Are You Going to Break the Law Today?
‘Freedom of Speech Lost’, if this important
individual right is suppressed the only opinions expressed will be
from Media Speak.
As we know rights and liberties are not removed overnight, the Fabians
invented gradualism and Bob Hawke perfected it. First individual
responsibilities are removed, and then rights are eaten up by the parasitical
‘white ants’ known as parliamentary drafters. For the,'so called' common
good of us all. One of our most recent infestations into the wooden legs of
freedom is the:
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 2001
Well that sounds harmless enough, but I always thought I had the right to
discriminate about who I employed, or who I asked into my home, or who my
children go to school with. I must have been wrong. I don’t hate anyone, so
it's not going to affect me, I'm not a racist. Those laws are for racists and
bigots not fair minded middle of the roaders like me. So if I don’t have the
right to discriminate anymore I can live with that, it's easy.
As well as that, I felt comfortable when I read in the paper that on it's
first introduction to the parliament Matt Foley Attorney General said, it was
designed to protect the right to Free Speech. I should have remembered that
old saying, ‘How do you know when a politician's lying? When you see his lips
moving.’ It applies to all politicians who have sold their souls to the major
parties.
How do you know he or she is lying many would ask? Well in the
explanatory notes which are up there in the Parliamentary Library's web page
right next to the Bill itself, it say's.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
GENERAL OUTLINE
Objectives of the Legislation
The Bill contains new racial and religious vilification
provisions which will limit the right to freedom of speech.
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute, but is
limited by a number of existing laws such as defamation, censorship and
sedition.
Well that’s a 180 degree turn around for starters, the
Minister says one thing the parliamentary drafters who work for him say the
opposite. Maybe he never read it, well how can he honestly recommend it to the
house?
Rights are absolutes, you can either use them or be a slave,
you're either dead or alive, you cannot limit the lion when you have let him
out of the cage, in the same way you cannot expect common sense and rational
thinking from power hungry bureaucratic government employees. Take
liberty from the individual, give power to the State and they will use
it.
Laws on defamation state that the truth is a defence, but that
does not apply in this Act.
Laws on censorship are not to stop the exploitation of minors
and people prostituting themselves, but at present, only employed to protect
the government from criticism.
Again the Law of Sedition was enacted with good intentions to
protect the Monarch from republicans and traitors. Not to protect our
politicians from criticism, which is the way it's currently being
employed.
Our rights suffer incursions constantly but because they
have exceeded their powers before, cannot now be used as an excuse to make it
acceptable. Their unlawful legislation, unlawful as it is invalidated by the
‘Rule of Law ’which is the code we are supposed to live under, cannot remove a
right. The ‘Rule of Law’ has codified for thousands of years our perspective
of what Rights are.
The Right to defend our rights and our lives, as one without
the other is useless.
The Right to own and use tools to defend our lives.
The Right to free expression.
The Right to own property.
The Right to travel freely.
The Right to earn a living and feed our families.
The Right to access free justice, where no one is above the
‘Rule of Law’
Rights are what places us above the animals, without Rights we
may as well be a monkey on a chain.
Matt Foley and Peter Beatty cannot legislate Statute Law to
remove any of these rights, they may think so, as many might believe them, but
ultimately they will in time be judged inequitable.
This Act when passed will overturn our English Legal tradition
and help convert it into a totalitarian tool of dissent control. It gives gaol
terms, even if there is no proof of intent. (Section 12 a). No presumption of
innocence until found guilty once you are reported to the
commissioner, he prosecutes you at the government's expense, you defend
yourself as best as you can at yours. You will be judged not by a Jury of your
neighbours but by a government appointed tribunal. As in all dictatorial
regimes you do not have the right to be confronted by your accusers or even
know who they are. As Section 226 A gives the power to the tribunal to
suppress it.
226A Continuing prohibition on identity
disclosure
‘(1) This section applies if—
(a) under section 191(1),2 the tribunal makes an order
prohibiting the disclosure of the identity of a person
Matt Foley says it's so Good
By their own words, if you commit, hate-speech, graffiti, gestures,
distribute propaganda or any other forms of offensive literature that are
damaging to individuals or groups you are breaching this Act and could
end up in goal for six months. You only have to vilify the cohesion and
harmony of a culturally diverse society and you're in the slammer too. Does
this mean I cannot tell any more Irish jokes? Or dress up as Al Jolson? Every
week I used to enjoy the Black and White Minstrel Show, can I still keep my
Golly Wog?
This is all bad news for freedom loving individuals that may like to have
an outrageous tee shirt or who may like to take up a petition (Petition a
Right included in the Bill of Rights 1689) to ban the Moslem
practice
of female circumcision, but
the part which gives it First Prize in the Nobel Prize of tyrannical
legislation for 2001 is this little section.
Excerpt from
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2001
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Clause 8 inserts a new Chapter 4 Part 4
which establishes a new ground of complaint of racial or religious
vilification... the section will not require proof that anyone was actually
incited, to be satisfied. The test of whether incitement has occurred is an
objective one, based on a hypothetical listener or viewer.. If a complaint to
the Anti-Discrimination Commission in Queensland discloses a possible
contravention of the new section 124A, it may be conciliated and enforced
under the existing provisions of the Act
So there you go, this is one of those Acts which completely break new
ground, as well as being accused by someone who can remain anonymous, for
something you did not intend to do, they do not have to prove that the crime
of incitement occurred, only if it could happen hypothetically, then the
tribunal finds you guilty and off you go to gaol. The terminology of this
Act is so obscure it could be used against anyone at anytime, petition to
stop the de-sexing of cats and you could offend someone.
It's a Free Country, or Was It
This couldn’t happen in a free country could it? I did meet some fourteen
year old school children once, who believed we lived in a free country they
had been told that at school and like good kids, had never thought that it
might not be so. Of course even with adults these days, people who think
are harder to find. Still there might be some adults, who would not believe
that this sort of thing could happen here.
Well I have news for them it's happening here already under the
Commonwealth Act, which is not quite as draconian but still infringes on the
Freedom of Speech and ultimately destroys the individual.
A Directions Hearing before Her Honour, Justice Branson, Federal Court of
Australia has been set down for 10 May 2001. Dr Frederick Toben from Adelaide,
has been charged by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The
Executive Council of Australian Jewry is seeking the enforcement of an order
made last October by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It
demanded the removal of material which challenges the existence of the Nazi
Holocaust against millions of Jews during the 1930s and 40's.
Dr Toben says, "If you deny me my freedom to think and to speak, then
you deny me my humanity - and YOU commit a crime against humanity!"
It makes no matter if Dr Toben says anything, on his web site, about
what Germans did to Jews or Americans did to Germans or if he says the Moon is
made of green cheese, what he is saying about the Freedom of Speech is very
appropriate and he has to be supported or we and our children will all
lose in a very dramatic way.
The State will find a way to either make us too scared to say anything or
condemn us for what we do say. It is a Galileo’s return to the Inquisition, a
return to despotism.
Ron Owen
