Are churches above the law?

[village_person]

Peter Dutton warns churches over sanctuary to asylum seekers

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has warned churches and cathedrals offering “sanctuary” to asylum-seekers facing deportation to Nauru that the government expects them to obey the law “no matter who you are”.

As reported in The Australian today, more than 10 churches across Australia have today begun offering to shield asylum-seekers under the ancient Christian tradition that people fleeing unjust civil authorities can reside permanently inside a church.

With a series of rallies scheduled to commence starting today at 12.30pm in Sydney, Mr Dutton said the churches would receive no special exemptions from the law.

“Churches provide a lot of assistance to refugees and they feel very strongly about these issues, I understand that. In the end people have to abide by Australian law, no matter who you are,” Mr Dutton told Sydney’s 2GB radio.

[...]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peter-dutton-warns-churches-over-sanctuary-to-asylu...

It would seem that theomania is rampant in Dr Peter Catt's house of worship.

[donnashuggy]

[***super_nova***]

---

@djilukjilly wrote:

Uh OK. I thought we were discussing the current situation with illegal immigrants and illegal immigration., not historic matters over 200 years ago.

---

Actually, I was talking about 20th century;  I know somebody who jumped ship in late1940s; while in port he met a girl here and stayed, and married her.  Later on applied for citizenship.  I also know somebody whose father did that; I am not sure if that happened before or after the WW2. 

People from Vietnam arriving by boats to north shores of Australia, that was after the war ended = from 1975 onwards.  I did not realise that was not obvious, especially as I mentioned Frazer; I would have been more specific with dates. 

How did you come to the conclusion that I am talking about historic matters over 200 years ago?

[village_person]

---

@bluecat*dancing wrote:

This new law made offshore detention legal but the Court did rule that indefinite detention was not, however, they stopped short of giving a suitable time frame.

---

The high court has already ruled that indefinite detention is legal.

Al-Kateb v Godwin was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002 Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza.[1] However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kateb_v_Godwin

Australian law should always prevail.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Poor b*gger, that situation just doesn't bear thinking abut.  His story did, eventually have a happy ending though, thank goodness.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/26/1192941339538.html

[village_person]

---

@bluecat*dancing wrote:

What bothers me is that the politicians can rush through retrospective legislation so that they can win a court case. It was this legislation that High Court had to base their ruling on.

---

Wrong:

LetThemStay: Thousands gather in Australia-wide protests against return of asylum seekers to Nauru

[...]

The case was launched by a Bangladeshi detainee on Nauru who was brought to Australia for treatment and later gave birth to her daughter in Brisbane.

Lawyers for the woman argued that it was illegal for the Australian Government to fund and operate detention centres in a third country.

But the High Court found the current policy was valid under the constitution.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-08/let-them-stay-protests-against-return-of-asylum-seekers-to-nau...

[donnashuggy]

[tezza2844]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

Peter Dutton warns churches over sanctuary to asylum seekers

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has warned churches and cathedrals offering “sanctuary” to asylum-seekers facing deportation to Nauru that the government expects them to obey the law “no matter who you are”.

Dutton seems to be a fool

---

 seems to be a fool ???????

[moonflyte]

It's a pity some of this outrage and energy wasn't directed to our homeless and indigenous peoples.

On that count I agree with Village Person and a lot of others on here do too.

[tommy.irene]

Here we go again. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abus...

[johcaschro]

But, but, but . . .  there's a lot more glamour and romance involved if people go to far away places to help people whose language they can't speak than there is in staying at home to help those needy folks who lie at our very own door-step.

You wouldn't want to deprive those admirable people the public acclaim  and  kudos they so rightly deserve (crave?) from helping the needy of other countries, while at the same time neglecting to help the needy citizens of their own land?

Well, would you?