If we do not want to believe the evidence and our own common sense, let's see what reliable citizens say about certain legislation introduced into Australia since 'behind the scenes' agreement was reached on the Australia Act. A large part of this chapter will be devoted to the thrown out Bill of Rights.
Why bother with something already defeated? Because it is not defeated, only delayed. Also it has been widely discussed and provides an excellent example of a form of legislation now being introduced, at both State and Federal level, and not generally reported or discussed in the mass media. But first Andrew Kirk on the Australia Card:
. . . the greatest affront to our civil liberties in this nation's history ... the beginning of a whole new relationship between the state and its citizens ... the Government is going to be able to profile every 'entity' operating in the economy. One's financial privacy will be utterly destroyed ... The Health Insurance Commission which would administer the data base if the Bill becomes law, will initially have access to the confidential records of at least eight Government bodies. It will be able to delve into the records of the Australian Taxation Office, the Electoral Commission, and the Departments of Defense, Social Security, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Ethnic Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs. Once the Australia Card is introduced it will be easy for the Government to extend the base ... The Optimist (September/October 1986).
What is the Australia Card about? Politicians tell us that it is to stop tax evasion and social security fraud but The Joint Select Committee in its report to parliament reject this, so do other authorities. People who should know claim this device is ineffectual for such a purpose and also claim that proper enforcement of the existing laws would do the job more effectively.
When we look more closely at what is going on we must be excused for thinking that the present laxity in enforcing existing law was encouraged so as to create a situation, and excuse, for introduction of legislation designed to force on us a sick world of computer surveillance quite foreign to Western democracy.
The Australia Act 1986, by making vulnerable our constitution, provides the key to later enforcement of the assorted proposals which make up the present attack on our civil liberties. Some of the features of this 'new law' plot were expressed in the so-called "Bill of Rights" which brought much comment from mature and responsible people.
A book could easily be filled with such comment but all sound criticism of that Bill covers much the same range of objections as are covered by the selected quotes and comments made in this book.
First Mr. J.K. Bowen, a Victorian Barrister, Treasurer of the Victims of Crime Assistance League, and former Commonwealth Principal Legal Officer. The following quotations are from his paper headed THE AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS - SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR SOCIETY:
In late 1983, the then Federal Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, declared that Australia needed a Bill of Rights . . .
One would have expected from its very nature that a Bill of Rights would have been exposed to the widest possible public scrutiny and discussion - from conception to first draft, and beyond. But that was not to be the case ... The conception, birth and early life of Senator Evans' Bill were shrouded in secrecy. . . .
As the Federal election drew near in December 1984, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, pressed Senator Evans to give Australians an indication of what their rights and liberties were to be. Senator Evans rejected the opportunity . . .
Similar "Human Rights" Bills have been adopted by Warsaw Pact countries, but England - the home of the common law - has always rejected such devices.
On the surface, the Bill's declarations of freedoms and rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right of peaceful assembly, and its prohibitions against torture, slavery, and scientific experimentation upon prisoners, sound good - but hopefully, you will be asking yourselves 'why does a Human Rights Bill containing such fine declarations of rights, not work in those totalitarian countries which have such Bills? The answer is that we have strong institutions to protect our rights and freedoms in Australia. Totalitarian countries like to have 'window-dressing' such as a Human Rights Bill; but behind the facade there are no institutions, such as an independent judiciary and a democratically elected parliament, to protect the rights and freedoms declared in such "scraps of paper".
We will see the end of the centuries-old constitutional separation of the functions of Parliament and the Law Courts if a Federal judge is given that kind of power to nullify a law passed by a democratically elected State Parliament. The Bill would make State Parliaments, Governments and Local Authorities subject to control and censure by the Federal Human Rights Commission and Federal Courts. The Bill would effectively re-write the Constitution without a referendum.
I am deeply concerned about the Bill's implications for State criminal justice systems, State police forces, education systems, families, and employer/employee relationships - to name but a few of the institutions and important relationships likely to be affected by the Bill. The Bill contains provisions which will remove important police powers . . . potential to interfere with existing sensitive relationships between parent and child, employer and employee, teacher and pupil . . .
The intrusions by the Bill into all kinds of important institutions and relationships are likely to be highly destabilizing to our society. In short, the Bill appears likely to offer nothing but harm to ordinary law-abiding, decent and hard-working citizens, and clearly has the potential to undermine social cohesion in Australia.
Matching this preoccupation with social engineering ... we can expect to see Governments in Australia continue to exalt even the slightest evidence of improved economic performance ... when the wealth of the Nation, and of each hard-working Australian, is drained away by the intensive social welfare schemes required by a sick society.
. . . One of the major factors contributing to the destabilization of Australian society since the fifties, has been the undermining of this family unit by such measures as the continual withdrawal of economic support for it, easy divorce laws, and the elevation of 'alternative' life-styles, such as the voluntary single parent family, to a status equivalent to the traditional family. The Bill's potential for legalizing homosexual marriages and adoptions would represent a further devastating blow to the traditional family.
. . . suspicion concerning public education . . . Without any apparent qualification, Article 7 grants to every person the right "to impart ideas or information of any kind in any form, without interference".
This provision of the Bill could provide a lawful foundation for the indoctrination of children at Government schools with ideologies and moral values completely foreign to the attitudes and values of their parents and the community at large.
Article 12 of the Bill sweeps away the sensible and flexible common law rules relating to search and seizure by police . . .
Article 21 appears to be designed to deter suspects from confessing to police.
At present in Victoria, s.460 of the Crimes Act allows police to question suspects in their custody. Article 22 of the Bill appears likely to deny this vital power to the police . . .
"In my opinion the Bill will produce changes to the criminal law that will severely hamper the efforts of the police to control crime . . .
I suggest to you that a Bill of Rights is part of the package of social engineering laws of all kinds currently being introduced throughout Australia.
. . . The Bill will virtually become a license for the misfits of our society to emerge and claim a legal right to engage in behaviour that is unacceptable to most Australians.
. . . Code words and phrases are commonly employed in the context of social engineering to avoid causing concern to those who find radical social change alarming. . .
. . . It is highly unlikely that the Bill is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of the vast mass of ordinary well-adjusted Australians, because their rights are already adequately protected by the rules of common law, the laws passed by democratically elected Parliaments and by our independent Judiciary. These existing institutions are flexible and such laws can be altered to meet changing circumstances - if the majority demand it! It follows, in my view, that the real purpose of the Bill of Rights must be to promote and entrench values, ideologies and life-styles that are unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians.
As a lawyer who has spent over twenty years practicing before judges and juries, in open courtrooms with representatives of the media present if they choose to be, and lawyers representing all parties, I find the implications of the proposed Australian Bill of Rights, and the means of its enforcement, frightening. Perhaps it is fitting that these developments were announced in that most ominous of all years - 1984.
The following extract was from a letter printed in The Age Melbourne 17/2/1986:
I am writing to express my concern at the lack of public debate, particularly through the news media, concerning the proposed Bill of Rights. Considering the importance of such proposed legislation, I am surprised that the Australian people have been told very little about what exactly the Bill of Rights (based on the United Nations International Covenant) is to commit us.
The Bill of Rights legislative package was pushed through the House of Representatives during a late night and early morning sitting late last year. It will come before the Senate shortly.
Surely the public deserves to be told precisely what is in the draft legislation so that it can, in turn, decide on its validity. It should know that the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and political rights upon which the third reading of the Bill is based, has been rejected by the United States of America and Great Britain but was accepted by the Warsaw Pact countries.
Forty-three signatories of this Covenant are military dictatorships which have little or no concern for human rights in their own countries.
It should be of greatest concern to people committed to our democratic ideals that the Bill of Rights should be administered by the Human Rights Commission, which is an unelected body of people with powers that are outside the normal processes of law. . . .
Furthermore, under section 46, the Commission's power cannot be challenged in court. The implications of such legislation ought to be given considerable public exposure before the Senate commits it to law.
The December 1984 issue of the Queensland Law Society Journal said "the potential exists within the Human Rights Commission to actively suppress the rights it has been created to protect". . . .
Rev. J.N. Hewitt, of the Apostolic Church, Wantirna, 3152.
An article by Bill West in The Australian newspaper 20/11/1985, refers to Sydney law and human rights lecturer Dr. Gabriel Munz (NSW Institute of Technology) and the Munz campaign against the Bill of Rights.
Dr. Munz claims that the Bill of Rights is more likely to take away rights. Here are some quotes from the West article:
. . . He [Dr Munz] says the government has not given any convincing reasons for the Bill or explained how it will protect rights.
He describes it as vague, ambiguous and imprecise and argues the content of its rights will have to be filled in by policy makers and judges who will be in a position to read in their own biases and prejudices.
A major criticism of Dr. Munz is that the Bill is an attack on the federal system of government . . .
. . . The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which will be established as a consequence of the legislation, will be empowered to determine whether State Acts and practices infringe a right set in the Bill.
These powers are absolutely excessive for an unelected body," Dr. Munz said.
But that is just the beginning. The commission also has the power to compel people to attend compulsory conferences - which are going to be held in private without any entitlement to legal representation - under threat of fine or imprisonment.
ARTICLE 4, section 2 . . . says Dr Munz, this section would legalize any form of reverse discrimination and would thus be a license for discrimination in favour of a particular class or group.
ARTICLE 7 ... would give the right to a teacher to indoctrinate children in his personal beliefs or a homosexual teacher to impart his or her lifestyle to children.
ARTICLE 14 . . . the reference to the age of the individual child will almost inevitably lead to different views as to which rights and freedoms are possessed by children and that the section could be interpreted as a license for permissiveness.
. . . 'What are the advantages which will follow from the introduction of a Bill of Rights?'
'That is a question which in my opinion has never been satisfactorily answered by the Government.'"
Let us now look at an article by Christopher Dawson in The Australian (20/11/1985) referring to comments by Professor Mark Cooray, Associate Professor of Law at Macquarie University:
The Government should not be allowed to get away with a passage of the Bill in Parliament in order to prevent and stifle public opinion and deceive the public.
"It fails to substantiate, advance or improve any of our existing rights or freedoms," he says. "It tends to devalue some of them by exclusion.
"The document is a propaganda exercise to present a selected package of rights as the totality of rights which we require. Thereby the stage is set for the gradual de-recognition and eventual abrogation of fundamental liberties and rights through social engineering and the gradual destruction of the liberal democratic system."
"The exclusion of property rights from the Bill deprives the document of much of its effective content and reduces it to the level of a socialist program on human rights.
"In societies which deny the right to hold, enjoy and productively use private property, citizens are dependent for their employment and livelihood on the government. They have therefore no capacity to oppose the government or to exercise their fundamental political rights.
"The exclusion of property rights . . . is a deliberate omission from a document designed to promote a socialist agenda.
". . . Why is the Government refusing to submit the Bill to the people?
Is it because of the Left's traditional mistrust of the electorate? If so, it has no moral authority to speak on behalf of the Australian people . . ."
Article by Alan Fewster The Australian (25/3/1986) relates to the Law Council of Australia:
The Law Council of Australia has published a critique of the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, saying there is room for "serious concern" about both in their present form.
Under the Bill a limitation to a right or freedom will be permitted "only if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
What is a free and democratic society? How do you judge if a society is free and democratic?
Note: The government of the USSR claims to govern a free and democratic society.
The above gives a fair cross-section of opinion by thoughtful and qualified people. The point to emphasize is that the emasculation of the Australian Constitution and the imposition of a new constitution, based on a communist type Bill of Rights, provides a base for pagan religious values. It is extremely important to understand this because it signposts the manner in which these new requirements will be enforced and reveals that the change is not simply political but marks the imposition of a new law and a new religion.
By the laws now being introduced or proposed, if a homosexual school teacher is given the right to teach homosexuality, then a pedophile is equally entitled to teach pedophilia, a drug pusher to teach drugs, a sadist to teach sadism or a Satanist to teach devil worship.
But the average trusting citizen will exclaim, "Oh no! The Government would NEVER allow that!"
Government could easily legislate to prevent instruction by such people but then, it might equally make a law to say Christianity is deviant and disallowed. The latter would be entirely within the socialist line and, as party government is introducing communist laws and practices, it should be expected to continue the present program of moral deformity and mind-warp that is designed to weaken our ability to resist takeover.
We must not forget that already there are in force many dozens of laws which over-rule our Common Law rights.
More rights and protections for homosexuals and deviants and further restriction of Christians and the traditional family is in direct line with present policies. See First & Last publications Assault on Childhood aoncindx.htm and How to Avoid the LOOMING CATASTROPHE avoidx.htm.
In a Common Law democracy, deceitfully introduced legislation such as the Bill of Rights, The Australia Card and the Australia Act serve no legitimate purpose, but in a dictatorial regime they are imperative. Perhaps we should look at an advocate for this socialist type of society - The Fabian Society - for answers, but of course they are unlikely to tell us. Nevertheless you should know a little about them.
The Fabian Society is a socialist organization founded in England in 1884. Operating under the symbol of a wolf in sheep's clothing and a policy of 'gradualism', Fabianism has, for years, been very influential in English and Australian politics. Prime Minister Hawke, in a 1984 speech to the Society, named Frank Crean, Jim Cairns, Kim Beazley, Race Matthews, and Gough Whitlam as Fabians. While he baulked at revealing which of the present cabinet were members, he did say, "and in this I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism."
It is known that many members of the Constitutional Commission are Fabians but the important thing to know is that this group, and the Super Mafia in general, are dedicated to the achievement of political power by deceit and subterfuge - they make of the lie an art form.
First Hand Experiences
What further evidence is there to verify the capture of our political and media institutions by an international mafia?
The massive evidence that our legal Constitution and the safeguards it embodies are now ignored by political parties, is verified by the many organizations that fought very hard to get a hearing on the Australia Act. For instance Mrs. Joyner, on behalf of the thousands of members and supporters of the STOP & CARE group, wrote letters to the Queensland Attorney-General, to the Governor of Queensland and to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, along with representations to the Queensland Premier.
Other organizations made similar representations and at least one delegation went so far as to go to England to make representations to the British Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Queen. There was no noticeable media reporting of these efforts.
After meeting a deputation of concerned Australian citizens in London, Dr. Ian Paisley, MP MEP (a person not treated kindly by the media, no doubt for the same reason that anyone who opposes the power elitists receives a bad press) issued the following Telex to the world media (shortened):
The Australian Federal socialists have long desired and planned a centralist republican takeover of the nation.
These strategies were already envisaged as early as 1975. In this year Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and Justice Lionel Murphy were foiled in their clandestine attempt to remove the Monarchy and introduce a socialist republic with Viceroy. Their attempt to pave the way for constitutional change was seen when all the Australian Premiers went to the British Parliament where they received from the British Prime Minister, Sir Douglas Home, the assurance that it would never be permitted - especially since the entire notion was repugnant to all these premiers, even those who were Labor Party men and to the Australian people at large. In spite of these assurances by the then British Government it is now clear that, after a decade, Australia is about to sever its monarchical constitutional links with Great Britain and move into socialist republicanism with Great Britain's full endorsement.
All this has been designed and put into action without any reference to the desires of the Australian people by way of a piece of legislation The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985.. . .
Disturbing as this is, concerns about The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 are even deeper. The legislation is designed, it is claimed, to cut residual links with Great Britain and thereby remove the archaic anachronisms of an earlier irrelevant colonial era. In point of fact however it destroys the basic integrity of the entire Westminster system by removing the Queen's prerogative to disallow and reserve bills submitted to her. A Queen who lacks the power to accept or reject what is legislated in her parliament (no matter what one's personal view of the monarchy is) is no Queen at all. It is almost incredible that legislation designed to do this could have been formulated - especially when section 1 of the Australian Constitution clearly states:
"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and House of Representatives and which is hereafter called 'The Parliament' or 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth'."
How could The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 have been designed to remove the Queen's prerogative when the Queen embodies the permanent government with a perpetual mandate to govern with the clearly expressed will of the people of Australia at both Federal and State levels? The Australian system is not built upon a republican foundation; its foundation is monarchical and cannot be tampered with without putting the government system erected upon it at great risk. This legislation is fundamentally inconsistent with and antagonistic to the entire Westminster system.
How has it happened then that this legislation was so readily accepted throughout Australia and passed by every State - even strongly anti-socialist ones?
. . .
The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 bypasses the people's right to referendum concerning this massive constitutional change. . . .
Two states of Australia - namely Queensland and Western Australia - even went so far as to entrench this important safeguard of the people's right to referendum by entrenching it in their own state constitutions. Tragically this was disregarded in both of these states where the people were never consulted or asked whether they wanted these socialist republican changes, and it is interesting to note that the press stayed silent throughout . . .
. . .
Furthermore the British Parliament not only accepts this legislation as wholesome but obviously sees it as truly representative of the desires of Australians generally. . . .
[Hansard Thursday 16 January 1986 page 1169 para 3: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): I am sure that the whole house will wish to join with the Government in welcoming this Bill. It represents and embodies Australian wishes. All parties in all state legislatures and the Commonwealth Parliament support the proposals outlined in this Bill. As I said at the beginning, legislation has been enacted in all state and Commonwealth legislatures, smoothly and without controversy. It is right that this House should agree to the removal of these residual constitutional links at the request of the representatives of the Australian people.]
Hansard Monday 3rd February 1986 page 83, para 5:
"Matters which have been agreed by Australians ... we note the unanimous approval in Australia ... with such unanimity of approval how can we oppose the Bill?"
It seems that even the British Parliament also has been deceived - even misled? . . .
Thus it can be seen that the centralist socialist aim to remove the constitutional checks and balances of the Monarchy in order that neither individuals nor states will have an appeal to a higher authority of political transcendence has virtually been all but achieved through this subtly acceptive legislation. If the Queen does complete this final act of severance of these residual links in March 1986 then Australia will indeed be a republic without safeguards and will be prey to international socialism.
The situation in Northern Ireland demonstrates how hard-won liberties can be swept away by the stroke of a pen.
(Newspapers did not publish that letter).
We now know that the devious nature of the Australia Acts was ignored, and the Queen was enticed to sign. We may note that while the Crown, constitutionally, represents and protects the people from misuse of parliamentary power, advice to the Crown has become virtually exclusively the prerogative of the parliament.
The Governor of a State is now appointed, advised and, in the end, dismissed by the Premier of the state and no act of parliament assented to by the Governor shall, since the commencement of the Australia Act, be subject to disallowance or suspension by Her Majesty.
What deceit is used to cause the Queen to ignore an appeal supported by evidence of illegality?
Can any threat be used to cause sincere battlers such as Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to surrender without explanation? Whatever the threat, or reason, he surely did not appreciate that annihilation will occur once world political power is in the hands of the "One World Government" gang. d&ta04.htm
.../Back to Contents