Note that the countries voting against have strong Jew lobbies which
corrupt their politicians. And please also note that the jewsmedia do
not report how the country voted.

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44
abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy,
Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New
Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Even the head of the mission, Richard Goldstone, has since denounced
what he called a 'one-sided mandate' that was 'stacked against Israel'.

He was so repelled by the bias that he only accepted his appointment on
the basis of a verbal *assurance* by the president of the UNHRC that the
mission would also be empowered to investigate violations of
international law committed by Hamas during the Gaza conflict.

It is now clear that in accepting this assurance Goldstone allowed
himself to be deceived. On October 16, 2009, when the UNHRC resolved,
without the support of a single western democracy from among its 47
members, to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, the text of the
resolution was directed exclusively at Israel and made *no* *mention*
whatsoever of Hamas. It closely reflected the wording of the original
mandate that Goldstone himself had rejected".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-blind-eye-to-hamas-atr...

Shortly after the ceasefire:
'"Today, Hamas Gangs Are Unleashed Like Packs of Animals on the Streets
of Gaza Against Fatah Members" Yasser Abd Rabbo: "Yesterday, we heard
Khaled Mash’al talking from Damascus about new, additional preconditions
for national reconciliation – the only goal of which is to hinder the
achievement of reconciliation'.
Al-Jazeera, January 2009

"He [Abu Marzouq] said that they have [captured] collaborators, and they
have already executed some, while others await their turn".
(Abu Marzouq, interview with Qatari Al-Sharq newspaper)

The 'collaborators' being anyone who criticizes the policy of Hamas.

The reality is that Hamas have committed atrocities against:
1. Israeli civilians (with indiscriminate rocket attacks)

2. Their political opponents - by murdering members of fatah

3. Their own people - by taking (i.e. stealing) UN aid and fuel,
including fuel destined for the hospital

4. Their own children - by using them as human shields

WHY ARE THESE ATROCITIES NOT BEING INVESTIGATED?

THE UN IS THOROUGHLY COMPROMISED

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc

I work for one of the world's largest IT providers and when discussing
things with the owner, he said "does your solution work with Windows
3.1?"

I said "I have no idea!"  "Why?".

It turns out that the company he was referring to as a prospect was
Olympia Tile, which became "Olympia and York", they built the
institution in London England's docklands.  You may know of Canada
Place.   Once owned by Paul Riechmann and his family.

Apparently they're really cheap!  Still on Windows 3.1 with printers
that are 15 years-old!  Paul lives not far from where I do in a Jewish
suburb of Toronto, and (as is well known) lives like a middle class
person in a middle class home, in a massive Jewish neighbourhood.

He was in the news back in the 1990's when his neighbour, Bonnie
Lindros, took him to court over a fence.

Bonnie is the mother of a famous Canadian ice hockey player, Eric
Lindros!   (the Lindros parents were known to be "oft litigatious")

And we all thought that rich Jews lived in massive houses!

So, anyway.  Paul was forced out of the Docklands property just this
year.   And still lives in a 2,000 square foot house in a Jewish area
of Toronto.

He's a Hasidic (Orthodox) Jew, BTW.

Search the Web for "Goldstone Report" and you can get at the top of
the list

www.ungoldstonereport.com/index.html
www.thegoldstonereport.com
www.goldstonereport.org

None are official sites for the report. They are all part of the jew
effort to flood the WWW with the message that Goldstone (a Jew) was
biased. Don't be deceived by the official-looking web addresses. They
are funded jew propaganda creations. One even used the UN logo.

Dig deeper and you will find the actual Goldstone Report under the Jew
propaganda

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-1...

Check the Table of Contents to find

PART THREE: ISRAEL
XXIV. THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND
MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN ARMED
GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL .................................. 1594-1691
page 346

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc?

(rest ignored)

Goldstone Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-1...

Chapter XXIV
THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN
ARMED GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL

Chapter VII.
ATTACKS ON GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND POLICE

Chapter X
INDISCRIMINATE ATTACKS BY ISRAELI ARMED FORCES RESULTING IN THE LOSS
OF LIFE AND INJURY TO CIVILIANS

hapter XI
DELIBERATE ATTACKS AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION

Chapter XII
THE USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS

Chapter XIII
ATTACKS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF CIVILIAN LIFE IN GAZA: DESTRUCTION OF
INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, FOOD PRODUCTION, WATER INSTALLATIONS,
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND HOUSING

A. The destruction of el-Bader flour mill
B. The destruction of the Sawafeary chicken farms
C. The destruction of water and sewage installations
D. The destruction of housing
E. Analysis of the pattern of widespread destruction of economic and
infrastructural targets

That is zionism for you. They set back the development of Gaza as a
civil society in order to help then colonize Palestine.

The jews set back Lebanon "20 years" for the same reason.

The jews crippled got USA to destroy Iraq for the same reason.

Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,

I believe that we have had this discussion previously:

1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to
safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people.
2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the
Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.

My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should
be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi).
Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to
savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which
can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)

With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers
of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does
NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.

If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take
place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is
what would happen, the International Community would ostracise
Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America,
leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without
the global community.

Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not
only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia,
they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome
Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)

Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the
Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help
White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.

My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:

After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth
enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely

1. Race Discrimination Act 1975
2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia

The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia:
Documentary
How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to
pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police
to harass and victimise australians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is
"discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.

Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people
to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?

You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".

We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee
(chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights,
and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory"
laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the
intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their
corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way,
ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in
denying the existence of the Holocaust.

The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all,
they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined
"discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.

We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's
game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask
is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost
continuously being moved !

M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne
J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the
Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before
the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary.
Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of
ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it
say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court
application?

The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief
Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew
about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him
the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and
judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?

Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00Y...

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00N...

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00Z...

The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are
applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their
friends they can save.

eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs
in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the
RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can
set up Nuclear dumps.

Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an
incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?

Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member
John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT
jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and
evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst
case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we
brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including
French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.

Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in
Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will
be tested in the High Court.

These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal
responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to
deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the
Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial
officers?

As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by
order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious
Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting
extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and
glad to see you using).

Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the
validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of
corrupt judicial officers and government officials.

If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will
test it out in the court of law in case

VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR
on the 26th October 2009 @ 10:00 am
6th Floor (?)
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Telephone       (03) 8600 3333

This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs
and they decided to sweep it under the carpet;
Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges
Inquiry into Access to Justice
They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites
want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in
excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying
out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of
Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.

This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing
discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act,
with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting
justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.

Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is
dead in Australia.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka

    I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about
racism but what I found was;
    Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008)
    QUOTE
    HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that
racial discrimination is unlawful.
    END QUOTE
    .

    It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no
powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically
provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race
and so can discriminate!

    As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally
permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation
purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.

    Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against
any specific race and is entitled to do so.

    .

    What however is the problem is that a special legislation against
a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this
legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.

    .

    The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive
in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the
true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used
against Aboriginals.

    .

    As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions
of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth
is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general
community.

* The IDF had a responsibility to protect their own civilian population
and in fact chose ground invasion *precisely* to minimise civilian
casualties

* The IDF did not deliberately target the civilian population of Gaza

* Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields (Goldstone claimed
otherwise)

* The Goldstone Report used biased and politicized information from the
UN HRC and members of the mission itself
(If Palestinian aid ever dries up, what happens to these 'aid industries'?)

* The report relied upon 'contributions' from anti-Israel NGOs
unreliable PLO "eyewitnesses"

* Israel has a sophisticated legal and judicial system. Why was court
evidence and Israeli sources not used?

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
  - KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
  - Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
  - Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
  - Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
  - Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
  - Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
  - Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
  - FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
  - KRudd the KRude at his finest again.

"Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF" <""noujwas\"@yahoo.com