In Chinese language (Mandarin and Cantonese apparently), the number ‘4’ is the same word as ‘death’. So much so that the number 4 is considered bad luck and that:
some buildings in East Asia omit floors and room numbers containing 4, similar to the Western practice of some buildings not having a 13th floor.
Some Chinese refer to the number ’44’ as double death because it is doubly bad luck. In Korean, the number ’44’ sounds like ‘died and deceased’.
It is thus rather ironic that the section of the Australian Constitution that is causing great angst for our political elite is Section 44 or perhaps as should better be known, Section Double Death.
Now Spartacus is para-physically unable to be a lawyer because he can see his reflection in a mirror. But as the simple slave that he is, when he reads the Australian Constitution, he reads it as plaintext; and Section 44 of the Australian Constitution says:
44. Any person who –
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
For any lawyers out there, can they please explain the basis of the arguments presented by 7 applicants to the High Court that they are not in breach of Section 44(i.). Particularly, as being a citizen of a foreign power seems a pretty clearly defined and binary condition. You either are or are not a citizen of a foreign power. How can there be something in between?
Are these applicants asking the High Court to make up law? You know, the High Court which is made up of 7 un-elected Justices who:
cannot be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Much like the Implied Freedom of Political Communication that was apparently found by an earlier High Court, are these applicants asking the High Court to find an Implied Freedom to Selectively Apply The Constitution?
The final determination of the High Court will be interesting to see, but if this is about the Government and the 7 applicants trying to play chicken with the High Court, I hope the applicants loose. ISHO (In Spartacus’ Humble Opinion), it would be better for a government to fall than for the Constitution to be corrupted.
Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus