Strangely, population growth in Australia is taken as "a given" by the croaking ideologues. Any policy measure, any forecasting about the future, any public debate simply accepts that it will continue to grow like a cancerous tumour. Of course, land speculators and plague landlords openly welcome how growing demand from immigration increases the price of real estate on which they have acquired a monopoly. The dysfunctional globalist politicians know their "popularity" depends on the ability to serve up demented optimism on command, resulting in a culture of pure bullshit. Dangerous lunacy.
Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
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
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
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.
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 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.
"We'll just change it all when we get in." - Garrett the carrott
Benway (original non-Zionist) wrote: > Strangely, population growth in Australia is taken > as "a given" by the croaking ideologues. Any > policy measure, any forecasting about the future, > any public debate simply accepts that it will > continue to grow like a cancerous tumour. > Of course, land speculators and plague landlords > openly welcome how growing demand from immigration > increases the price of real estate on which they > have acquired a monopoly. > The dysfunctional globalist politicians know their > "popularity" depends on the ability to serve up > demented optimism on command, resulting in a > culture of pure bullshit. Dangerous lunacy.
************************************
Fear not, priority will be given to protecting the assets and privileges of the more wealthy members of the global elite, as their comfort is considered of supreme importance. Because people migrate to better their economic circumstances, it's a safe bet they'd be emitting more CO2 in prosperous Australia than they were before. A population of 20,000,000 and our major river system is dead. Just how far towards environmental doom and destruction do we want to go?
"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.
"We'll just change it all when we get in." - Garrett the carrott
Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
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
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
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.
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.
"There was a 70 per cent increase in the number of Australians of Islamic faith between 1996 and 2006 – during the Howard government’s term in office – census data shows."
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:11:28 -0800 (PST), Robin Hood
<ex_liberal_vo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >"There was a 70 per cent increase in the number of Australians of >Islamic faith between 1996 and 2006 – during the Howard government’s >term in office – census data shows."
And?
BTW you drop kick, what has this to do with the subject?
Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia (French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)
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
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
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.
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.
Benway (original non-Zionist) wrote: > Strangely, population growth in Australia is taken > as "a given" by the croaking ideologues. Any > policy measure, any forecasting about the future, > any public debate simply accepts that it will > continue to grow like a cancerous tumour. > Of course, land speculators and plague landlords > openly welcome how growing demand from immigration > increases the price of real estate on which they > have acquired a monopoly. > The dysfunctional globalist politicians know their > "popularity" depends on the ability to serve up > demented optimism on command, resulting in a > culture of pure bullshit. Dangerous lunacy.
**********************************************
It is interesting the degree to which the right-wing and left-wing media drones have become "harmonized" in their views about toxic immigration which is re-labelled as multi-culturalism. The "citizens" are not to be consulted about this issue. Most Australians are sleepwalking through this massive demographic change in their country. Australia is becoming dangerously segregated, forming an apartheid economy. It is no accident that feral immigration is so billionaire-friendly.
|
