Talk:Gladys Liu

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Liberal VIC (Gladys Liu).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential libellious content

I'm placing this here because I don't want to accidentally start an edit war. The section about Section 44, despite being true in its definition, is potentially WP:LIBEL. There are no reliable sources that suggest she is breaching this rule of the constitution, it's merely slapped on at the end by editors. I have attempted to find reliable sources that support that Liu could be breaching the constitution but no legal expert has come forward with the claim. The only source I could find from a lawyer stated that precedent is that "section 44, they said, will only operate on a person who has "formally or informally acknowledged" a foreign allegiance, and not withdrawn or revoked it", and that it would be unlikely to be applied to Liu. If there are lawyers that are supporting the claim, or a political party begins pushing for it to go to court, then it should be placed in the article. Catiline52 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the source used doesn't even describe Section 44. Catiline52 (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What a silly comment! The source CONTAINS Section 44!! The obvious reason for this controversy is the suggestion that Liu's allegiances lie elsewhere than Australia. Linking to the constitution explains why that could be a legal problem. The content has now been removed with the Edit summary "Obvious editorial, unrelated to the subject". That's nonsense. And how can linking to the country's Constitution be libel? That too is nonsense. Describing why some are concerned cannot be libel either. It is helpful content. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion results in the association that she broke a law. Until she is being convicted of it, or she is under a court case, or political parties are attempting to put it to the court, it's libellous to suggest otherwise. "The obvious reason for this controversy is the suggestion that Liu's allegiances lie elsewhere than Australia." She was previously in an organisation, she is currently not in it. During the citizenship issue last year, people who had citizenships in other countries which they had voluntarily relinquished prior to the election weren't seen as aligning to a foreign power. Although, the high court may decide differently if the case is brought to them. That, however, is uncertain, as it hasn't happened yet. Wikipedia is not the high court. Catiline52 (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"The inclusion results in the association that she broke a law." No it doesn't. It simply explains the case being presented by those who are criticising her. It doesn't say they are right. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Hong Kong Polytechnic University

"Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Australia) Association" as a citation seem not sufficient. It seem it is an alumni association. Who know they have a real check she is an alumni or not. Matthew hk (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)