I recently had corresponcance from a member of a 'freedom' group that was concerned with the draconian Year Two Thousand Legislation that is being passed in Victoria. The following was my response to them. It attempts to show that the legisalation is not exceptional for the type of problem that it attempts to address. In the end I hope that I have indentified the real reason for fear which is not the legislation. Regards Kerry Spencer-Salt ============= START CORRESPONDANCE ========= Introduction ========= I respond because I believe that there is a very important point to be made. There is an assumption on the part of the (for want of a term) 'freedom' movement that every restriction of civil liberties is wrong. So I ask you this, �If the Y2K was genuine and there was power failure would not the government be negligent in not putting into place plans to handle the situation ?� If there was a riot and your relatives were killed what would you think. What if you children died on an operating table when the power failed ? I think that the answer is that the legislation is needed and it is appropriate for the government to act in such a manner. Media Direct the Government Actions ========================== Once this is recognised you will come to understand something of the operation of conspiracies. If certain media events are put in place then you can, even without a complying government, control the government. This is to say that we can direct the course of action. For instance, we are in Timor because the media presented the �humanitarian need� of a peace keeping force. However what if the following was presented, �The Timor reality is this. We now have the whole Australian front-line army (and more) on one small island surrounded by an Indonesian army of 250,000 men. In three days Indonesia can place in another 50,000 troops; Australia cannot respond - the Kitchen Sink is already there. There is a good chance that Australian troops would be wiped out to the man.� If this was the case I guess that we would not be there! We are in Timor because the media told us we must be; not because the government wanted to be. I hope that the point is taken. Our Constitutional Dictatorship ====================== What you must come to understand is what we live in a dictatorship. This is not one that was recently created by the political parties but is inherent in the constitutional system derived from England. The Monarch, who is the government, has supreme power. Why ? His sovereignty is the people�s sovereignty; to limit the power of the Monarch is to limit the power of the people. For, as Dicey said, �no human being knows how far and to what extent the nation wishes that the voice of the reigning Monarch should command attention.� (E. V. Dicey The Law of the Constitution (10 th ed) 1865 MacMillian & Co London P 463) So, in theory, Dicey attributed the Monarch with the legal power to destroy all �blue eyed� babies. The power is unlimited! Thus, in the situation of the Victorian Y2K legislation, we do not know how bad it will be. (My suspicion is that it is a beat-up) Thus there are situations were even the introduction of marital law by the State Governor would be entirely within his power, entirely appropriate, and we, as the citizens, should not complain. The acceptance of this is fundamental to the rule of law. The Balancing Safeguards ==================== If this is the case and the power is there why is not the dictatorship exercised. The answer is that the English system, over a 1000 odd years, has put in place, or extracted them from the sovereign, built-in safeguards. These are in Acts like Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights etc. that prevent and restrain the abuse of power. The effectiveness of these elements depends on an independent judiciary. Hence the �separation of powers� between the legislature and the executive and the judiciary. This is generally understood but people have forgotten the existence of, and need for, the separation of power between the Monarch and the legislature. (A vertical as opposed to a horizontal separation of powers - an additional safeguard.) In fact the whole system has forgotten this primary safeguard. You see you are the Monarch�s subject and this means that they have an obligation to protect you, your land and your life. A corollary this is that you own them subjection to their authority. Chitty was one of the most famed scholars on the English Constitution. Here is what he wrote, �The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form in return the duty of the governed� (CHITTY A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF THE PREROGATIVES OF THE CROWN BUTTERWORTH LONDON 1820 AT 7) In perhaps the most famous case that clarified the powers of the Sovereign and their relationship to the subject and the realm the following was stated, �We have in print his majesty�s own most gracious Declaration, that it is his maxim, that the people�s liberties strengthen the king�s powers, and that the king�s powers are to defend the people�s liberties�. R V HAMPDEN (THE CASE OF THE SHIP MONEY) (163) 3 SST TR 825 T P1090 So the constitutional theory is that the Sovereign�s role is to defend the liberty of his subjects. The more freedom that the people have greater the power of the Monarch and might of the nation. The End of the Matter ================ So the real problem would seem to be not the legislation. The problem is that the power it will provide will be administered by an Executive (the government departments) will essentially be used for political purposes. This has come about as the Ministers of the Government Departments are from the political parties and they place there cronies into the hierarchy where �able-bodied independent administrators of the law� should be. The fundamental reason that this has happened is that the Governors, States and Commonwealth, have forgotten the constitutional model under which we operate and hence, have not exercised their duties. This is the problem - not the legislation. If the legislation is operated and administered by �able-bodied independent administrators of the law� there would be no problem. And if you think about it I think you will find that this is your real fear. Not the legislation but that it may be used inappropriately by politically appointed hacks or others with an agenda to push. Regards Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons) The National Watchman Australian Community Organisation P.O. Box 136, Surry Hills NSW 2010 Phone : (02) 9360 0610 E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
