Also, when something doesn't sound right to me, and I ask for a citation, it is absolutely not my job to find it or shrug and say 'You're right', it's the person who says it is. I don't know who the hell taught you to argue but FYI if you ever cite a law with serious debaters and someone asks "Hey, I think that sounds strange, what law is that? What's the text?" and you say "Go look it up." you'll get the stink eye, because on any claim, especially law, the person citing it is the one who expected to prove its true, not the person disputing it. If you claim Canadian law requires a snorkel in a public pool, I am damn well within my rights to say "Which law is that? What's the specific text?" and expect you to prove it or withdraw it.

This is basic stuff man, and with law doubly true because the snorkeling law might well say, "The manager of the public pool is permitted to require such equipment... ... as deemed reasonable at the time, e.g. snorkel." And in the ... ... it says "be used by an employee engaging in repairs or looking for lost items if he has decided not to drain the pool, and may require any non-employee assisting to don the same" and the whole thing changes.

But all of this is irrelevant because neither I or Moondog actually care about Aussie law, if he's wrong (he's not, I did look it up, and there are caveats too) it wouldn't matter, he'd just say "I wish the law here was X" and I'd reply, "I think that's morally wrong" and we'd continue. You're running on tangents again, same as your weird digression into my preferred choice of weapons to clear a room. You want to debate with me, then you either accept that claims, especially legal ones, get backed up on request with proper citation (which means the actual legal code) or you don't present the claim. Law rarely reads flat out the way casual readers, journalists, or wiki editors think it does and I certainly do not take 'trust me' as sufficient.