dairlom 发表于 29-9-2014 22:08
赞同.
看到那些蒙头裹面的人就心里发怵...
悉尼宝宝龙 发表于 30-9-2014 02:12
什么时候这些个僵尸人忽然从袍子里掏出个AK47你也不知道，当然赞同啦！
周星星1832 发表于 30-9-2014 06:32
也许是个美女。。。。
Serin 发表于 30-9-2014 08:06
所以更加要露出来才靠谱
蓝山夜妖 发表于 30-9-2014 10:01
“联邦不应制定任何法律……以禁止任何宗教的自由活动。”
如果人肉炸弹。。。换好听点，圣战，是宗教信 ...
"Prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"
The protection of the free exercise of religion was also interpreted narrowly in early High Court judgments.[31] In 1912, the court in Krygger v Williams[31][32] held that a person could not object to compulsory military service on the ground of religious belief. The court considered that Section 116 would only protect religious observance from government interference; it would not permit a person to be excused from a legal obligation merely because the obligation conflicted with his or her religious beliefs. In a 1929 case, Higgins, then a Justice of the High Court, suggested (as obiter dictum) that a person could lawfully object to compulsory voting on the grounds of religious belief.[33] However, in 1943, the court continued the narrow approach it took in Krygger v Williams, upholding war-time regulations that caused the Adelaide branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be dissolved and have its property acquired by the Commonwealth government. The government had declared the branch to be an organisation whose activities were "prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth": one of the branch's professed beliefs was that the government was an "organ of Satan". Chief Justice John Latham held that the Constitution permitted the court to "reconcile religious freedom with ordered government".[34][35]
In a 1997 case known as the Stolen Generations Case,[36] the court upheld an ordinance issued in 1918 that enabled the forcible removal of Indigenous Australian children from their families. The court reasoned that the purpose of the ordinance was not to prohibit the free exercise of religion even though the ordinance may have had that effect.[37] Peter Edge, an academic specialising in religion and the law, thus concludes that Section 116 will only "prevent legislation that has a prohibited purpose, rather than a prohibited effect".[38] Delivering her judgment, Justice Mary Gaudron denied that the provision confers rights upon individuals, commenting that it:
... does no more than effect a restriction or limitation on the legislative power of the Commonwealth. It is not, 'in form, a constitutional guarantee of the rights of individuals'... It makes no sense to speak of a constitutional right to religious freedom in a context in which the Constitution clearly postulates that the States may enact laws in derogation of that right.[39]
蓝山夜妖 发表于 30-9-2014 10:01
“联邦不应制定任何法律……以禁止任何宗教的自由活动。”
如果人肉炸弹。。。换好听点，圣战，是宗教信 ...
laoqiu 发表于 30-9-2014 17:24
这种罩袍意味着拒绝与周围人群交流，显然不符合澳洲价值观，应该鼓励所有人积极无障碍的与他人沟通，所以应 ...
nisejob 发表于 30-9-2014 20:04
当然反对
社会运行需要代价，文化多元化当然也是
周星星1832 发表于 30-9-2014 20:06
就等师哥来呢
nisejob 发表于 30-9-2014 20:08
你回的真快，24小时在线啊
@周星星1832 
nisejob 发表于 30-9-2014 20:06
前一段时间好像有个政治人物出来抱怨说中国人还是亚洲人移民不讲英语，--- 不讲英语当然妨碍与澳洲主流人 ...
jc2602 发表于 1-10-2014 11:21
我赞同的原因是可以看到更多中东波斯美女啦。。。。@周星星1832
jc2602 发表于 1-10-2014 11:35
我同学让我谢谢你先，另外我越她一起吃饭哈。。。
周星星1832 发表于 1-10-2014 11:41
感谢我。。约你吃饭是什么意思
jc2602 发表于 1-10-2014 11:48
好吧，表达有误，我越她然后我们一起吃饭，不带你。。。
jc2602 发表于 1-10-2014 11:54
那你来买单？
laoqiu 发表于 1-10-2014 11:28
一个是态度问题，一个是能力问题
中国人都希望学好英语，英语好了光荣，所以随着英语能力提高可以解决 ...
jgpyjwc 发表于 5-10-2014 00:48
衣服袍子我不介意 但那种遮脸只露两眼睛的面罩不行
人脸是人类交流的基本因素 需要看的见
周星星1832 发表于 5-10-2014 06:21
恩。。。都不能打望的
Meepok 发表于 13-10-2014 17:46
其實比較想知道：當她們出入境的時候，出入境管理員要如何辨別是不是本人（護照跟本人符不符合）？
請 ...
周星星1832 发表于 13-10-2014 18:58
不知道。。。。话说有一阵我超爱看border security的
我还有个问题。。他们护照照片戴没戴那个东东啊。 ...
Meepok 发表于 13-10-2014 20:50
也好愛看這節目呢！
好希望有一天也能遇上這節目，哈哈。
jc2602 发表于 1-10-2014 12:21
我赞同的原因是可以看到更多中东波斯美女啦。。。。@周星星1832
周星星1832 发表于 13-10-2014 01:54
那过海关的时候就不需要摘了啊。。和护照上一样就行了
最好不要上那个节目。。。上那个节目的 ...
| 欢迎光临 FreeOZ论坛 (https://hioz.im/ibbs/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |
