NB:
The contents of this Web Page could pose a challenge to your cherished opinions, theories, beliefs and convictions. Especially those people who are subservient to or limited by the orthodoxy,dogma,doctrine or ideology of the organisation/s they have allegiance to. To those who believe they should and can challenge some or all of that which is contained herein, are invited to do so, provided that their challenge is logical, rational, and not clouded by emotive arguments. However,
I must state that my forte is logical and intellectual acuteness, and if anyone reading these words wants to engage in an intellectual and logical duel,they are advised that whilst there will be some blood lost, most of it will be theirs and that they should have someone standing by to give them a blood transfusion.
Finally, I am aware the of possibility that I will be considered an enigma, an anathema, eccentric or all three, depending on who reads the following. However, it is important to note that I do not have any affiliation with any organisation whatsoever be it, political, religious, financial,economic,social or environmental. Consequently, I am not, nor will I ever be subservient to or limited by any form of orthodoxy, doctrine, dogma or ideology of any organisation; therefore, I can state with conviction, that
I am absolutely impartial and unorthodox -in the fullest sense of the word. Being unorthodox is not to be confused with non-conformity former is the perverse desire for individuals to be themselves, and are obstinate in their reluctance to conform to the pattern which the political and financial bosses deem it, at the moment, most convenient to impose. The latter is merely a challenge to legitimate authority, and those who profess to be non-conformists, are in my considered opinion those who denounce any form of authority and would and do use liberty as a license to do whatever they want to do, without considering the consequences to other citizens. Finally,In Brave New World Revisited, the author Aldous Huxley, state that to be normal was to be unorthodox and to be abnormal was to be orthodox. Therefore, if some people want to categorise me as an enigma, a curse, eccentric, then they should add unorthodox (normal) to their assessment of me. I would refer to be all the aforementioned, than to be an Orwellian �good-thinker�, who never questions or challenges whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is, be it political, religious, financial, economic, social or environmental.
Hello! My name is William. I am Spirit experiencing humanhood in a Parenthesis in Eternity. Whilst some of my experiences have been exasperating, I have to acknowledge that every aspect of this journey be it, positive or negative, has been my state of consciousness made manifest. In other words, I have been reaping what I have sown. Moreover, my present state of consciousness is a reflection of the sum total of all that I have set in motion, throughout an unknown number of embodiments. In this parenthesis I have had the privilege of knowing when I was reaping what I had sown, and in one experience I became aware within 20 minutes.
The fact that I know that whatever I sow I shall reap ( if not today, then tomorrow or fifty years hence), does not guarantee that I am immune from criticism, condemnation or indulging in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. The reason being that it is human nature to be judgmental, critical, to seek revenge, not to admit to the foibles of family and friends but always ready declare the misconduct of outsiders ,which is a double standard, contradictory and hypocrisy. There are some people who believe and or insist that all that is required to be a " good" Christian is adherence to The Ten Commandments. Yet how many of them have an understanding of their inner meaning ? Without this understanding, millions of people are ignorantly violating one or more of these injunctions. It is my considered opinion that the Commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" , is one that is least comprehended. The key to the understanding of the above is in the words false witness and neighbour. Firstly, to bear false witness usually means to tell a lie or lies, but in a spiritual sense it means not referring to your neighbour as good or bad, but to acknowledge the reality of his or her being. Secondly, in a spiritual sense neighbour applies to person, place, thing, condition or circumstance . Therefore, if this inner meaning is correct, then when we refer to a person, place ,thing, condition or circumstance as being good or bad, rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, saint or sinner, beautiful or ugly, we are bearing false witness against our neighbour. Moreover, for the benefit of the nominal Christians and the fundamentalists, the principle of as ye sow, so shall ye reap, applies to thought, word or dead and was confirmed by the Master, when he warned that thinking of adulterous thoughts about your neighbour, would incur the same consequences as the actual deed. It should be added here that it only applied to those who consistently and deliberately considered an adulterous relationship. (Later I will quote four examples of consistently and consciously thinking of seeking revenge, but the thoughts were never acted upon. Nonetheless, because I was consciously dwelling on what I was planning to do, I experienced minor examples of what I was intending to do).
Before any misunderstanding arises, I do not have any allegiance or affiliation with any organisation whatsoever. Thus I am not enslaved or limited by any form of orthodoxy, dogma, doctrine or ideology, be it religious, political, environmental, financial, economic or social. Nor will I knowingly prostrate integrity in the fullest sense of the word ( in all aspects of my human affairs), before the altars of : Orthodoxy, hypocrisy, public opinion, double standards, pretense, indifference, expediency, superficiality, profanity, ambiguity, mediocrity, cliches, jargon, Orwellian "Newspeak", the misuse of words, the incomplete expression of ideas/thoughts, lack of qualification and quantification when required and the RAPE of the English language. Some facets of integrity in the fullest sense of the word are as follows;honesty,mercy, fidelity,honour, forthrightness, loyalty (but not misguided), responsibility, confidentiality, trustworthiness, impartiality, reliability, justice,
respect, consideration and more. Furthermore, I have an appreciation for and thrive on intellectual and logical acuteness. Which is essential in discerning opinions, theories, convictions or beliefs that are based on erroneous foundations and being able to prove it. That is why the Latin phrase Reductio ad absurdum appeals to me. It means; a method of proof whereby a proposition is proven to true, by demonstrating (logically) the absurdity of its contradictions.
As some of you are aware,I have been posting (on other sites see links) original or amended articles,essays or quotations, with the latter usually in the original the reason being that they were examples of the various forms of orthodoxy,ignorance,hypocrisy,double standards, contradictions, indifference, expediency, sophistry etc. I shall be revealing the numerous ways in which the masses have been condition not to actually give complete expression to their thoughts and ideas, and have been indulging in the equivalent of verbal or written diarrhoea or effluent, a form of �Newspeak�. For those of you who have read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the stated rationale for �Newspeak� was to limit the range of thought, by deliberately reducing the number of words available.(Especially if the available words were limited to one or two syllables).The first example of the ignorance of the populace will be the System OF Government that is supposed operate in Australia,a brief description of the rules, and that to blame the party or in dependent politicians for the financial and economic destruction of Australia is unjustified. Why? Because every Australian who has been or is eligible to vote has abrogated their responsibility to know the above, surrendered their Supreme Prerogative to select an acceptable citizen from their electorate ( not have a party or independent and ignorant politician foisted upon them), a person who knows and accepts that if elected, that the one and only responsibility is to re-present a majority directive of his or her electorate, to the Crown for Royal Assent,provided that such majority directive is within the rules( the Australian Constitution and the Statutes of Westminster). Some of these statutes are Magna Carta, the 1688 Bill of Rights and the Habeas Corpus Act. These are still a part Australian Law
as a consequence of the Imperial Applications Act,which ensured that we had a Bill of Rights and that it was inviolable and could only be amended or annulled via a Referendum .Not only has every Australian abrogated their aforementioned responsibility,they have not awakened to the fact that as constituents,their relationship to their representative(messenger),is one of employer and employee. When do employees tell their employers what they want to do and when? Unless the employees are part of a militant union. Given the above, you the employers have and still do give your employees, carte blanche to do anything that they or their controllers want to do and when. Including the denial of the Sanctity of the individual, the Supreme Prerogative to be an individual and the usurpation of Civil Liberties. All under the pretense of the war against �Terrorism�.The absurdity of this is that the word �terrorism� is an abstract noun .How can you wage a war against an abstraction? This would be akin to a war against �Love�.Absurd!!
Before I do anything else I shall repeat the paragraph on perspicuity and exactitude one or two articles and some quotations, because they are of significance and will be relevant to what follows later.
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable and to give an air of solidity to pure wind".
"If language can corrupt thought, then thought can corrupt language".
�At any given moment there is orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed every right-thinking person will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is �not done� to say it, as it was in mid-Victorian times it was �not done� to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given an impartial hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals".The aforementioned are by George Orwell.
�In a time of universal deceit, truth is considered a revolutionary act�.I think this was spoken by the late Martin Luther King.
�Truth is always subversive.� � Martha Gellhorn
It is of the utmost consequence that accuracy should regulate our use of language, and that everyone should acquire the capacity and requisite discipline to express their thoughts with perspicuity and exactitude. Few, indeed, can appreciate the extent and importance of the influence which language has always exercised on human affairs, or can be aware how often these are determined by causes much slighter than are apparent to a superficial observer. A sophistry, disguised under specious phraseology, too often gains the assent of the unthinking multitude, disseminating far and wide the seeds of prejudice and error. Truisms pass current, and wear the semblance of profound wisdom, when clothed in tinsel garb of antithetical phrases, or set off by an imposing pomp of paradox. By a confused jargon of involved and mystical sentences, the imagination is easily inveigled into a transcendental region of clouds and the ignorant beguiled into the belief that they are acquiring knowledge and approaching truth. A misapplied or misapprehended term is sufficient to engender fierce and interminable disputes, a misnomer has repudiated popular opinion, a verbal sophism has decided a party question; an artful watchword, thrown among combustible materials, has kindled the flame of deadly warfare, and diverted the destiny of an empire. From the introduction to Roget's Thesaurus.
Centralised Authority
�Where a centralised authority undertakes to implement plans for a whole society, it is compelled by the bewildering complexity of the given facts to follow the example of the scientific experimenter, who arbitrarily simplifies his problem in order to make it manageable. In a laboratory this is a sound and entirely justifiable procedure. But when applied to the problems of human society, the process of simplification is a process, inevitably, of restrain and regimentation, of curtailment of liberty and denial individual prerogatives. Thia reduction of human diversity to a quasi-mechanical identity is achieved by propaganda, by legal enactments and, if necessary, by brute forced � by the imprisonment, exile or liquidation of those persons, or classes who persist in their perverse desire to remain themselves and are obstinate in their reluctance to conform to the pattern which the political and economic bosses deem it, at the moment, most convenient to impose. Philosophically, this eradicating of individual idiosyncrasies is held to be respectable, because it is analogous to what is done by scientists, when they arbitrarily simplify an all too complex reality, so as to make nature comprehensible in terms of a few general laws. A highly organised and regimented society, whose members exhibit a minimum of personal peculiarities and whose collective behaviour is governed by a single master plan imposed from above, is considered by the planners and(such is the power of propaganda) by the plannees to be more 'scientific', and therefore better, than a society of independent, freely co-operating and self governing individuals.
PS: I have read three books which have as one their themes Centralised Authority, and they are Brave New World (Aldous Huxley),This Perfect day (Ira Levin - the author of Rosemary's Baby) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell). The latter differed from the others in that the regimentation and regulation of everyone's affairs from the cradle to the grave was achieved through fear and possible arrest by the "thought police" for some unspecified crime against "Big Brother". Whereas, in Brave New World this control was achieved genetically, the use of hypnopedia and if anyone became restless they could relieve there anxiety by ingesting " SOMA". In This Perfect Day, the regimentation of masses was achieved through propaganda ( Unicomp -the one and only all-knowing computer new what was best for everybody), and monthly injections which were designed for and had the effect of making the recipients docile and compliant. One ingredient of the treatment was to ensure that death occurred between the ages of 62 and 65.
-Aldous Huxley in Science, Liberty an Peace.
I reiterate, every Australian has abrogated their responsibilities and in doing so have to accept the consequences . What are the consequences? Draconian laws, rules and regulations, the denial of the Sanctity of the individual and his or her Supreme Prerogative and the usurpation of Civil Liberties. At this juncture It is appropriate to quote the preamble of the United States Declaration of Independence for reasons which should be obvious, then to summarise the rules pertaining to the governance OF the Australian people.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights(prerogatives), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... That to secure these rights prerogatives), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers(authority) from the consent of the governed,...That whenever any Form OF Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right(prerogative) of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new (system)Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers (authority) in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that (systems of) Government(s) long established should not be changed (replaced) for light (petty) and transient causes; and accordingly all experiences hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right (correct) themselves by abolishing the forms (OF government) to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same Objective evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right (prerogative), it is their duty, to throw off such Government (Despotism) and to provide new Guards for their future security....Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems OF Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain (James 11?) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. The next page of this document lists all the grievances that signatories were objecting to.
PS: For those interested, the list of grievances stated in the Declaration of Independence and the 1688 Bill of Rights are, with some minor variations ,almost identical. Both of these documents can be accessed via the Internet. In my considered opinion the Bill of Rights should have been named the Bill of Limitations. Because it puts constraints on anyone who would, if they could, usurp their authority (the politicians and the Crown) so as to establish an Absolute Tyranny.
The reason for quoting the above was bring to your attention the fact that governments do not, and never have, existed as entities or identities. Hence the reference to the use of the words � Form OF Government�. The words in parenthesis are in my considered opinion to be replaced or included. The key word to be considered is OF. When people and politicians talk of �the� government, they are uttering nonsense. Moreover, their has never been a prime minister, a premier or a councilor, who has been � the� government at a local,state or federal level. When comrade Howard refers to his party as �my�government, or the media refer to �the� Howard government, this is propaganda. The term prime minister is a construct of the political parties and is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution. Whilst I can not verify the origins of premier,I would suggest it also is a contrivance of the political parties. Whilst I acknowledge that the intentions of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were noble, it is my considered opinion that authors should have given more consideration as to their choice of words. For example, the word power is suggestive of unrestrained control whereas, the word authority, is indicative of control with limitations. Please note the underlined passage of the Declaration of Independence - with some textual alterations � would apply to Australia. The following is my paraphrasing: �The history of the present Queen Elizabeth 11 is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an Absolute Tyranny over the citizens of Australia. If the Queen were to be the Monarch in 1688, she would have been told abdicate, or be beheaded From the time of the first Bill for an Act of Parliament which the Queen or her representative gave Royal Assent to, which contravened the Rules, that would be an act of SEDITION,and the Queen should have been told to abdicate, or be imprisoned.
The System OF Government and How it came about.
When the States Federated in 1901, we in effect became our own law, instead of being subservient to British Law. There were, however, seventeen Acts of British Parliament that HAD to be incorporated somehow into our Australian Law. Why?
Because these are seventeen Statutes of Westminster which the Queen swears in her Coronation Oath to uphold. These include the Magna Carta of 1215, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1641(which forbids the detaining of citizens in custody without first being brought before a Court of Law ,and being officially charged with an offense. Which means the legislation empowering ASIO to arrest and detain citizens without DUE PROCESS, is in breach of this rule and is according to the Commonwealth Crimes Act ,1914, an act of SEDITION, punishable by 25 years imprisonment), and the Bill of Rights Act of 1688 ( which states that is the prerogative of all free citizens to own a firearm of their choosing, that is adequate for the defense of themselves, their families and the Realm. Therefore, it is an act of SEDITION!! to disarm free citizens, and I reject any emotive arguments of the bleeding-hearts, the �we know what is best for everybody else� brigade- which includes the independent or party politicians and anti-gun proponents. Because a disarmed citizenry is defenseless against an armed DESPOTISM!! Armaments of any type do act of their own volition. Someone has to bull the trigger, launch a missile or drop a bomb. Any Australian who believes that the DISARMING of the world's citizenry will result in world peace, are deluding themselves. This is a necessary prelude to establishing a NEW WORLD ORDER, which is a veiled euphemism for a One World Dictatorship, under the auspices of the United Nations).
The way that these seventeen Acts were incorporated into our law, was that each and every State passed legislation, known in each State as the Imperial Acts Applications Act. That is, in every State of Australia there is an Act of State Parliament, which specifically brings into that State's laws, these seventeen Statutes of Westminster. These in turn, form the basis of how the monarch agrees to govern us. That is, all laws passed must be in accordance with these Statutes. Therefore, if, as can be demonstrated nearly all laws since the Monarch's investure, must be deemed to be invalid because they were in violation of the Rules OF Government. The Queen in Swearing the Coronatio0n Oath, would have had to be cognizant of the rules she was agreeing to uphold. It follows logically,that the Queen would have to ensure that her representatives, would be conversant with the Rules OF Government, before they were nominated for appointment as her representative. The appointment of a Governor General has to be at the behest of the citizenry, not the Monarch or a political party or its leader.
The only reason we have a Governor General, is to represent the Queen in Australia. The Queen's and therefore the Governor General's sole official job and responsibility, is to ensure that we the people are governed in accordance with certain principles embodied in the seventeen Statutes of Westminster and the Australian Constitution (which was drafted in such a way as to prevent the establishment of an all-powerful centralised government), and transferred into each State's laws by the Imperial Acts Applications Act.
THE HISTORY OF THE 1688 BILL OF RIGHTS AND RECENT UNLAWFUL ATTEMPTS TO DISPLACE IT!!
In 1215, the �freemen� of the time in England, became weary of despotic king, and rallied against him. Eventually, when the king was all but defeated, the people agreed to let him continue as Monarch, but only if he signed an agreement, guaranteeing freemen certain inalienable rights, and seriously curtailing the Monarch's powers to control the people in the future. This document is called the Magna Carta, and it forms the basis of all so-called �Westminster� law since. As such, it is known as the first �Statute of Westminster� .One of the few surviving copies of the original of this document is,or was, on display in Australia's new Parliament House, in pride of place, attesting to its importance in our history, and its place as the beginning of all our law.
Over the centuries there have been other despotic monarchs (and presidents as in America), and on each occasion the people have rallied, asserted their dominion, and forced new agreements and concessions. The last of these occurred in the 1600's. On that occasion the people rallied against a despotic King, and eventually beheaded him, and played with being a republic for a while.(see Cromwell et al). Eventually, however, they decided they preferred being a monarchy, and invited a couple, William and Mary of Orange, blood related to the line of English Monarchs, to come to England and establish a new Monarchy.
First, however, they insisted that William and Mary sign an agreement, a �Bill of Rights�, establishing the limitations imposed on the crown in the matter of governing the people. That document is known as the �1688 Bill of Rights�.Before William and Mary could become the Monarchs, they had to swear an oath, known as the �Coronation Oath�, agreeing to limit the power of the Crown to what had been written in the various Statutes of Westminster, from Magn Carta, down to and including the 1688 Bill of Rights. Every Monarch since, including the incumbent one, has had to agree by way of the same Coronation Oath, to govern only in accordance with, and within the limits of, those Statutes. Thus the 1688 Bill of Rights became, and remains, part of British Law.
When the Australian States agreed to Federation, and a new Constitution was formulated, it was agreed that certain British Laws would automatically be carried through into our (Australian) laws. Indeed some of them, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, simply cannot be eliminated by any Act of Parliament, nor by the Monarchs themselves.
At the time of Federation, each State passed a law known as the Imperial Applications Act, embodying and passing on into their law, these previous English ones. In each State, the Imperial Applications Act includes a schedule of those laws; it is called the Imperial Enactments Continued in Force. Elsewhere in this fax you find a copy of the two relevant pages from our Queensland laws. You will see that the relevant Act, The Bill of Rights, was given Royal Assent by William and Mary in 1688. ( This King William later became a despot by accepting a loan of 1.2 million pounds - from the Bank of England -at 8%.It must be remembered the Magn Carta imposed the death penalty on anyone charging interest).
The date of this latest version of the Imperial Enactments Act, 1984, so the relevant Bill of Rights was still part of our law then, and any politician or lawyer who argues that the Bill was never, or is not now, part of Australian law is either misinformed or trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. You will find similar �Imperial Applications Act with the same Schedule of Imperial Enactments In Force in each State's main library, relevant to that State's laws, as one can be found in every State Library relevant to every State's laws.
What is so specifically important about the 1688 Bill of Rights is that, at the time it was drafted, the intention was that the people, and ONLY the people , could ever amend, change, alter, or scrap it, or replace it with a new Bill of Rights. In describing itself and its life the Bill specifically excludes ( for what should be obvious reasons ) the power of the Crown, and of the Parliament from altering or amending it.
This specifically relates to the actions of the current Governor General. If this Bill, the 1688 Bill of Rights, simply cannot be altered, changed or amended or scrapped by the Monarch, then it follows by logical succession that it is beyond the power of the Monarch's mere representative in Australia to alter it. That is, if the position of Regent does not have the power, then the position of Vice Regent certainly does not.
It is also made clear in the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914, that to attempt to subvert the course of government is an act of SEDITION. �Government� is not merely or partially the group of people who are elected to parliament, nor the building that houses them. � Government � in this context is the collection of Statutes and legislation which forms the basis of our law. Should anybody, attempt to usurp the powers contained therein, they have committed the crime of � SEDITION�. Since only � the people � have the power to amend or scrap the 1688 Bill of Rights, and then any attempt by any other individual or instrumentality is an act of �SEDITION �.
In 1966, the United Nations formulated an agreement, officially known as the � International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights � (ICCPR), and as such was presented as a � universal bill of rights �. Various Australian governments have tried to convince the Australian people to adopt this into our constitution as our Bill of Rights, and have always met total and complete opposition.
It should be carefully noted that it was the Fraser LIBERAL government which initially ratified this � International Treaty � thereby clearing the way for it to subsequently be unlawfully incorporated into Australian law, by yet again abusing the Foreign Affairs ( External Treaties ) Powers, as has happened with the World Heritage Listing Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and many other examples.
The main reason for all the public opposition has been the fact that the ICCCPR, unlike our existing 1688 Bill of Rights, does not specifically include and define the right of the individual to acquire and keep private property. (Keeping in mind that �private property� is far more reaching than real estate or houses ). Other rights, such as the right to free speech, the right to freedom of association, the right to trial by jury, and other rights considered fundamental to Australians and guaranteed in the 1688 Bill, are either seriously fettered or eliminated altogether in the ICCPR.
Perhaps the most insidious thing about the ICCPR is the way it is worded. Unlike the 1688 Bill of Rights, which is written in such a way as to guarantee us all freedom, and limit the power of the State, the ICCPR works in reverse; that is it is worded in such a way that all �rights � are conditional � they are � granted � by the State, and are subject to � conditions � that may be imposed by the State. Under such circumstances, Australians are correct in rejecting a � Bill of Rights � that does not mention the � right � to own private property, not with such � conditions � as the State may wish to attach.
Despite the fact that the idea of adopting the ICCPR has been continuously, strenuously, and almost universally rejected by the Australian people, the political party controlled governments of Australia have since 1986, been covertly bringing more and more of into our law, and supposedly displacing our rights and freedoms as defined in the 1688 Bill of Rights. This process was largely started with the legislation to form the Human Rights ans Equal Opportunities Commission, which has written into its charter whole chunks of the ICCPR almost verbatim.
Other sections have been quietly slipped in, often without debate in Parliament, under the auspices of of the Foreign Affairs (External Treaties) Powers. The final step, the � coupe de grace� was the Royal Assent given to the Second Optional Protocol, ICCPR, by Bill Hayden, done on 25/09991, and worded in such a way as to come into effect on 25/12/1991, when everybody would be on holiday, and nobody would notice.
As has been presented, this is simply not allowable under the wording of the 1688 Bill of Rights, and to do so is an act of SEDITION. Nonetheless, it has been done, and therefore somebody has committed an act of SEDITON. As nothing of this nature becomes official until it is assented to by the monarch, or their representative, the Governor General, then the act of giving that assent to something which is an act of SEDITION against the people of Australia, must be an act of SEDITION in itself.
In summary then, Australia has an existing Bill of Rights which is the culmination of eight hundred years of history, which guarantees them their fundamental rights, and protects them from unlimited despotic, and dictatorial power. By wording of this Act, it is a crime, the crime of SEDITION, for anybody else other than the people themselves to try and change, alter, scrap or amend these rights, or substitute any others in their place, excepting by REFERENDUM.
Nonetheless, such a replacement, the replacement of the 1688 Bill of Rights with the United Nations ICCPR, has been attempted. The man responsible, ie the person who attempted to do this �officially �, is the current Governor General, Mr Bill Hayden, ably aided and abetted by by the then Hawke government AND previous Fraser government. When such acts of SEDITION are committed by the people who are placed in the position to oversee and guarantee the continuance of our existing laws, then the ultimate result is almost universally anarchy and civil war.
To strip Australians of eight hundred years of written and codified history is offensive. To do so by trying to annul a Bill that can only be changed by the will of the people is offensive. The act of SEDITION in attempting to do these things not only without the people's approval, but without their knowledge or the opportunity to debate the matter is offensive. The idea that this situation invariably, historically, has always led to anarchy and civil war, is offensive.
�An Act of that title does not exist in Federal Legislation�
The politicians and others (with vested interests) will have you believe that such an Act in non-existent. That is correct. Because Federal Legislation was never intended to override the States; legislation was passed separately in each State, and forms part of each State's laws, Ask your self; do you live in the State of Australia? No!. You reside in the State of QLD,NSW,VIC,SA,WA or TAS; In each State, in each State's legislature, is their version of the Imperial Acts Applications Act, which spells out the very reason for the existence of the Queen, and therefore of her representative, the Governor General.
Now to go back in time to reveal an act of SEDITION!!
While you and your family were quietly, and happily celebrating Christmas, unannounced, unknown to you, and totally unpublicised, the very fabric of our existing law and order was torn asunder and replaced with a communist � style manifesto that Australians have already soundly rejected in the mid 1980's. All at the whim and with the signature of one man.
Please read the following transcript of a pre-recorded news service very carefully. Then, if you value your freedom, if you value those rights considered fundamental in this country, such as the right to own private property, then, for the sake of your children's future, take action
OUR NEW BILL OF RIGHTS
(To replace the one that we already had the 1688 Bill of Rights)
TWO UNDRED YEARS OF FREEDOM GONE!
Today I would like to tell you about the Bill of Rights. No, not the 1688 version which forms the basis of all our law and legislation. I am referring to the new one. You say you have not heard about it? That is not surprising, as absolutely nothing has been mentioned anywhere in the media. Parliament has not debated the subject, there has not been any public discussion. Nonetheless, on December 25,1991, while you were enjoying Christmas festivities, our (jobs for the boys) Governor General, comrade Bill Hayden, brought into being Australia's new Bill of Rights, using the excuse of Extern Affairs Powers (form the Constitution?).
If you have doubting Thomas friends who do not believe in conspiracy, do not believe there is currently a mad grab for totalitarian power in this country, do not believe our beloved politicians would ever do any thing to strip away our rights and freedoms, get them to listen to this broadcast, and ask them a simple question. If these things are not true, then how come this new Bill of Rights, this document which changes forever our entire way of life, has been implemented without so much as a public whimper?
The entire fabric and makeup of all legislation and law in this nation, everything from laws about jay walking to treason, was momentously altered with the stroke of a pen, effective from December 25,1991. Almost everything that most Australians take for granted, including things as fundamental as the right to own private property, were quietly thrown out the window. Yet , over two weeks later, there has not been any mention of it in the media, not one politician has spoken out about it, nor has any lawyer of judge has been informed.
THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY GONE!
What are the alterations between our old rights, and these new ones? Firstly, as already stated, the right to own private property is not there, so you simply do not have that right. One of the distinguishing differences between our previous way of live, and a totalitarian dictatorship, is the right of individuals to acquire and own property. We have been led into the single and biggest step to such a dictatorship, and nobody was aware. Moreover, �private property� is not only your house and land. It is your car, your business, your boat, your refrigerator, the wife's jewelry, the children's toys, everything.
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY GONE!
If you and some of your mates want to protest, you had better be careful. You previously had the right of assembly. Your new Bill of Rights still guarantees that right, but only provided you have the required permission from Big Brother. Australians accustomed to relative freedom, think the word �assembly� has something to do with public meetings and rallies. It does not. �Assembly� in law is when three or more come together to discuss a common viewpoint. If you, your wife, and one of your mates want to sit down tonight in your lounge room, and discuss this new Bill of Rights, then you had better have the appropriate permit, and you had better be careful that what you say does not come under any of the now prohibited subjects. The right of assembly does exist in your new Bil of Rights, but is a farce. It is subject to those restrictions which are, to quote directly from the Bill; �necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedom of others.� Remember, we are not talking about what you may or may not yell at the top of your lungs on a street corner, we are talking about what you may say or may not say in the privacy of your own home.
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH GONE!
On the subject of free speech, again the new Bill sort of guarantees it, unless of course, you want to discuss any of the prohibited subjects. Such as the right to freedom of assembly, your free speech is now subject by law to certain restrictions which are necessary, again to quote from the Bill; �for respect of the rights or reputations of others, and for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.�
FREEDOM FROM UNWARRANTED ARREST GONE!
If you have an unsanctioned meeting in your lounge, and you do dare discuss anything pertaining to the taboo subjects, and some government heavies kick your door in (yes it has happened and in this particular incident the goons raided the wrong premises and without any apologies) and arrest you , do not bother asking for a search warrant. That quaint custom, where the various authorities had to convince a judge or magistrate of the need to raid your home before proceeding, has been specifically excluded.
THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GONE!
Speaking of judges and magistrates, and especially juries, once you have been arrested, do not expect any these archaic niceties. Your New Bill of Rights only guarantee you a trial. That trial can be by, again to quote the Bill; �competent judicial administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State...�. What that means is that in future you can be tried by a bunch of bureaucrats, by the local Labor Council, by your Neighbourhood Watch Committee, by an Environmental Council, or anybody else the State cares to grant power to. Whoever tries you literally has power of life and death over you. It is not necessary to convince a jury of your peers of your innocence or need or appeals. There will not be any juries or appeals. That should reduce the burden on the courts.
FREEDOM FROM UNJUST IMPRISONMENT GONE!
That is, of course, assuming that you ever make it to a trial and do not die in prison waiting. You see, although your new Bill of Rights guarantees you a trial, unlike the old Bill, which also protected you from unjust imprisonment or protracted detention without trial, now these constraints do not exist. Your new Bill of Rights means that you can be locked up for years without ever coming to trial. Which is comparable to the Gulags in the Soviet Union. ( Could it be that other countries, America and England in particular have a Bill of Rights similar to ours, and that David Hicks was a test case to assess public reaction against the actions of a FASCIST STATE?
Wait for it there is more; gone is the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freedom from unjust taxes, the right to petition the parliament, and much more, but I think you get the picture. It is time to put aside levity, and get serious.
In the past two weeks I have been raided twice, stripped of my assets, my firearms and my bows and arrows have been confiscated. I an penniless and defenseless,however, is entirely irrelevant. More importantly, a man, a traitor to this country, a man by the name of Bill Hayden, thinks by signing a totally unlawful and treasonous bit of paper, has stripped my son and your children and all other Australians of their natural birthright to live as free individuals in a free society.
Comrade Bill Hayden, in an act clearly defined as SEDITION in the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914, thinks with a stroke of a pen he has obliterated eight hundred years of legal history from Magna Carta (1215) till now. Eight hundred years of my forefathers, and yours, fighting against oppressive monarchs, governments, and dictators for the rights Comrade Bill Hayden thinks he can now simply eliminate on his say so.
On behalf of myself, and all other loyal Australians, I would like to to tell Comrade Bill Hayden and his totalitarian mates that he is wrong. Government in Australia crossed over the line and became a DICTATORSHIP!l All people who hold freedom as a necessary part of life have a duty and obligation to fight against those who make us slaves to a DICTATORSHIP!!
EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY GONE?...NEVER!!
For eight hundred years our forefathers fought and often died to obtain and protect those rights. Now you and I have a choice. We can sit back and let them be taken from us, we can by our inaction consign our children to the misery of a socialist dictatorship, or we can accept that now it is our turn to fight, and perhaps die, in defense of those freedoms.
REMEMBER, whilst the conditions of the unlawful Bill of Rights may not have been fully implemented, they exist and will be enforced with a vengeance, when the masses � through the process of gradualism � will accept the imposition of this United Nations inspired Bill of Rights.
PS:The use of the word comrade , some of the words in capitals, bold type and underlined in the above transcript was my idea.. Whilst I respect Peter Sawyer and other courageous citizens for informing the Australian public of the attempts by those with vested interests to subject Australians to an Absolute Despotism (the evidence is irrefutable ),Peter Sawyer and some others who are aware of the Rules OF Government, they are incorrect as to the process whereby any law can be introduced, the function of Parliament and the Crown. It is my intention to correct this misunderstanding in another Blog.
NB:The aforementioned text beginning from the heading The System OF Government and HOW it came about, has been reprinted from the January, 1991 issue of �Inside News�, a monthly publication of Peter Sawyer. A brave and courageous investigative journalist who was revealing the treachery of our politicians, the bureaucracy and Crown. For this, he was vilified, slandered by politicians under Parliamentary Privilege,subjected to such harassment that his wife Marilyn miscarried. Finally,the Federal and local police raided his home, confiscated his bows and arrows, was charged with various fire arms offenses (in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights), and accused of plotting the assassination of George Bush Snr.
(If this text appears as not justified I wiil attempt to correct the problem)
