subject indicating their life experience had taught them anything of it. There’d be nothing in the vocabulary other than some sort off-the-shelf ideas, not much more than closing the toilet door behind you on the way in.

what I see is an ideological tightening on behavior, behavior controls, an informal stasi.

democracy starts to bother me when it goes over the top denying the existence of the state, or hides of where state power resides (the informal aspects, ideology).

that’s where we’re at, I reckon.

hijacked by bullshit.

Government likes to distract the population with relatively unimportant things so the really important things don’t get scrutinised.

Cymek said:

Government likes to distract the population with relatively unimportant things so the really important things don’t get scrutinised.

if you think the obvious government is what does the governing

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

You’d think it would part of filling out various paperwork when you get the job, check on dual citizenship

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

I guess, if you think the subject of terror/terrorism, has no effect on the mood of the culture you live.

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

I guess, if you think the subject of terror/terrorism, has no effect on the mood of the culture you live.

It’s overhyped I think to allow government more control of the population and information dissemination.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

You’d think it would part of filling out various paperwork when you get the job, check on dual citizenship

it is… you have to tick a box that says you comply with Section 44 of the constitution and then sign a statutory deceleration confirming it…

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

I guess, if you think the subject of terror/terrorism, has no effect on the mood of the culture you live.

of course it does, but this is just an illustration (at first largely by the media) of the ignorance of the political class…

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

You’d think it would part of filling out various paperwork when you get the job, check on dual citizenship

it is… you have to tick a box that says you comply with Section 44 of the constitution and then sign a statutory deceleration confirming it…

It is checked or do they assume you are aware of it and have checked yourself.
I can’t imagine it would be that hard to confirm

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

You’d think it would part of filling out various paperwork when you get the job, check on dual citizenship

it is… you have to tick a box that says you comply with Section 44 of the constitution and then sign a statutory deceleration confirming it…

It is checked or do they assume you are aware of it and have checked yourself.
I can’t imagine it would be that hard to confirm

it would seem that the LibNats don’t have internal processes to confirm it (that is they leave it up to the individual)… but the ALP does…

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m pretty sure that the dual citizenship debacle has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with ignorance of the rules regarding eligibility to sit as a parliamentarian.

I guess, if you think the subject of terror/terrorism, has no effect on the mood of the culture you live.

of course it does, but this is just an illustration (at first largely by the media) of the ignorance of the political class…

well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite, the delivery of information similarly seems to involve the obliteration of any ideas that contradict the message (the delivery device).

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

You’d think it would part of filling out various paperwork when you get the job, check on dual citizenship

it is… you have to tick a box that says you comply with Section 44 of the constitution and then sign a statutory deceleration confirming it…

It is checked or do they assume you are aware of it and have checked yourself.
I can’t imagine it would be that hard to confirm

Check if you’re a British citizen

https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

I guess, if you think the subject of terror/terrorism, has no effect on the mood of the culture you live.

of course it does, but this is just an illustration (at first largely by the media) of the ignorance of the political class…

well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite, the delivery of information similarly seems to involve the obliteration of any ideas that contradict the message (the delivery device).

I think that is a ridiculous statement and shows ignorance of what the Stasi actually was and what they did.

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

of course it does, but this is just an illustration (at first largely by the media) of the ignorance of the political class…

well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite, the delivery of information similarly seems to involve the obliteration of any ideas that contradict the message (the delivery device).

I think that is a ridiculous statement and shows ignorance of what the Stasi actually was and what they did.

possibly, i’m part of the bullshit that makes it all work, no problems conceding that

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

it is… you have to tick a box that says you comply with Section 44 of the constitution and then sign a statutory deceleration confirming it…

It is checked or do they assume you are aware of it and have checked yourself.
I can’t imagine it would be that hard to confirm

Check if you’re a British citizen

https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen

there seems to be an inherent idea that if you were born here and you enjoy a beer and a game of footy then you can only an Australian, when the truth is even 5 min of cursory googling can show that you are entitled to dual citizenship

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite, the delivery of information similarly seems to involve the obliteration of any ideas that contradict the message (the delivery device).

I think that is a ridiculous statement and shows ignorance of what the Stasi actually was and what they did.

possibly, i’m part of the bullshit that makes it all work, no problems conceding that

I’m not even sure what that means

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

It is checked or do they assume you are aware of it and have checked yourself.
I can’t imagine it would be that hard to confirm

Check if you’re a British citizen

https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen

there seems to be an inherent idea that if you were born here and you enjoy a beer and a game of footy then you can only an Australian, when the truth is even 5 min of cursory googling can show that you are entitled to dual citizenship

Yes so it comes down to incompetence or can’t be bothered or maybe even good old Australian she’ll be right mate

Can’t see any Stasi or terrorism shades to this issue. It’s a fairly simple self-inflicted problem of certain MPs which is causing problems for the current government.

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

I think that is a ridiculous statement and shows ignorance of what the Stasi actually was and what they did.

possibly, i’m part of the bullshit that makes it all work, no problems conceding that

I’m not even sure what that means

stasi certainly had a lot of people watching each other, didn’t they.

my last point was that its hard looking at things from the inside out, like a fish trying to see the water it swims through

• well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite

It shouldn’t have been difficult, all I said was, you can do whatever you want, just make sure that you don’t eat the f#$%ing apples. And what do you do? You eat the f#$%ing apples…

furious said:

• well, i’m of the opinion this country has a stasi, dressed up as something quite the opposite

It shouldn’t have been difficult, all I said was, you can do whatever you want, just make sure that you don’t eat the f#$%ing apples. And what do you do? You eat the f#$%ing apples…

Which was a good thing as it was from the tree of knowledge, live in bliss and ignorance or live with knowledge and do it the hard way

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

• Which was a good thing as it was from the tree of knowledge, live in bliss and ignorance or live with knowledge and do it the hard way

Unfortunately, it would seem that many politicians are taking the former, rather than the latter, path when it comes to Section 44…

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

It looks like elitism.

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

Yeah I couldn’t care, like you said with multiculturalism and white men representing the population for the most part isn’t really reflective of the makeup of our nation

transition said:

interesting that this has peaked during the peak of anti-terror activity

personally I think some of the anti-terror stuff lends to a distraction from some homegrown terror of an informal sort, nicely nested in its opposite, transparency and such.

it wasn’t so far back the head of a social media platform was hailing privacy is dead, and in conversation these days if you hear someone say people don’t care what they gossip about anymore, you’ll sense the licensing is out there, it’s permeated the social aether, a contagion.

much is made of privacy, noises, yet many people couldn’t write a paragraph on the subject indicating their life experience had taught them anything of it. There’d be nothing in the vocabulary other than some sort off-the-shelf ideas, not much more than closing the toilet door behind you on the way in.

what I see is an ideological tightening on behavior, behavior controls, an informal stasi.

democracy starts to bother me when it goes over the top denying the existence of the state, or hides of where state power resides (the informal aspects, ideology).

that’s where we’re at, I reckon.

hijacked by bullshit.

Fair comment

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

Yes. This is a homework and paperwork issue. No one is excluded from office because of their origin or ethnicity: if you’re a dual citizen you just need to attend to some administrative tasks before running for parliament, which is something that plenty of people managed to do without drama.

dv said:

Fair comment

When did you learn to speak Onty?

You can argue that it’s a silly rule but as long it’s in the constitution, would-be MPs have an obligation to abide by it.

Bubblecar said:

You can argue that it’s a silly rule but as long it’s in the constitution, would-be MPs have an obligation to abide by it.

+ as

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

it’d be a strange place if the bulk of persons moment-to-moment reality was dictated by the constructions of law, literally interpreted.

Bubblecar said:

You can argue that it’s a silly rule but as long it’s in the constitution, would-be MPs have an obligation to abide by it.

and the fact is it’s really not that silly of an idea… you really don’t want dual nationals representing your country’s interests

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Fair comment

When did you learn to speak Onty?

can I do a content-free post too?

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

it’d be a strange place if the bulk of persons moment-to-moment reality was dictated by the constructions of law, literally interpreted.

what you suggest is nonsense… it’s not moment to moment, it’s very simple… at time of nomination you can’t be a dual citizen or entitled to dual citizenship.

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

it’d be a strange place if the bulk of persons moment-to-moment reality was dictated by the constructions of law, literally interpreted.

what you suggest is nonsense… it’s not moment to moment, it’s very simple… at time of nomination you can’t be a dual citizen or entitled to dual citizenship.

Or, you could interpret the spirit of the law, which is that your or any potential citizenship rights are nulled by holding those positions. The alternative is to defer to another state for the answer, over the Australian state, which is contradictory. Not that I mind contradictions, just that one doesn’t wash with me.

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Fair comment

When did you learn to speak Onty?

can I do a content-free post too?

Sure, it’s a free country.

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

You can argue that it’s a silly rule but as long it’s in the constitution, would-be MPs have an obligation to abide by it.

and the fact is it’s really not that silly of an idea… you really don’t want dual nationals representing your country’s interests

Especially when all politicians represent the USA’s interests and Liberals big business and Labour the unions.

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

it’d be a strange place if the bulk of persons moment-to-moment reality was dictated by the constructions of law, literally interpreted.

what you suggest is nonsense… it’s not moment to moment, it’s very simple… at time of nomination you can’t be a dual citizen or entitled to dual citizenship.

Or, you could interpret the spirit of the law, which is that your or any potential citizenship rights are nulled by holding those positions. The alternative is to defer to another state for the answer, over the Australian state, which is contradictory. Not that I mind contradictions, just that one doesn’t wash with me.

the ‘spirit’ of the law is that it’s a bad idea to have dual nationals holding position of political representation and that you should take all reasonable steps to avoid it…

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

what you suggest is nonsense… it’s not moment to moment, it’s very simple… at time of nomination you can’t be a dual citizen or entitled to dual citizenship.

Or, you could interpret the spirit of the law, which is that your or any potential citizenship rights are nulled by holding those positions. The alternative is to defer to another state for the answer, over the Australian state, which is contradictory. Not that I mind contradictions, just that one doesn’t wash with me.

the ‘spirit’ of the law is that it’s a bad idea to have dual nationals holding position of political representation and that you should take all reasonable steps to avoid it…

of your love of the technicalities, in-practice it’s actually worked quite well, nobody was compromised, and it has not been demonstrated anyone was compromised, not even a hint.

money and media though jump borders all the time, with ease.

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

Or, you could interpret the spirit of the law, which is that your or any potential citizenship rights are nulled by holding those positions. The alternative is to defer to another state for the answer, over the Australian state, which is contradictory. Not that I mind contradictions, just that one doesn’t wash with me.

the ‘spirit’ of the law is that it’s a bad idea to have dual nationals holding position of political representation and that you should take all reasonable steps to avoid it…

of your love of the technicalities, in-practice it’s actually worked quite well, nobody was compromised, and it has not been demonstrated anyone was compromised, not even a hint.

money and media though jump borders all the time, with ease.

How many Russian sleeper agents do we have I wonder

Perhaps we need to say in parliament “Gosh, that Italian family at the next table sure is quiet”

I think they could probably adjust the swearing in so that part of it is relinquishing any rights to rights in another country, and handing in any passports you might have. But it still wouldn’t comply with the Constitution.

>Or, you could interpret the spirit of the law, which is that your or any potential citizenship rights are nulled by holding those positions

Trouble is, Australia has no power to limit the citizenship rights recognised by other countries.

You seem to be painting this as a Big Brother situation but it’s actually the opposite. Because the state has no power to renounce an individual’s foreign citizenship rights, it’s up to the individual to do so, if they want to serve in federal Parliament.

diddly-squat said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

In a country that is multicultural, where nearly half the population is from another country, and where the flag has two countries on it, the dual citizenship issue seems a bit odd.

being a multicultural nation isn’t the issue and I really dislike people using this as a strawman argument in defense of the problem… the issue is people’s inability to check if they are, or are entitled to, dual citizenship… like it or not, it’s a rule of the game and ignorance isn’t an adequate defense.

Ok

Bubblecar said:

You seem to be painting this as a Big Brother situation but it’s actually the opposite. Because the state has no power to renounce an individual’s foreign citizenship rights, it’s up to the individual to do so, if they want to serve in federal Parliament.

as my wife would say, do you have another idea?

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

You seem to be painting this as a Big Brother situation but it’s actually the opposite. Because the state has no power to renounce an individual’s foreign citizenship rights, it’s up to the individual to do so, if they want to serve in federal Parliament.

as my wife would say, do you have another idea?

AFAIA the only way to change the situation would be via referendum to change the constitution.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

You seem to be painting this as a Big Brother situation but it’s actually the opposite. Because the state has no power to renounce an individual’s foreign citizenship rights, it’s up to the individual to do so, if they want to serve in federal Parliament.

as my wife would say, do you have another idea?

AFAIA the only way to change the situation would be via referendum to change the constitution.

and no, I wasn’t suggesting any Big Brother, but certainly have suggested transparency and such can go off the rails into absurdity.