<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: a big week for the separation of powers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/</link>
	<description>a blog about things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:31:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-15337</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/#comment-15337</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;How detention in the home could be argued as not punitive is beyond me.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
But then how can detention pending migration appeals in worse-than-prison conditions be considered non-punitive?  

In Al-Kateb the majority elected to consider the purpose of detention rather than taking the (correct common law approach IMHO) of deciding whether the conditions of detention were in effect punitive.  

So I don&#039;t see why they would take a different line here, unless they choose to distinguish it from Al-Kateb on the basis that it is related to possible criminal activity or because they have come to see Al-Kateb as a mistake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>How detention in the home could be argued as not punitive is beyond me.</p></blockquote>
<p>But then how can detention pending migration appeals in worse-than-prison conditions be considered non-punitive?  </p>
<p>In Al-Kateb the majority elected to consider the purpose of detention rather than taking the (correct common law approach IMHO) of deciding whether the conditions of detention were in effect punitive.  </p>
<p>So I don&#8217;t see why they would take a different line here, unless they choose to distinguish it from Al-Kateb on the basis that it is related to possible criminal activity or because they have come to see Al-Kateb as a mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kemp</title>
		<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-15260</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kemp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/01/a-big-week-for-the-separation-of-powers/#comment-15260</guid>
		<description>How detention in the home could be argued as not punitive is beyond me. This is my article at LP when the legislation arrived in November 2005:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/11/19/the-new-banning-orders-anti-terrorist-bill-no-2-2005/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How detention in the home could be argued as not punitive is beyond me. This is my article at LP when the legislation arrived in November 2005:</p>
<p><a href="http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/11/19/the-new-banning-orders-anti-terrorist-bill-no-2-2005/" rel="nofollow">http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/11/19/the-new-banning-orders-anti-terrorist-bill-no-2-2005/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

