4 ms·

Nice juxtaposition. Compare the text of the Australian Capital Territory's (ACT) law in the parent's link: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or dissei

by femto 11y ago

Nice juxtaposition. Compare the text of the Australian Capital Territory's (ACT) law in the parent's link: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." With today's speech by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, to the ACT's Supreme Court [1]. "Examples of [Federal] government overreach, she said, included powers to indefinitely detain - without rights to judicial review - refugees, asylum seekers, the mentally ill, and those suffering from infectious diseases." The actions of the Australian Federal and ACT governments are diametrically opposite. The ACT government is the local government that looks after Australia's capital city, where the Australian Federal government sits and makes national laws. [1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-bill-of-rights-would-enshrine-fair-go-maxim-gillian-triggs-20150615-gho3lq.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra...

Ntrails 11y ago
Depends on your definition of freeman, of course. I'll lay odds that Aborigines (sp) were not considered to be covered at various points in history
cmdkeen 11y ago
That's the problem with Magna Carta, it doesn't actually mean anything. If you change "the law of the land" then you can do all of the things listed above - and note it doesn't even say "lawful judgement and" it is an "or" so you can have detention without trial, even execution without trial as long as it is the law.
- caf 11y ago
  It does mean something though; the point is that the Executive (in place of the Sovereign) can't just instruct the police to detain you on a whim - it has to be done in accordance with powers specifically granted by the people's representatives in Parliament. If you don't like the laws passed by Parliament, vote in different representatives!

by femto 11y ago

Ntrails 11y ago

Depends on your definition of freeman, of course. I'll lay odds that Aborigines (sp) were not considered to be covered at various points in history

cmdkeen 11y ago

That's the problem with Magna Carta, it doesn't actually mean anything. If you change "the law of the land" then you can do all of the things listed above - and note it doesn't even say "lawful judgement and" it is an "or" so you can have detention without trial, even execution without trial as long as it is the law.

caf 11y ago
It does mean something though; the point is that the Executive (in place of the Sovereign) can't just instruct the police to detain you on a whim - it has to be done in accordance with powers specifically granted by the people's representatives in Parliament. If you don't like the laws passed by Parliament, vote in different representatives!