20170322-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bernard Gaynor, and To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Page 1
Mr Bernard Gaynor & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 22-3-2017

Bernard Gaynor <personal@bernardgaynor.com.au>
5
Bernard,
As a self-educated constitutionalist I gained views about the constitution that are at time
very different than lawyers/judges/politicians are holding.
10 I will set out some other issues which may give a better overall understanding about matters.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded on both appeals regarding FAILING TO VOTE on the basis that
compulsory voting is unconstitutional. It must be stated this was raised as a constitutional issue
and none of the Attorney-Generals at the time served with a S78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER challenged my written submissions in my ADDRESS TO THE
15 COURT.
I below will quote 29 August 2016 PRESS RELEASE albeit dealing with homosexual
marriages I quote various statements of the Framers of the Constitution that remains applicable.
.
20 Firstly, I understand that you were discharged from the armed forces because of your views as a
private individual regarding homosexuality and other related issues.
Within the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) the
following provisions is provided for:
QUOTE
25 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order,
and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
END QUOTE
30 QUOTE
(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control
of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;
END QUOTE
35 QUOTE
69 Transfer of certain departments
On a date or dates to be proclaimed by the Governor-General after the establishment of the
Commonwealth the following departments of the public service in each State shall become
transferred to the Commonwealth:
40 posts, telegraphs, and telephones;
naval and military defence;
lighthouses, lightships, beacons, and buoys;
quarantine.
END QUOTE
45
QUOTE
114 States may not raise forces. Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State
A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain
any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the
Page 1 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail admin@inspector-rikati.com
Page 2
Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to
a State.
END QUOTE
5 QUOTE
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any
religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall
be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
10 END QUOTE
QUOTE
Note 4
Covering Clause 7—The following Acts have repealed Acts passed by the
15 Federal Council of Australasia:
Defence Act 1903 (No. 20, 1903), s. 6
Pearl Fisheries Act 1952 (No. 8, 1952), s. 3 (Pearl Fisheries Act 1952 repealed
by Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, s. 3)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1901 (No. 11, 1901), s. 2 (subsequently
20 repealed by Service and Execution of Process Act 1963, s. 3).
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Note 10
25 Section 51—The following Imperial Acts extended the legislative powers of the
Parliament:
Whaling Industry (Regulations) Act 1934, s. 15
Geneva Convention Act, 1937, s. 2
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, s. 5
30 Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1940, s. 3.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Notes to the Commonwealth of Australia
35 Constitution Act
Note 1
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (the Constitution) as shown
in this compilation comprises the Constitution amended as indicated in the
Tables below.
40 Table of Acts
Act Number
and year
Date
of Assent
45 Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) 1906 1, 1907 3 Apr 1907
Constitution Alteration (State Debts) 1909 3, 1910 6 Aug 1910
Constitution Alteration (State Debts) 1928 1, 1929 13 Feb 1929
Constitution Alteration (Social Services) 1946 81, 1946 19 Dec 1946
Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 55, 1967 10 Aug 1967
50 Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 82, 1977 29 July 1977
Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977 83, 1977 29 July 1977
Constitution Alteration (Referendums) 1977 84, 1977 29 July 1977
END QUOTE
55 From the above it should be very clear that the Commonwealth of Australia is constitutionally
permitted to have a defence force and can legislate in that respect.
However, considering there never was any constitutional amendment act in regard of s116 this
remains to be the overriding legal principle.

Page 3
The legal principle that an agent cannot exercise a greater power than the grantor very much is
applicable in that the Armed Forces (it command) or even for this the Federal Parliament cannot
provide exemptions against s116 of the constitution.
5 Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
10 Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
END QUOTE
.
15 Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
20 legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:
25 The constitution of this federation will not be charged with the duty of resisting privileged classes, for
the whole power will be vested in the people themselves. They are the complete legislative power of the
whole of these colonies, and they shall be so. From [start page 106] them will rise, first of all, the federal
constitution which we are proposing to establish, and in the next place will come the legislative powers of the
several colonies. The people will be the authority above and beyond the separate legislatures, and the
30 royal prerogative exercised, in their interest and for their benefit, by the advice of their ministers will be
practically vested in them. They will exercise the sovereignty of the states, they will be charged with the
full power and dignity of the state, and it is from them that we must seek the giving to each of those bodies
that will be in existence concurrently the necessary powers for their proper management and existence. Each
assembly, each legislature, whether state or federal existing under this constitution, will be as Dicey
35 again says-a merely subordinate law-making body whose laws will be valid, whilst within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution, but invalid and unconstitutional if they go beyond the limits of
such authority.
END QUOTE
40 I am well aware of the decision of KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
where the High Court of Australia purported that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 fell within
the constitutional powers of ‘external affairs’
ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3
45 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
(19 July 2006 both appeals unchallenged upheld)
QUOTE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS- EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TREATIES
50 KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
COURT
High Court of Australia
Gibbs C.J.(1), Stephen(2), Mason(3), Murphy(4), Aickin(5), Wilson(6)
55 and Brennan(7) JJ.

Page 4
41. In Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen, I would allow the demurrer. (at p207)
42. In Queensland v. The Commonwealth, I would declare that ss. 9 and 12 of

the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), as amended, in so far as those
5 sections apply within the State of Queensland, are outside the powers of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth and are invalid. (at p207)
In my view, for what it is worth, Gibbs CJ was correct, that the external affairs powers couldn’t
extend the powers provided for in Section 51 of the Constitution. Indeed, the framers made clear
10 that without referendum the commonwealth couldn’t give itself more legislative powers!
The case KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 was however decided
against Gibbs CJ.
Indicating that the judges really didn’t bother to read the Debates as otherwise they would have
been aware that the framers strictly curtailed Commonwealth legislative powers to be only varied
15 by way of Section128!
END QUOTE
Why could the High Court of Australia to have been so much in error one has to ask!
20 Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power
where none exists. ”
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
25 KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and
fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is not a
treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s
domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
30 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what
Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this
Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which
they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by
people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those
35 decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
40 "... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
45
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA
27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
50 1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional
interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or
enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in

Page 5
the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the
authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called
5 constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead
for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event -
someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a
particular way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
10
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
QUOTE
More to the same effect appears in the debates, which were long and thorough and
contain nothing to the contrary. While the general rule precludes the use of these debates to
15 explain the meaning of the words of the statute, they may be considered as reflecting light upon its
general purposes and the evils which it sought to remedy. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.,
283 U.S. 643, 650 , 51 S.Ct. 587, 79 A.L.R. 1191
END QUOTE
20 And as the Framers of our Constitution made clear:

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
25 The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
The judiciary often if not always claim it is the third arm of government, reality is they are not
30 and cannot be, because if the administration of justice were nothing more but the third arm of
government then this would imply a bias. Indeed, if one for example look at the State Letters
patent of 2 January 21901 you find that the states have that the Governor shall provide for an
IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. As such the States which within s106 of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) are created not only is subject to this
35 constitution bound by all legal principles embedded in this constitution such as separation of
powers but also by the Letters Patent the administration of Justice must be clearly separate from
the Department of Justice. As such chief Justices are their independent authority of the court not
answerable to the parliament of the Government of the day but bound by any legal provisions of
‘valid’ legislative enactments.
40
HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
45 shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE
50 HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
And then there is this proviso:
Provided that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in the High Court than according
55 to the rules of the common law.
Page 6
END QUOTE
Let’s look at how Federal parliament can get it so wrong:

The ‘Snowy Mountains scheme’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme)
5
QUOTE
However, limitations in the Australian Constitution meant that the Commonwealth

Government was limited in the powers it could exercise, without the agreement of the
States.[6] Subsequently, the Commonwealth Government introduced legislation into the
10 Federal Parliament under its defence power;[6] and enacted the Snowy Mountains Hydro-
Electric Power Act 1949 (Cth) that enabled the formation of the Snowy Mountains
Hydroelectric Authority.[2] Ten years later, the relevant States and Territories introduced
their own corresponding legislation and in January 1959 the Snowy Mountains Agreement
was reached between the Commonwealth and the States.[6]
15 END QUOTE
A proper consideration of the statements of the Framers of the Constitution would rather provide Ss51
QUOTE
51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
20 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to:
(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the
States;
25
END QUOTE
QUOTE
30 99 Commonwealth not to give preference
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade,
commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part
thereof over another State or any part thereof.
Chapter IV Finance and Trade
35 Section 100
48 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
100 Nor abridge right to use water
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or
commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to
40 the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or
irrigation.
101 Inter-State Commission
There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of
adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary
45 for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of
the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce,
and of all laws made thereunder.
END QUOTE
50 Keeping in mind:
QUOTE
96 Financial assistance to States
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the
Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise
Page 7
provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State
on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
END QUOTE
5 As such, the Commonwealth Parliament in my view that the issue was to provide for example
water for the Murray to affect also shipping along it and for the benefit of South Australia, then
the Parliament merely had to provide legislative powers for the Inter-State Commission to deal
with the matter.
The wording ‘There shall be an Inter-State Commission’ makes it mandatory that this is to be so.
10 QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are about to say that an Inter-State Commission shall be appointed to execute and
15 maintain the Commonwealth provisions relating to trade and commerce. I understand that the general sense
of the Convention is that the restriction to railways and rivers should disappear; that the Inter-State
Commission should deal with commerce throughout the states without any restriction. Then the clause would
read:-
The Parliament shall make laws constituting an Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the
20 Commonwealth the provisions of this Constitution relating to commerce.[start page 1526] That seems to me
to be the charter of the Inter-State Commission.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Would you add "and the laws for the time being passed by the Parliament"?
Mr. BARTON.-I think that is un-necessary. They will have to maintain the constitutional provisions with
regard to trade and commerce. It is obvious that we must give a certain amount of discretion to Parliament,
25 and Parliament having a commission already in existence will not pass any laws relating to trade and
commerce without leaving the determination of those laws to the Inter State Commission. It may be only a
difference of form, but I think there would be no advantage in adding the words suggested. We are giving in
the Constitution power to the Inter-State Commission to execute and maintain within the
Commonwealth the provisions relating to trade and commerce. Then we have in Mr. Grant's amendment
30 the determination of certain other matters confided to the Inter-State Commission, and I understand that the
Right Hon. Sir George Turner consented yesterday to have similar words inserted in his clause. It is clear
then that the provisions we are inserting in the Constitution in relation to trade and commerce will be under
the jurisdiction of the Inter-State Commission, and that is really all we want. We might go further and make
some provision as to the laws, but that is unnecessary. It is inconceivable that Parliament would pass laws,
35 and take away from the Inter-State Commission the power of adjudicating on them. What I do want to
impress on honorable members is that there is no necessity to say that there shall be an Inter-State
Commission. If we say that Parliament shall constitute an Inter-State Commission, then we make it
clear that it is the Parliament, and not the Executive, that is deal with the commission in the first
instance and to define its powers. That is necessary, as we might otherwise find the Executive Government
40 taking this as a direction to appoint an Inter-State Commission before a statute had been passed, and then
there might be some trouble with the High Court.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

101 Inter-State Commission
45 There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the
Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions
of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
END QUOTE (Bold and red colour added by writer)
50 While often there are statements as to the 3 branches of Government, in my view one ought to
speak of the 4 branched of nationhood.
1. The Parliament
Page 8
2. The Federal Executives
3. Judiciary
4. Inter-State Commission.
5 Regretfully we have that the Inter-State commission required to exist has not existed other than
for a few years, last in 1987 (or thereabouts) and instead politicians are pork barrelling in
violation to constitutional prohibitions.

10 QUOTE The CHAIRMAN.-
Taxation; but so that all taxation shall he uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that no tax or duty
shall be imposed on any goods passing from one state to another.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I am saying now that I do not think there is any necessity for clause 95 in its present form.
What I am saying however, is that it should be made certain that in the same way as you provide that the
Tariff or any taxation imposed shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, so it should be
20 provided with reference to trade and commerce that it shall be uniform and equal, so that the
Commonwealth shall not give preference to any state or part of a state. Inasmuch as we provide that all
taxation, whether it be customs or excise duties, or direct taxation, must be uniform, and inasmuch as
we follow the United States Constitution in that particular-in the very same way I argue that we should
protect the trade and commerce sub-section by not doing anything which will limit its effect. That is the real
25 logical position.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 3-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
30 QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page 1856] a
considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is provided
that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as indirect
35 taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states; that an
income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the Drafting
Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax of any
kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property,
wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very
40 careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax
sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not
absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
As such even religious based tax exemptions are unconstitutional! And this too was why I
45 pointed out that s245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act excluding people from obligating to
vote on religious grounds was unconstitutional, and this neither was challenged by any of the
Attorney-Generals.

QUOTE
The issue is that at least from 4-12-2002 (albeit it was earlier because of the objections
made by the Defendant) Section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was
Page 9
ULTRA VIRES and for this any further litigation or other fines by the Commonwealth
Electoral Commission and/or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in regard
of the same purported 2001 Federal election and/or the subsequent purported 2004 Federal
election and/or any by election could not be legally sustained where Section 245 ever since
5 remained ULTRA VIRES.
Any legislative provisions that becomes ULTRA VIRES is so not just in regard of the
person/Defendant who makes the objection but it becomes ULTRA VIRES to the whole of
the Commonwealth of Australia. To every person who otherwise might be subject to this
10 legislative provisions. It would be utter and sheer nonsense if any legislative provisions
could be declared ULTRA VIRES for one Defendant but not for other Defendant.
Commonwealth of Australia legislative provisions must apply to all and any person
without discrimination and so it is either ULTRA VIRES to all people or INTRA VIRES to
all people. It would be abhorrent to contemplate that every person has to obtain in their
15 own right a legal decision as then the High Court of Australia could be forced to decide
tens of thousands of cases governing the same legal provision. clearly, this is not what is
possible. The 1999 HCA 27 Wakim case is a clear example, where the High Court of
Australia declared that the so called Cross Vesting Act indeed was ULTRA VIRES, and
this applied to anyone not just to Wakim!
20 END QUOTE
Therefore, where I successfully challenged for example religious exemptions as being

unconstitutional then this applies to every citizen.
.
25 ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 1
County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED
30 STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
35 in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
40 provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief
while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with
that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from
45 a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
50
And;

Page 10
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious
5 exemption letter and support materials provided in the following link:
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and
10 practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member.
However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing
your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.
And
15 Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than
required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or
daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet
the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.
20 And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely
unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by
deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know
your rights.
25
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/03/12/08/47/renewed-push-to-ban-unvaccinated-
children/?ocid=9newsfb
11:40pm March 12, 2017

30 Turnbull pushes for nation-wide ‘no jab, no play’ at childcare centres
What appears to be clear is that a “religious objection” is not qualified to a specific religion and
neither can be as this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be
associated with any particular religion as this would also interfere with Section 116 of the
35 Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the “religious objection” Subsection 245(14)
of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious person as this
would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the “religious objection” applies
as much to non religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her
40 personal reasons to vote clearly is entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion
mentioned.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
I take the position that Subsection 245(14) of the Constitution is not and cannot be regarded to
limit the right of a objection to be only a (theistic belief ) “religious objection” but includes also
50 any secular belief objection.

Page 11
If Subsection 245(14) was limited to being “theistic belief” then it would be unconstitutional.
QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
10 T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.
15
Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to
indicate that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of
the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits
20 an objection only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also
includes any secular belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to
whatever a person uses as grounds for an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the
Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of Australia to limit the scope of subsection
245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious objections”. Therefore, any person
25 having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of “religious objection” have a
valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state
his/her religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious
objection” as the mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in
30 subsection 245(14) as being a “religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious
objection” is to be taken as “objection” without the word “religion” having any
special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on
foot!
35 I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.
Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
END QUOTE
40

45 QUOTE
The issue was at all times if at the closure of the Prosecutors case there was sufficient evidence
presented to the Court to warrant a conviction. The averment rule could not apply in that regard
where failing to vote itself was not to justify a conviction if there was a lawful excuse, and this
the Prosecutor never did overcome when presenting his case, this despite the Defendant in his
50 ADDRESS TO THE COURT already related to the religious objection issue. In fact, the
Prosecutor didn’t even bother to cross examine about this, perhaps because of being aware that
constitutionally religious beliefs cannot be tested.
Page 12
The RIGHT TO BE HEARD surely must include that the actual trial of the charge allows all
relevant evidence to be presented, even if this means that details presented in regard of the
OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION are to be canvassed again, this the magistrate
5 refused.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
10 Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
15 the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
20 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES
It is an organism, as I have tried to explain, for protecting each individual citizen in the undisturbed
possession of his property, in the undisturbed possession of his liberty, and from my point of view the
25 expense of that government ought to be defrayed in the easiest manner and only to the extent which is
necessary for that purpose, and that taxation is unjustifiable for any other purpose whatever.
END QUOTE
30 Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
35 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
40
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this
45 Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles
are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
50 RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-
the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
55 claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
60 Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Page 13
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
5 END QUOTE
As such the purported Infringement Courts of the State of Victoria (and other states) is
unconstitutional because it denies a accused the right to challenge before this purported court the
allegations against the accused, this as well as they are not impartial neither are subject to
10 separation of powers.
What should be understood is that the constitution was created for the People and the state and
not for judges to express their contemporary views.

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
20 which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
25 that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
30 one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
35 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
40 court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
45 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
50 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
55
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
60 liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
Page 14
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
And
5 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
10 history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This new
charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
We also might consider:

15
Having read through the entire reason of judgments it seems that most judges rely upon:
(at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of
20 communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law
which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those matters unless the law is reasonably
appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the
constitutionally prescribed system of [government in Australia.
END QUOTE
25
(at 61) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and political matters" has been
well established in Australian constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in Nationwide
30 News Pty Ltd v Wills1 and in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth 2. However, as
Dawson J said in Levy v Victoria3:
QUOTE
(at 102-103) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 &
35 S179/2012,
QUOTE
Applicable principles
102 The Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible government. Sections 7 and 24 of
the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be "directly chosen by the people".
40 Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a longer period than three months unless he is
or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives". Those who are elected as members of
the Parliament and those who are appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to "the
people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the Constitution shall not be altered
except in the manner provided in that section; in particular, only "if in a majority of the States a majority of
45 the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the

Page 15
proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange4, it follows from these and other provisions that
"[f]reedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of
that system of representative government which the Constitution creates".
103 Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable

5 incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom cannot be curtailed by
the exercise of legislative or executive power5 and the common law cannot be inconsistent with it. But
the freedom is not absolute and it follows that the limit on legislative power is also not absolute.
QUOTE
10 (at 346) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
“In the setting of the Australian Constitution, a system of representative government is the constitutional
imperative upon which the implied freedom is founded.”
END QUOTE
15
Freedom of communication of a person, in his private capacity cannot be restrained at least in my
view, by the armed forces merely because it seeks unconstitutionally to undermine a person’s
rights within S51(xxvi) and Section 116 of the constitution.
20 Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
25 possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
30 by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
35 The armed forces being part of the Commonwealth of Australia is bound to comply with
constitutional provisions and it’s embedded legal principles. It cannot restrain a person from
expressing his views in a private capacity and in certain circumstances neither can do so in
his/her employment. To allow such a restraint would give a basis for the armed forces to violate
whatever constitutional provision/limitation and then Nuremburg is a clear example what might
40 result if soldiers are blindingly following orders/directions.
The constitution cannot be suspended, not even in time of war, because no one is above the
constitution. As was shown in the U.S.A. after the civil war that raved within those involved
were held accountable for any unconstitutional conduct.
45 A gross misconception is that the State retained ‘concurrent’ legislative powers. Section 51 was
created that the states could exercise legislative e powers within S51 until the commonwealth

Page 16
commenced to legislate but the moment the commonwealth did so the states had to retire from
that field. With taxation the issue is the different from of taxations. As such when the
Commonwealth of Australia commenced its Land Tax Office on 11 November 1910 then the
States from then on no longer could raise state land taxes and so neither municipal/shire rates
5 which the High Court of Australia held in 1904 Sydney Council v Commonwealth to be a State
delegated land tax power. While the then government under Premier Kristine Keneally of
N.S.W. in its correspondence claimed that the land taxation powers was returned to the States
when the Commonwealth abolished Land Taxation, the reality is that the Constitution doesn’t
provide for any mechanism to return legislative powers to the Commonwealth. As such all
10 municipal/shire rates are unconstitutional.
.
.
QUOTE
15 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the
power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
20 QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
25 complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
30 The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the
commonwealth with any more duties than are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this
power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to the commonwealth to legislate
on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from
35 that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
40 Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will
be exercised.
END QUOTE
.
The States cannot even amend their own constitutions without a State referendum approving any
45 such amendment:

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
50 parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
55 parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
Page 17
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE
5 The States therefore cannot legislate in violation of the legal provisions (including its embedded
legal principles) such as some kind of Racial Discrimination legislation.

QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the
10 common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
Neither can there be any argument that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia is an
independent nation as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:

15 QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
20 application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
25 by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
30 There must be some method, and we suggest that as a reasonable one. With respect to amendments of
the constitution, it is proposed that a law to amend the constitution must be passed by an absolute
majority of both the senate and the house of representatives; that, if that is done, the proposed
amendment must be submitted for the opinion of the people of the states to be expressed in conventions
elected for the purpose, and that then if the amendment is approved by a majority of the conventions
35 in the states it shall become law, subject of course to the Queen's power of disallowance. Otherwise the
constitution might be amended, and by a few words the commonwealth turned into a republic, which is
no part of the scheme proposed by this bill.
END QUOTE
40 Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. GILLIES: We are not all agreed on the question of the establishment of a republic!
Dr. COCKBURN: There is no question of that. We want to establish such a commonwealth as will exist
with the least strained relations with the mother country.
45 END QUOTE

Page 18
Regardless what may be argued as to Prime Minister Billy Hughes having made some
declaration in 1919 the above stated makes it clear that no Prime Minister can interfere with the
meaning and application of the constitution and for this neither any judiciary.
The judiciary can only ‘interpret’ the meaning of the constitution at hand of what the debates
5 may explain but it cannot alter the constitutional concept. The court may declare that certain
legislative powers always existed within a certain constitutional provision and explain at the
hand of the debates how this was but it casnnot on contemporary views of the judiciary amend
the true meaning and application of the constitution to whatever it may desire to be applicable.
10 Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. CLARK: It is easy enough to increase, but we shall have to increase by an amendment of the
constitution, and I think it is a very bad thing to tinker with a constitution to meet contingencies as they arise.
15 I think the constitution ought never to be amended, excepting upon the discovery of some radical defect
which experience has proved to exist, or to provide for some totally unforeseen contingency. If you can
possibly provide for probable contingencies, provide for them at once, and do not devise a constitution with
the deliberate intention, or with the certainty in the natural evolution of events, that it will require
amendment.
20 END QUOTE
Hence, s128 referendum power was provided for.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+parliament%22#fn50
QUOTE
25 Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers[51].
END QUOTE
30 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
40 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Page 19
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
the meantime until the Federal Parliament took the matter in hand.
5 END QUOTE
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-
10 The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction
15 the equal protection of its laws.
Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
20 which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
25 far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
30 define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
40 the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
45 do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
50 not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.

Page 20
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
5 debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
10 existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
15 laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
20 Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. REID:
25 We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points
enumerated in clause 52, that instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two
laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But that I merely mention as almost a verbal
criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not to propose any
complication of the kind.
30 END QUOTE
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
35 and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
40 .
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
45 Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may
Page 21
be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have
this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the
Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask
permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. Not that I believe that it will be carried, but I think it
5 is an echo of a widespread misapprehension which prevails outside as to the duties and functions of the
Supreme Court. It very often seems hard to a layman that that which has been enacted by Parliament should
be declared to be illegal by a Supreme Court when the statute is called into question during litigation between
two citizens. It is hard, but like everything else in politics, it is a choice of evils. The question is: Whether it
would not be of much greater disadvantage to the whole community to bring in the Supreme Court as an
10 interpreter of the Constitution before any precise case was taken before it, than it is to leave the individual to
suffer the hardship of finding that the Act upon which he relied was really invalid? I will not use my own
language in explaining the position, but, to have it put upon record, I should like to quote a passage which
occurs on pages 154 and 155 of Dicey's Law of the Constitution. After pointing out that the American
Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution, and to see that effect is given to its provisions, the writer
15 goes on to say that-
The power, moreover, of the courts, which maintains the Articles of the Constitution as the law of the
land, and thereby keeps each authority within its proper sphere, is exerted with an ease and a
regularity which has astonished and perplexed continental critics. The explanation is that the Judges of
the United States control the action of the Constitution, but they perform merely judicial functions,
20 since they never decide anything but the cases before them. It is natural to say that the Supreme Court
pronounces Acts of Congress invalid, but in fact this is not so. The court never directly pronounces any
opinion whatever upon an Act of Congress.
[start page 1687]
What the court does do is simply to determine A. is or is not entitled to recover judgment against X.;
25 but in determining that case the court may decide that any Act of Congress is not to be taken into
account, since it is an Act beyond the constitutional powers of Congress.
If any one thinks this is a distinction without a difference he shows some ignorance of politics, and does not
understand how much the authority of a court is increased by confining its action to purely judicial business.
In a book prepared by you, sir, entitled A Manual of Reference for the use of Members of the National
30 Australasian Convention, to which frequent reference has been made, the matter is further dealt with. You
say, at page 126, in words that I would like to adopt as part of my argument:-
No doubt the power given is very great, but it is exercised in a manner and by a body which affords
the least possible chance of friction and quarrels between the central and the provincial governments.
A veto by the central authority has to be exercised at a time when the public attention of the provincial
35 electors is directed to the matter; at a time when, perhaps, party spirit runs high, when angry passions
pervade both factions, and when the subject-matter is invested with an importance which is not
intrinsic, whereas a declaration by a court that the statute is invalid is withdrawn from the sphere of
politics. Each individual and each state looks upon it that such declaration is given only in pursuance of
the Constitution. Public attention is probably directed to other matters, and the question has, in many
40 cases, shrunk into its native insignificance; and "it is to the interest of every man who wishes the
Federal Constitution to be observed that the judgments of the federal tribunals should be respected,
and they take it that the courts are the protectors of the federal compact, and that the federal compact
is, in the long run, the guarantee of the rights of the separate state."
If the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) was carried into effect-though of that, I think, there is
45 not the slightest chance-it would follow that any person who was aggrieved by an unconstitutional enactment
would have to persuade the Attorney-General of the state or of the Commonwealth, as the case might be, to in
some way set the law in motion to ascertain the legality of the enactment, If the enactment was one which
affected a matter exciting strong party feeling, the result would be that the abstract question of its
validity would have to be argued before the court at a time when public feeling was excited, although it
50 would be of the utmost importance that the decision of the court should be entirely free from all
suspicion of political bias. Then, too, the enactment might be valid in parts and invalid in other parts,
or it might be impossible to interpret it in the abstract. It is impossible to foresee the bearing of a
statute upon all possible cases, and it is only when a case comes for determination before a court that
Page 22
the court is able to say that in that particular case the statute does or does not afford protection to the
citizen who has relied upon it. The honorable member's proposal would remove at once the greatest of all
safeguards to the impartiality and usefulness of the Federal Court, by taking away from it its right to deal
with matters which are brought, as lawyers term it, to a distinct issue, and with precise and definite points, in
5 regard to which the full bearing of every word of the judgment could be appreciated? Instead of the court
being able to determine the legality of an enactment in its bearing upon any particular case, there
would be considerations introduced which were utterly foreign to the atmosphere of the tribunal, and
that would seriously impair the public confidence in a court which, with us, as in America, will, I
believe, prove to be the ultimate protector of the liberties of the people. Then, too, the amendment is in its
10 form so complicated that its practical working will be impossible. The honorable member said truly that the
Attorney-General constantly intervenes now. But he intervenes at the expense of the individual. The
individual presents his case, and gives a guarantee for costs. Under this proposal all that would happen would
be that the individual who wanted to assert [start page 1688] his right would have a barrier placed between
him and the obtaining of justice. He would have to satisfy the Attorney-General for the time being that he
15 would be able to pay the costs of any action, and he would have to bring sufficient political pressure to bear
upon that officer to get him to move in the case, and finally he would be left to contest the matter in his own
interests and in his own name. The result would be that the rights and liberties of every citizen in the
community would be placed at the mercy of a chance parliamentary majority.
Mr. GORDON.-That is the position now-the rights and liberties of every individual are at the mercy of a
20 parliamentary majority.
Mr. WISE.-The honorable member is now speaking of rights in respect to legislation. If the Parliament of
South Australia were to pass a law contravening the Merchant Shipping Act
Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.
Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Parliament of South Australia wanted to get rid of the Plimsoll Mark Act-even
25 though there were a majority it would be invalid, but according to the honorable member, when, we have here
a case exactly analogous, if the Constitution limits the power of the state, and enacts that certain powers shall
belong exclusively to the Commonwealth Parliament, and that if the state deals with them it invades the
authority of the Commonwealth Parliament, the individual is to have no rights unless he can persuade the
Government of the day to take up his case. It is in the interests of the poorer and uninfluential classes of
30 the community, it is. in the interests of the minority, that this amendment should be rejected, because it
places an obstacle in the way of obtaining that justice which ought to be free to every individual in the
community.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I should like to add my protest against this new clause. I am bound to say
something, because the honorable member (Mr. Gordon) says it is only the conservative and timid lawyers
35 who would venture to oppose this proposal.
Mr. GORDON.-I did not say that. I said as a rule the legal profession is, according to Herbert Spencer, a
timid and conservative class.
Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be so, and if the honorable member says he did not make that statement it is all
right. Anyhow, I thought he said that only conservative and timid lawyers would oppose this clause. There is
40 no doubt the intention of the honorable member is excellent. He wants to diminish litigation. If he can show
that this will diminish litigation to any material extent, and, at the same time, will not involve us in a great
many dangers to our liberties, I will go with him, but he has not shown anything of the sort. As Mr. Wise has
shown, it will throw an unpopular minority into the power of a chance Ministry of the day. We must see to-
day that the rights of individuals, even unpopular individuals, are preserved in the Constitution. I think
45 Sir John Forrest said that I personally had not got sufficient respect for the rights of individuals.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?
Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.

Page 23
Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by
contrast to put me on the very lowest. At all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to
obtain his rights and liberties, would have to go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the
day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time
5 ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in
regard to their pig-tails, which they [start page 1689] regard with exceptional reverence. That law was
declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. I ask honorable members to consider the great
difficulty there would be in getting the Federal Congress or Federal Executive to interfere in the case of
Chinamen, so as to enforce their rights in such a case. There was an exceptional law which should never have
10 been passed. It was distinctly a persecuting law. Any practical politician would see the great difficulty there
would be in appealing to a Federal Executive, especially if there was an election approaching, to enforce the
just rights of Chinamen in such a case. The same thing might happen supposing a federal law were
passed which was outside the Constitution. Supposing that a majority of the state concerned happened
to regard the man as unpopular supposing a law were passed that no one bearing the name of Jones
15 should be admitted into the state of Virginia, the law might be directed against a certain person named
Jones, and it would be unconstitutional, and Jones could not enforce his rights to go into that state. I
ask, is he to be compelled to go cap in hand to the Attorney-General of the state of Virginia to enforce his
rights? I feel that, with the very best intentions my honorable friend is making the gravest of mistakes. So far
as regards the main purport of the amendment, it would mean this: That you could only get a point of this sort
20 decided by having a state or Commonwealth intervening as a party. You would turn judicial questions into
political questions. You would proclaim-"Here is a question between the state and the Commonwealth;
here is a political question"; and you would make the Judges partisans. It is one of the great
advantages of private persons being able to raise these points, and not the states or the Commonwealth,
that you keep the judicial bench free from the taint of political partisanship. I feel that the more you look
25 at this thing all round, the more inconsistent it is with the very first principles of justice. It may be said-Even
supposing the law does go beyond the Constitution in some degree, surely it ought not to be left to a private
person to upset it." I say it ought to be upset at once and at the very earliest point. As soon as ever you
find it has gone beyond the bounds you ought to say-"This thing is illegal." Otherwise you will leave to
the Ministry of the day these powers of which you are so careful, giving them to a majority of the states
30 and to a majority of the people. You would allow the Ministry of the day to exercise a suspending
power as to whether it would enforce a law or not, which is most dangerous. It is one thing to induce a
Government or Parliament to pass an unjust law, and it is quite another thing to induce a Government for one
excuse or another to hold its hand from acting. What I fear is that you would often induce the Government to
withhold its hand from acting, for fear it would incur opprobrium or unpopularity. I sincerely hope the
35 amendment will not be carried.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-
40 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
45 community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right to
do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do not
see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance, if
50 Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions which
are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing so. I do
not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond the
confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

Page 24
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth. I
do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be intended to
debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I do not think
5 that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with
the affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know
with how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into
existence, or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have
10 made the dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so
that all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth
will not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any
laws which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
15 should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
20 immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
25 That the words "The affairs of," first line sub-section (1),be omitted.
[start page 253]
Mr. BARTON.-I have no objection to taking it that way.
Mr. DEAKIN.-I think it must now be perfectly clear that what we desire is, not to deprive, the Federal
Parliament of its paramount power in every respect in regard to any dealings with the races referred
30 to, but to leave to the several states, until the Federal Parliament legislates upon the alien question, the
operation of all legislation already passed, and the the right to legislate in the future until the Federal
Parliament thinks fit to supersede it by specific legislation. For instance, the Federal Parliament might well
pass a general law applying to these races without making any reference to their employment as miners or
hawkers, and any state legislation in regard to those occupations which might be in existence would continue,
35 or now legislation regarding them might be introduced. When the Federal Parliament chooses to make
regulations in regard to the employment of aliens as hawkers and miners, the state legislation will cease to
have effect. The honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) said-Hand to the Federal Parliament all powers
connected with aliens, and allow them to give back certain powers to the state." We say-Instead of taking
these powers from the states and giving them back again, let us leave them with the states until the Federal
40 Parliament chooses to assume them."
Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I do not think it makes any substantial difference whether you put
this provision in clause 52, or leave it where it is. The Federal Parliament has first to say what races it is:
necessary to make regulations about.
Mr. ISAACS.-That is giving a rather limited meaning to the words "deemed necessary."
45 Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the
words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether we
Page 25
leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power
5 will have arisen. The only matter for the committee to consider is as to the expediency of leaving the
provision here or of putting; it into clause 52. Wherever it is, it will, upon the passing of the Constitution,
operate as an intimation to the Federal Parliament that this is a matter of national import, upon which they are
expected to legislate. Once within the Commonwealth citizens should be able to go freely from one state to
another; there should be no lines of differentiation between states. If races are admitted into one state, and are
10 not free to go into another, the inconveniences of administration, especially on the borders, will be very great.
It has been thought well that there should be a uniform law throughout Australia in respect to the
citizens of Australia, and it was considered that this provision should be put into a separate clause
giving exclusive powers, in order to emphasize the fact that the Federal Parliament should legislate
upon this matter. In my opinion, whether you put the provision into clause 52, or leave it where it is, its
15 substantial legislative effect will be the same. As to the meaning of the words, "the affairs of the people of
any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary," in my opinion it is the Federal Parliament who must
deem it necessary.
Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate for the whole
general community?
20 Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general
community.
[start page 254]
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-My argument is that deemed necessary means deemed necessary by the Parliament
of the Commonwealth. Assuming that I am right, I ask to whom does this clause extend? The persons named
25 by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. When the Commonwealth Parliament deals with this subject, its
legislation will over-ride any local legislation, no matter whether you put the provision in clause 52 or leave it
in clause 53. What the representatives from Victoria want is exactly what is provided here, but the provision
is put where it is for the purposes of extra emphasis, and to indicate to the Federal Parliament that they are
expected to make over-riding and general legislation in regard to this vital question. I think honorable
30 members are, almost without exception, strongly of opinion that there should be federal legislation upon this
matter, and I therefore believe that it will meet the wishes of honorable members if we leave the provision
exactly where it is, as a means of hurrying up the Federal Parliament and causing it to legislate in this matter
as soon as possible.
END QUOTE
35 .
QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
There can be no doubt as to the desirability of conferring unlimited powers on the Federal Parliament to
prevent the introduction of foreign coloured races.
40 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
45 I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE
50 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
The exercise within the commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the parliaments of all the
states concerned, of any legislative powers with respect to the affairs of the territory of the
commonwealth, or any part of it, which can at the date of the establishment of this constitution be exercised
Page 26
only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia, but always subject
to the provisions of this constitution.
We are aware, sir, that there are many things now upon which the legislatures and governments of the
several Australian colonies may agree, and upon which they may desire to see a law established; but we are
5 obliged, if we want that law made, to go to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and ask them to be good
enough to make the law for us; and when it is made we will obey it. I contend, for myself, as I have had an
opportunity of saying before, that after the federal parliament is established anything which the legislatures of
Australia want done in the way of legislation should be done within Australia, and then parliament of the
commonwealth should have that power. It is not proposed by this provision to enable the parliament of
10 the commonwealth to interfere with the state legislatures; but only, when the state legislatures agree in
requesting such legislation, to pass it, so that there shall be no longer any necessity to have recourse to a
parliament beyond our own shores when once this constitution has been passed by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. With respect to these subjects, it is not proposed to give the parliament of the
commonwealth exclusive jurisdiction; they will have paramount jurisdiction; but it is proposed that, until they
15 exercise those powers, the existing laws shall remain [start page 525] in force, and that, until they choose to
make laws to the contrary, the state legislatures may go on exercising their existing powers. It is only when
the federal parliament comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to make laws on those matters that
the powers of the states will be excluded, and then only to the extent to which the federal legislature
chooses to exercise its functions. In addition to the powers to be exercised in that way, not interfering with
20 the existing rights of states until the federal legislature thinks it necessary to do so, it is proposed to give some
exclusive powers to the legislature of the commonwealth. One of them is to deal with the affairs of people
of any race with respect to whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws not applicable to the
general community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorise legislation with respect to the
aboriginal native race in Australia and the Maori race in New Zealand.
25 END QUOTE
From the above I cannot but conclude that the states cannot legislate contrary to the provisions of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) as to races. Racial vilification
legislation by any state in my view is in violation to the very intent and purposes of s51(xxvi).
Neither can I accept that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 somehow is constitutionally valid
30 by using external affairs powers where this clearly would offend the legal principles embedded in
ss51(xxvi). Aboriginals by their own desire wanted to be included in ss51(xxvi) by what I
consider was a con-job referendum. Because ss51(xxvi) was designed to ‘discriminate’ against
any race within that provision then the mere inclusion of aboriginals in 1967 could not alter the
true meaning and application regarding races. Indeed, it would be sheer and utter nonsense to
35 claim that ss51(xxvi) applies to races such as Chinese but differently for Aboriginals. Neither can
it be claimed that ss51(xxvi) applies to all races the same because of the inclusion of Aboriginals
this is because to my knowledge the referendum didn’t seek electors to vote to amend the
meaning and application of this section but only to include Aboriginals in it.
As I understand it the Federal Government in the early 1950’s was warned against amending
40 ss51(xxvi) to include aboriginals because of the baggage with this section and it would be better
to create new subsection altogether. In essence Aboriginals lost their citizenship rights (The right
to vote and be a Member of Parliament) the moment the Commonwealth of Australia legislated
as to Aboriginals. I did publish in 2003 the following book setting it out in considerable details:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
45 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

Page 27
And back to the issue of the true meaning and application of ‘CITIZENSHIP’ I placed this
before the court as a constitutional issue and none of the Attorney-Generals challenged me in
those successful appeals!

QUOTE
The issue of Australian citizenship
10
15 http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/What/media_releases/1998/sep/franchise.htm
The Franchise ‘Right to Vote’ Timetable

16 September 1998
On October 3 over 12 million Australians will be eligible to vote in the 1998 federal
20 election.
In Australia, citizens have the right and responsibility to enrol and vote when they each the age
of eighteen years. In fact is it compulsory to do so.
But is hasn’t always been so - compulsory enrolment wasn’t introduced until 1911 and
compulsory voting wasn’t introduced until 1924.
25 For one quarter of the history of white settlement in Australia nobody voted, and this was for the
simple fact that there were no parliaments to vote for.
The first parliamentary elections were in 1843 for the New South Wales Legislative
Council. But this was an election that not everyone could vote in – only men with land
valued at 200 pounds or a house worth 20 pounds annually had the right to vote.
30 For the rest of the century following this election, and even for a time before, there were
long struggles over who could vote and what they could vote for. These movements to
increase the franchise gained notable victories in the years following the first election in
Australia.
In 1856 the right to vote was granted to all male British subjects over the age of 21 in
35 South Australia. The other States followed in the years between 1857 and 1896.
South Australia again led the way when in 1894 women over 21 were given the right to
vote. The other States granted women this right in the years between 1899 and 1908.
By 1902 most men and women were able to vote at federal elections. However, what were
referred to as ‘Aboriginal natives’ of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were
40 excluded from enrolment and voting.
In 1903 the first federal election under federal law was held with a 46.86% voter turnout.
In 1925 the first federal election with compulsory voting was held with 91.31% voter
turnout.
It was 1949 when Aboriginal people were given the right to enrol and vote at federal
45 elections, and then only as long as they were entitled to enrol for State elections or had
served in the defence forces. In 1962 voluntary enrolment and voting at federal elections
was extended to all Aboriginal people.

Page 28
In 1973 the qualifying age for enrolment, voting and candidature for all federal elections
was lowered from 21 to 18.
It was in 1984 that enrolment and voting were made compulsory for Aboriginal people.
It was also in 1984 that the qualifications to be eligible to vote was changed to Australian
5 citizenship. Now the only non-Australian citizens entitled to enrol and vote are those
British subjects who were on the electoral roll on 25 January 1984, the time at which the
eligibility changed.
One of the first obstacles the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has is to prove that
10 I am an “Australian citizen” within the meaning as referred to by the Framers of the
Constitution, as to poses the right to vote in federal elections, rather then to whatever is made out
to be by the Federal legislation. If in fact I am not an “Australian citizen”, as to exercise any
political powers such as “franchise” then it is irrelevant if the election was constitutionally valid
or not (as this is also in contest) as without political right to vote there can be no jurisdiction
15 being invoked for this Court to entertain any charges against me.
“Citizenship” is used only once in the Constitution as the draft had other references to
“citizenship” removed as to avoid misconceptions as to the constitutional powers or the lack
thereof by the Federal Parliament. (Hansard records Constitutional Convention Debates 1891,
20 1897 and 1898)
The terms “citizen of the Commonwealth.”, “Australian citizen”, federal citizen”, “State
citizen” were all used in an interchanging set of words as to mean “subject of the Queen”. This as
after all any person within the realm of the queen (King) is subject to the laws of the British
25 Parliament. It does not matter if they were ‘aliens”, “natural born subjects” or “naturalized
subjects”, as they were/are all subject to the laws enacted by the Parliaments under the Imperial
powers.
The meaning of a word or words can they be altered because of international perceptions, etc.;
30
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37, 6-8-2004
66. Most of the rules HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-

bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn63" [64] now recognised as rules of
international law are of recent origin. If Australian courts interpreted the Constitution by
35 reference to the rules of international law now in force, they would be amending the
Constitution in disregard of the direction in s 128 of the Constitution. Section 128
declares that the Constitution is to be amended only by legislation that is approved by a
majority of the States and "a majority of all the electors voting". Attempts to suggest that
a rule of international law is merely a factor that can be taken into account in interpreting
40 the Constitution cannot hide the fact that, if that is done, the meaning of the Constitution
is changed whenever that rule changes what would otherwise be the result of the case.
The point is so obvious that it hardly needs demonstration. But a simple example will
suffice to show the true character of what is done if courts take a post-1900 rule of
international law into account. Immediately before the rule was recognised, our
45 Constitution had meanings that did not depend on that rule. Either the rule of
international law has effect on one or more of those meanings or it has no effect. If it has
an effect, its invocation has altered the meaning of the Constitution overnight. As a result,
a court that took the rule into account has amended the Constitution without the authority
of the people acting under s 128 of the Constitution. It has inserted a new rule into the
50 Constitution. Take this case. The issues are whether ss 189, 196 and 198 are laws with

Page 29
respect to aliens or are exercises by the Parliament and not the federal courts of the
judicial power of the Commonwealth. If this Court had to take a rule of international law
into account in interpreting those powers, the rule would either confirm what was already
inherent in the powers or add to or reduce them. If the international rule is already
5 inherent in the power it is irrelevant. If it is not, its invocation alters the constitutional
meaning of "aliens" or "judicial power of the Commonwealth" or both.
67. Many constitutional lawyers - probably the great majority of them - now accept that
developments inside and outside Australia since 1900 may result in insights concerning
the meaning of the Constitution that were not present to earlier generations. Because of
10 those insights, the Constitution may have different meanings from those perceived in
earlier times. As Professor Ronald Dworkin has often pointed out, the words of a
Constitution consist of more than letters and spaces. They contain propositions. And,
because of political, social or economic developments inside and outside Australia, later
generations may deduce propositions from the words of the Constitution that earlier
15 generations did not perceive. Windeyer J made that point persuasively in Victoria v The
Commonwealth HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn64" [65] . But that is a very different
process from asserting that the Constitution must be read to conform to or so far as
possible with the rules of international law. As I earlier pointed out, reading the
20 Constitution up or down to conform to the rules of international law is to make those
rules part of the Constitution, contrary to the direction in s 128 that the Constitution is to
be amended only in accordance with the referendum process.
68. The issue in Polites HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn65" [66] shows what would be the
25 effect of reading the Constitution to conform with the rules of international law. It was
arguably a rule of international law in 1945 that aliens could not be compelled to serve in
the military forces of a foreign state in which they happened to be. Whether or not such a
rule existed HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn66" [67] , this Court refused to read
30 the constitutional powers with respect to "defence" HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn67"
[68] and "aliens" HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn68" [69] as subject to such a rule. If
the Court had accepted the argument of the plaintiff in Polites, the international law rule
35 would have become a constitutional rule contrary to s 128 of the Constitution.
69. Failure to see the difference between taking into account political, social and economic
developments since 1900 and taking into account the rules of international law is the
error in the approach of those who assert that the Constitution must be read in conformity
with or in so far as it can be read conformably with the rules of international law. Rules
40 are specific. If they are taken into account as rules, they amend the Constitution. That
conclusion cannot be avoided by asserting that they are simply "context" or elucidating
factors. Rules are too specific to do no more than provide insights into the meanings of
the constitutional provisions. Either the rule is already inherent in the meaning of the
provision or taking it into account alters the meaning of the provision. No doubt from
45 time to time the making or existence of (say) a Convention or its consequences may
constitute a general political, social or economic development that helps to elucidate the
meaning of a constitutional head of power. But that is different from using the rules in
that Convention to control the meaning of a constitutional head of power. Suppose the
imposition of tariffs is banned under a World Trade Agreement. If that ban were taken
50 into account - whether as context or otherwise - in interpreting the trade and commerce
power HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-
Page 30
bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn69" [70] , it would add a new rule to
the Constitution. It would require reading the power to make laws with respect to trade
and commerce as subject to the rule that it did not extend to laws that imposed tariffs.
Such an approach, in the words of Dixon J, cannot be "countenanced" HYPERLINK
5 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/2004/" \l "fn70"
[71] .
Again;
If this Court had to take a rule of international law into account in interpreting those
powers, the rule would either confirm what was already inherent in the powers or add to
10 or reduce them. If the international rule is already inherent in the power it is irrelevant. If
it is not, its invocation alters the constitutional meaning of "aliens" or "judicial power of
the Commonwealth" or both.
The point is that albeit International law of late cannot be used to determine the powers and
limitations of constitutional provisions, International law as existing at the time of Federation can
15 be used to explain the intentions of the Framers, this, as the Framers themselves were debating
the issue of how it applied under international law. Further, International law provisions that
came after the Federation can not be applied to expand or otherwise alter the true intentions of
the Framers of the Constitution but may be an aid to the scope of legislation passed since
Federation. As such, it does not impinge upon constitutional provisions at all, but is to be
20 considered as to what was applicable at the time of constitutional valid legislated provisions how
they could be applicable within the framework of the Constitution.
For example, the issue of conservation;
Constitution Convention Debates;
25 Sub-clause 27 (River navigation with respect to the common purposes of two or more states
or parts of the commonwealth), 689. Amendment by Sir Samuel Griffith to provide for the
conservation of water, 690; withdrawn, and sub-clause agreed to, 692.

30 Mr. MCMILLAN: There is another question which, to a certain extent, I think is
connected with my contention in favour of a strong central government. There is in the
centre of this great continent, which you may call Central Australia, a large area of land
that adjoins three or four colonies. From its peculiar position, from the smallness of its
rainfall, it will have to be dealt with in the future separately, from the other portions of
35 Australia. It is not likely with an enterprising people such as we have in these colonies,
with every obstacle going down before the race to which we belong that we shall allow the
and wastes of the centre of this continent to remain as they are for many years to come.
There is no doubt that a system of conservation of water and irrigation must be introduced
into that great tract, and if that is done at all it must be done by a united Australia.
40 Consequently there should be some machinery in the central government by which the
country in the centre of this continent maybe dealt with differently from other parts of the
continent.
See Section 100 of the Constitution that prohibits to deny “reasonable use” of water. What the
45 framers then discussed was that trade along the rivers (navigation, etc) required the
Commonwealth to regulate the use of water drawn from it, but it could not deny “reasonable use’
of water. What “reasonable use” stands for was to be assessed by the inter State Commission.
However, the general “conservation” of water was held to be a State issue!
Page 31
To be able to consider if the Court can or cannot invoke jurisdiction, it requires to ascertain if the
subject matter of alleged failure to comply with Commonwealth law (Section 245 of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) in fact is applicable. After all, if the relevant provision is
5 not applicable then the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is pursuing a vexatious
charges and the Court cannot entertain the charges or either one of them. .
Mr. THYNNE:
The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a
10 unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the central
federal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other
powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles
connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics
of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its
15 language. He says:
One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be
either legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority
above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state
legislatures, existing under the constitution.
20
Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278
“The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law'
Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all.
If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our
25 predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose
between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not,
in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should
be ultimately right..
Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to
30 consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least
emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong,
and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law
as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed.”
35 It is a matter of fact that I was issued with a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” No.
ME9401317C on the 28th day of March 1994. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Director
of Public Prosecutions contest the issue of this certificate.
The certificate states;
QUOTE
40 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Australian citizenship Act 1948
Certificate of Australian Citizenship
45 GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL

Born on 7 th June 1947

Page 32
having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
5 I the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,

Grant this Certificate of Australian citizenship to the abovenamed applicant who is
an Australian citizen on and after 28 th March 1994.
Issued by the authority

10 Of the Minister
For Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs.
END QUOTE
15 By marriage, on 28 March 2001, I became Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka
Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state,
20 allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with
respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is
a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and
citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie;
25 allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a
badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is
freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it
30 can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in
which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously
enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth,
and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the
inherent rights of man.
35
And
These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for,
though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain
would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that
40 she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the
Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in
support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two
sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
45 And
The power of naturalizing has been vested in several of the state governments, and it
now exists in the general government; but the power to restrain or regulate the right
of emigration, is no where surrendered by the people; and it must be repeated, that,
what has not been given, ought not to be assumed. It may be said, however, that such
50 a power is necessary to the government, and that it is implied in the authority to
regulate the business of naturalization. In considering these positions, it must be
Page 33
admitted, that although an individual has a right to expatriate himself, he has not a
right to seduce others from their country. Hence, those who forcibly, or seductively,
take away a citizen, commit an act, which [p*143] forms a fair object of municipal
police; and a conspiracy or combination, to leave a country, might, likewise be
5 properly guarded against. Such laws would not be an infraction of the natural right of
individuals; for, the natural rights of man are personal; he has no right to will for
others, and he does so, in effect, whenever he moves the mind of another to his
purpose, by fear, by fraud, or by persuasion.
And
10 But naturalization and expatriation are matters of internal police; and must depend
upon the municipal law, though they may be illustrated and explained by the
principles of general jurisprudence. It is true, that the judicial power extends to a
variety of objects; but the Supreme Court is only a branch of that power; and
depends on Congress for what portion it shall have, except in the cases of
15 ambassadors, &c. particularly designated in the constitution. The power of declaring
whether a citizen shall be entitled in any form to expatriate himself, or, if entitled, to
prescribe the form, is not given to the Supreme Court; and, yet, that power will be
exercised by the court, if they shall decide against the expatriation of Captain Talbot.
Let it not, after all, be understood, that the natural, loco-motive, right of a free citizen,
20 is independent of every social obligation. In time of war, it would be treason to
migrate to any enemy's country and join his forces, under the pretext of expatriation.
1 Dall. Rep. 53, and, even in time of peace, it would be, reprehensible (say the writers
on the law of nature and nations) to desert a country labouring under great
calamities. So, if a man acting under the obligations of an oath of office, withdraws to
25 elude his responsibility, he changes his habitation, but not his citizenship. It is not,
however, private relations, but public relations; private responsibility, but public
responsibility; that can affect the right: for, where the reason of the law ceases, the
law itself must, also, cease. There is not a private relation, for which a man is not as
liable by local, as by natural, allegiance;--after, as well as before, his expatriation: He
30 must take care of his family, he must pay his debts, wherever he resides; and there is
no security in restraining emigration, as to those objects, since, with respect to them,
withdrawing is as effectual, as expatriating. Nor is it enough to impair the right of
expatriation, that other nations are at war; it must be the country of the emigrant. No nation
has a right to interfere in the interior police of another: the rights and duties of citizenship,
35 to be conferred, or released, are matter of interior police; and yet, if a foreign war could
affect [p*145] the question, every time that a fresh power entered into a war, a new
restraint would be imposed upon the natural rights of the citizens of a neutral country;
which, considering the constant warfare that afflicts the world, would amount to a
perpetual controul. But the true distinction appears to be this:--The citizens of the neutral
40 country may still exercise the right of expatriation, but the belligerent power is entitled to
say, "the act of joining our enemies, flagrante bello, shall not be a valid act of
expatriation." By this construction, the duty a nation owes to itself, the sacred rights of the
citizen, the law of nations, and the faith of treaties, will harmonize, though moving in
distinct and separate courses. To pursue the subject one step further: A man cannot owe
45 allegiance to two sovereigns. 1Bl. Com. He cannot be citizen of two republics. If a man
has a right to expatriate, and another nation has a right and disposition to adopt him,
it is a compact between the two parties, consummated by the oath of allegiance. A
man's last will, as to his citizenship, may be likened to his last will, as to his estate; it
supersedes every former disposition; and when either takes effect, the party, in one
50 case, is naturally dead, in the other, he is civilly dead;--but in both cases, as good
Christians and good republicans, it must be presumed that he rises to another, if not
Page 34
to a better, life and country. An act of expatriation, likewise, is susceptible of various
kinds of proof. The Virginia law has selected one, when the state permits her citizens
to depart; but it is not, perhaps, either the most authentic, or the most conclusive that
the case admits. It may be done obscurely in a distant county court; and even after
5 the emigrant is released from Virginia, to what nation does he belong? He may have
entered no other country, nor incurred any obligation to any other sovereign. Not
being a citizen of Virginia, he cannot be deemed a citizen of the United States. Shall he
be called a citizen of the world; a human balloon, detached and buoyant in the
political atmosphere, gazed at wherever he passes, and settled wherever he touches?
10 But, on the other hand, the act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is
unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and
creating the right of the adopted, country. Sir William Blackstone, therefore, considers it
as the strongest, though an ineffectual, effort to emancipate a British subject from his
natural allegiance; and the existing constitution of France declares it expressly to be a
15 criterion of expatriation. The same principle operates, when the naturalization law of the
United States provides, that the whole ceremony of initiation shall be performed in the
American courts; and if it is here considered as the proof of adoption, shall it not be
considered, also, as the test of expatriation? If America [p*146] makes citizens in that way,
shall we not allow to other nations, the privilege of the same process? In short, to admit
20 that Frenchmen may be made citizens by an oath of allegiance to America, is, virtually, to
admit, that Americans may be expatriated by an oath of allegiance to France. After this
discussion of principles, forming a necessary basis for the facts in this case, it is insisted,
1st, That Talbot was a naturalized citizen of the French Republic at the time of receiving a
commission to command the privateer, and of capturing the Magdalena. He left this
25 country with the design to emigrate; and the act of expatriation must be presumed to be
regular, according to the laws of France, since it is certified by the municipality of Point a
Pitre, by the French Consul, and by the Governor of Guadaloupe. 2d, That Redick was
also, a naturalized citizen of the French Republic, when he purchased the vessel, and
received a commission to employ her as a privateer.
30
And
Ballard was a citizen of Virginia, and also of the United States.
Within the united States of America a person granted naturalization is also granted citizenship,
where as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) does not provide for this.
35 Section 51(xix) provides for “naturalization”.
As already extensively placed before the magistrates in previous proceedings (upon which I rely
before this Court also) some of the “Colonies” (now States) naturalized “aliens” and others didn’t
however each and every Colony did have legislation in regard of citizenship and the rights to
franchise.
40 The Hansard records of the 2 March and 3 March 1898 Constitutional Convention Debates
made clear that “naturalization” powers would be transferred from the Colonies to the newly to
be formed Commonwealth of Australia, as it would be approved by the British Parliament but
“CITIZENSHIP” legislative powers would be retained by the States in the newly formed
Commonwealth of Australia.

Page 35
Mr Quick proposed to give the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to
define/declare “CITIZENSHIP” but this was defeated/refused by the Delegates!
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
5 position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that.
Therefore, even if the amendment of Mr Quick had succeeded it still was not intended to give
any legislative powers to the commonwealth of australia to interfere with the rights of any person
as a British subject.
10 Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we
are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more

comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the
15 Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the
clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of
the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship,
and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way
interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the
20 scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a
colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen. I
see therefore nothing unconstitutional, nothing contrary to our instincts as British
subjects, in proposing to place power in this Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament
to deal with the question of federal citizenship. An objection has been raised in various
25 quarters-as by the honorable and learned members (Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Wise)-to the
effect that we ought to define federal citizenship in the Constitution itself. I have
considered this matter very carefully, and it has seemed to me that it would be most
difficult and invidious, if not almost impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition. There is
in the Constitution of the United States of America a cast-iron definition of
30 citizenship, which has been found to be absolutely unworkable, because, among other
things, it says that a citizen of the United States shall be a natural-born or naturalized
citizen within the jurisdiction of the United States, and it has been found that that
excludes the children of citizens born outside the limits of this jurisdiction. That
shows the danger of attempting definitions, and although I have placed a proposed
35 clause defining federal citizenship upon the notice-paper, the subject, seems to me
surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and no doubt the honorable and learned
members (Mr. Wise, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Symon) would be the first to attack any
definition, and would be able to perforate it. In my opinion, it would be undesirable to
implant a cast-iron definition of citizenship in the Constitution, because it would be
40 better to leave the question more elastic, more open to consideration, and more
yielding to the advancing changes and requirements of the times.
Mr. SYMON.-I agree with the honorable member, and I also think it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth will seek to derogate from it, but I will not place a power in the hands of
the Commonwealth which will enable them to derogate from it, and if that is not done it
45 will be merely a dead letter. Is there any citizen of the Commonwealth who is not already a
Page 36
citizen of the state? State citizenship is his birthright, and by virtue of it he is entitled to the
citizenship of the Commonwealth. When you have immigration, and allow different
people to come in who belong to nations not of the same blood as we are, they become
naturalized, and thereby are entitled to the rights of citizenship.
5 Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-They are citizens if they are British subjects before they
come here.
Mr. SYMON.-That is a point I do not wish to deal with. But they become citizens of
the states, and it is by virtue of their citizenship of the states that they become citizens
of the Commonwealth. Are you going to have citizens of the state who are not citizens
10 of the Commonwealth?
Mr. KINGSTON.-In some states they naturalize; but they do not in others.
Mr. WALKER.-Is not a citizen of the state, ipso facto, a citizen of the
Commonwealth?
And
15 Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter.
Would not the provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the
power to take away a portion of this dual citizenship, with which the honorable and
learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is the case, what this
Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
20 exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we
acquire by joining the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is
put in the power of the Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot
on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a
lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to
25 become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-
"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out
of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to
take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
30 And
Mr. OCONNOR.-I have said that I do not see that such a trust in the Federal Parliament
would be effective. I sympathize with the honorable member's view, but I think it will be
carried out by some kind of definition of citizenship, and I was pointing out the only
aspect in which it appears to me it might be desirable to have some such definition, and
35 that is, you are creating new rights to citizens of the Commonwealth as citizens of the
Commonwealth in regard to your courts. You establish courts for the Commonwealth, and
every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to the use of those courts.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Who is he?
And

Page 37
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I shall have to oppose Dr. Quick's amendment, although
I would really go further than he intends. His object is to have a common citizenship, and
he proposes to define that in a proposed new clause, 120A, which reads as follows:-
All persons resident within the Commonwealth, being natural-born or naturalized subjects
5 of the Queen, and not under any disability imposed by the Parliament, shall be citizens of
the Commonwealth;
and he now wants to give power to Parliament to vary that subsequently.
Mr. ISAACS.-It is not clause 120A that he is proposing now.
Mr. HIGGINS.-It is his amendment in clause 52-to insert "Commonwealth citizenship"

10 as a new sub-section.
Mr. GLYNN.-I am quite aware of that, but what I want to understand is whether Dr.
Quick will propose the insertion of clause 120A, and also put it in the power of the
Parliament to vary the Commonwealth citizenship under clause 52? That is the point about
which I am doubtful. But I desire to point out that Dr. Quick is not going as far as they
15 have gone in America or Germany. There is a common citizenship both of the
Commonwealth and of the states in America. Citizenship of the Commonwealth carries
with it citizenship of the states, and the Constitution provides that immunities and
privileges enjoyed by the citizens of a particular state shall be equally shared, when in that
state, by the citizens of all the other states. Now, the German Constitution makes a
20 declaration that there must be a common citizenship. It does not state that the Parliament
of Germany will have the power of providing for a citizenship of the empire, but that there
must be a common citizenship of the whole empire, and that the privileges which are given
in one part of the empire would apply right through the whole empire. That is to say, there
is a Commonwealth citizenship and a state citizenship running the one with the other-a
25 perfect equality of rights. All that is done in Germany is that Article 3 of the Imperial
Constitution declares that there shall be a common citizenship for all Germany, and that
the rights of the individual citizens of any state must be extended to the individual citizens
of any other state as long as they come within the jurisdiction of the former state; but the
German Constitution also provides that Parliament-and here is the distinction-may define
30 what the conditions of that common citizenship are to be. The Constitution declares that
there must be a common citizenship, but it leaves the determination of the particular terms
of that citizenship to the Parliament. That is different from the proposal of Dr. Quick.
And
[start page 1761]
35 Mr. KINGSTON.-It was in the Bill.
Mr. OCONNOR.-There is no portion of the Bill which gives any right of citizenship, or
points out what citizenship is.
Mr. HIGGINS.-The word "citizen " occurred in clause 110, although it is now struck
out.
40 And
Page 38
Mr. OCONNOR.-The words in clause 110 do not define any right of citizenship; they
prevent certain restrictions upon it. I would point out to Dr. Quick that he is proposing to
give a power to regulate or describe rights of citizenship, when we really do not know at
present what is meant by a citizen. I confess I do not know what the honorable and learned
5 member means by that term. Does he mean only the political rights which you give to
every inhabitant of a state who is qualified to vote, or does he go beyond that, as the
American decisions have gone, and describe every person who is under the protection of
your laws as a citizen? The citizens, the persons under the protection of your laws, are not
the only persons who are entitled to take part in your elections or in your government, but
10 every person who resides in your community has a right to the protection of your laws and
to the protection of the laws of all the states, and has the right of access to your courts. If
you are going to define citizenship for the purpose of giving these rights, you must say
clearly what you mean by citizenship. You leave it to the Federal Parliament to say what
citizenship is; and I think there is a great deal in what Mr. Glynn says, that we must not
15 hand over to the Federal Parliament the power to cut down the rights the inhabitants of
these states have at the present time. If we do not know what you mean by citizenship-
Mr. ISAACS.-Commonwealth citizenship.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. But if we do not know what you mean by citizenship-

whether you mean to restrict it to political rights or to the right of protection under your
20 laws, which every person, whether a naturalized subject or a person for the time being
resident in one of these communities, possesses-we may drive the Federal Parliament into
some difficulty, in which it is not at all unlikely that some cutting down of what we believe
to be the rights of citizenship may take place. I would point out that under the Bill the
power of dealing with aliens and immigration gives an abundant right to the
25 Commonwealth to protect itself, and, of course, the right of defining citizenship will
have to be exercised with due regard to any laws which might be made regarding the
position of aliens. I would ask my honorable friend (Dr. Quick) to say if he has considered
how far he means the Federal Parliament to go in the definition of citizenship, and what he
means by citizenship? Because, unless we have a clear idea of that, it seems to me that we
30 are handing over to the Federal Parliament something which is vague in the extreme, and
which might be misused.
And
Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will
come under the operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who
35 would not also be entitled to be a citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for
such discrimination as would allow a section of a state to remain outside the pale of the
Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual citizenship exists,
but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but
40 one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship
meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say,
I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all. But if we introduce
this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
45 who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one
which we do not expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is
much better to be left out. Let us, in dealing with this question, be as careful as we
Page 39
possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this Commonwealth in any way or
exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and clearness.
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not
want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
5 prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an
argument, because no one would anticipate such a thing, but the Commonwealth
Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should be a citizen
of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?
10 Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every
citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth
shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
15 and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
And
Mr. BARTON.-If the honorable member's exclamation means more than I have
20 explained, then the best thing to do is to confide to the Commonwealth the right of dealing
with the lives, liberty, and property of all the persons residing in the Commonwealth,
independently of any law of any state. That is not intended, but that is what the expression
"Trust the Federal Parliament" would mean unless it was limited by the consideration I
have laid down. I am sure Dr. Quick will see that he is using a word that has not a
25 definition in English constitutional law, and which is not otherwise defined in this
Constitution. He will be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament a power, not only of
dealing with the rights of citizenship, but of defining those rights even within the very
narrowest limits, so that the citizenship of a state might be worth nothing; or of
extending them in one direction, and narrowing them in another, so that a subject
30 living in one of the states would scarcely know whether he was on his head or his
heels. Under the Constitution we give subjects political rights to enable the Parliament to
legislate with regard to the suffrage, and pending that legislation we give the qualification
of electors. It is that qualification of electors which is really the sum and substance of
political liberty, and we have defined that. If we are going to give the Federal Parliament
35 power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having
defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really
defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play
ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
40 Mr. HIGGINS.-You give the Federal Parliament power to naturalize.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and in doing that we give them power to make persons subjects of
the British Empire. Have we not done enough? We allow them to naturalize aliens. That
is a power which, with the consent of the Imperial authority, has been carried into
legislation by the various colonies, and, of course, we cannot do less for the
45 Commonwealth than we have done for the colonies.
Page 40
Mr. KINGSTON.-Such legislation is only good within the limits of each state.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual
right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and
protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the states. It must be
5 recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not
among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth. The administration of [start page
1766] the laws regarding property and personal liberty is still left with the states. We
do not propose to interfere with them in this Constitution. We leave that amongst the
reserved powers of the states, and, therefore, having done nothing to make insecure the
10 rights of property and the rights of liberty which at present exist in the states, and having
also said that the political rights exercisable in the states are to be exercisable also in the
Commonwealth in the election of representatives, we have done all that is necessary. It is
better to rest there than to plunge ourselves into what may be a sea of difficulties. We do
not know to what extent a power like this may be exercised, and we should pause before we
15 take any such leap in the dark.
Again;
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
20 shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand over
our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the
amendment will not be accepted.
25 Also
The administration of [start page 1766] the laws regarding property and personal
liberty is still left with the states.
As was made clear by Mr quick;
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the
30 qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our
position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the
Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens
of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
Therefore, the Constitution never provided any constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of
35 Australia to legislate as to “CITIZENSHIP”.
As the Commonwealth of Australia was provided with powers within Subsection 51(xix) of the
constitution to “naturalize” “aliens” to become “British nationals” and the Nationalization Act
was enacted after Federation then clearly the powers to naturalize an alien to become a British
national is not diminish. In 1948, the Federal parliament then replaced the Naturalization Act
40 with the Australian citizenship Act 1948 by this “STEALING” the legislative powers of the
States states in regard of “citizenship” by purporting that there was an “Australian citizenship” as
an Australian nationality.
Page 41
Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
5 If the Commonwealth of Australia never had any constitutional powers to declare/define

citizenship then what is the meaning of the Certificate of Australian Citizenship realty?
If Australian citizenship is purported to be Australian nationality then this must fail as Subsection
51(xix) provided constitutional powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to “naturalize” aliens
10 to become British nationals! Without any Section 128 referendum this cannot be changed to
some purported “Australian nationality”.
We either have a Constitution or not! We use it as was intended by the framers of the
Constitution, modified as have been provided for by the successful referendums or we have no
constitution at all and no federation exist!
15
In view that the British parliament declared Australians to be “foreigners” can this then alter the
application of the constitution, one may ask?
Constitutional law cannot be amended by mere implication but must be amended by appropriate
20 legislation. In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) Section
128 exclude the British Parliament to amend the constitution as it can only be amended by the
consent of the people, as expressed by a Section 128 referendum. Hence, regardless if the British
parliament did or didn’t pass legislation to declare Australians “foreigners” the only way to
resolve the matter was and remains to have the Constitution amended to allow the
25 Commonwealth of Australia to “naturalize” aliens to become Australian nationals.
The following part of transcript indicates how the High Court of Australia itself is confusing
“citizenship” with “nationality”.
30 Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M25 of 2001
35 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2002, AT 10.17 AM
KIRBY J: Your clients were not British subjects.

MR MAXWELL: That is so. If I might move immediately to the question of what
40 Patterson decided. In our respectful submission, what Patterson decided was this, that
allegiance, not citizenship, is the touchstone for determining alien status.
KIRBY J: There is only one reference to citizenship in the Constitution, is there not, and
that is the disqualification that was considered in Sue v Hill?
MR MAXWELL: Yes, your Honour.
45 KIRBY J: There is no other reference to the concept and, indeed, we did not have a
Citizenship Act until quite late in the history of the Commonwealth.
MR MAXWELL: One of the critical aspects which comes through clearly in the
judgments, both the dissenting and the majority judgments in Patterson, is the point your
Honour has just adverted to: alien is a concept of our Constitution, citizenship is a concept
50 of our statute law. Your Honours Justices Gummow and Hayne in the joint judgment put in
Page 42
these terms the proposition advanced by the prosecutor in Patterson, namely, at paragraph
[223]:
alienage and citizenship . . . do not occupy the relevant universe of discourse -
That, we would respectfully adopt, though your Honours disagreed in the result, as being
5 the proposition which the majority did endorse. That is to say, it does not follow that
because a person is a non-citizen he or she is, by definition, an alien because you must be
one or the other.
What Patterson held and why Nolan had to be overruled was that there is a category of
non-citizen non-alien. That is what your Honours held by majority Taylor was. He was not
10 a citizen and he was not an alien.
GUMMOW J: I should make clear to you I do not regard that matter as closed.
MR MAXWELL: I am indebted to your Honour.
GUMMOW J: It seems to me absolutely fundamental.
MR MAXWELL: It is absolutely fundamental and, in our respectful submission, there can
15 be no conclusion, with respect, other than that is what this Court found because Mr - - -
GUMMOW J: I am not so sure about that. The Solicitor-General goes into all of this.
MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we note with some surprise that less than a year after that
decision was handed down, the Commonwealth is inviting this Court to reopen it and
overrule it if it says what we say it says.
20 GUMMOW J: The question really is whether it should have overruled Nolan. Now, I will
not hold you up.
MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, in our respectful submission, this Court did overrule
Nolan. Four Justices of the Court addressed the question whether it should be overruled
and each of them decided for reasons given that it should and it is no longer the law in this
25 country, in our respectful submission, and we will go further and say that necessarily Pochi
was at best left under a considerable cloud, if not necessarily overruled by that overruling.
GUMMOW J: It seems to me what I was putting to you really can be put to one side
because you have to go further in this case, and that is the real point.
MR MAXWELL: Indeed, your Honour. Plainly enough - - -
30 KIRBY J: As I understand your argument, it is that until Taylor there was clear authority
that there was a simple clear criterion for alienage, non-citizen.
MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
KIRBY J: After Taylor, whatever is the criterion, the base has shifted.
35 KIRBY J: It did not have to shift further than British subjects to resolve the issue of
Patterson.
MR MAXWELL: That is so.
KIRBY J: But you say, having shifted the basis, a new, stable basis must be found and
therefore this case presents the obligation to find that new, stable basis.
40 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
GUMMOW J: And what is the stable basis?
MR MAXWELL: The starting point is that the obligation of allegiance can come into
existence between a person and the Queen of Australia otherwise than by the taking out of
citizenship. The next question is, by what criteria is the establishment of that obligation to
45 be determined - I am sorry, your Honour?
GAUDRON J: You say "can". Did Patterson go further than say at a certain time it could
come into operation by that method in respect of a certain category of people?
MR MAXWELL: That is so, but - - -
GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, you have to go beyond that to say that since, when? At all
50 relevant times it has been possible and it continues to be possible?

Page 43
MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, all I need to establish is that at the date of the relevant
decisions the obligation of allegiance had been assumed by these individuals. It is quite
separate, of course, from the discussion which was necessarily engaged in for Patterson
about the evolution of the Crown in right of Australia and its separation from Britain.
5 These are, plainly, individuals who have never been British subjects. This is a different
case. But as his Honour Justice Kirby has put, we will be inviting the Court to explore this
category of non - - -
GUMMOW J: We do not set off on exploration tasks. We respond to submissions and we
are trying to find what your submission is.
10 MR MAXWELL: Of course, your Honour.
GUMMOW J: You can tantalise us with this notion of a stable basis. The question is:
what is it?
MR MAXWELL: In these cases - - -
GUMMOW J: Bearing in mind that Patterson was, on one view of it, all about the
15 changing nature of the British Commonwealth, to use that expression.
MR MAXWELL: Your Honour, we put the stable basis on three bases in these cases as
set out in our submission. First, we say that each of these individuals renounced his
allegiance to his country of birth by fleeing from a regime which could not guarantee him
protection.
20 GUMMOW J: How do notions of allegiance work with republican systems of
government? As I understand it, the whole notion of citizenship dates back to the American
and French Revolutions, where they had to replace notions of allegiance which were
monarchical with something else and they devised the notion of citizenship. These
gentlemen never owed allegiance to any sovereign, did they?
25 MR MAXWELL: No, though your Honour will - - -
KIRBY J: Although they would have been born during the reign of Prince Sihanouk.
Cambodia was not a separate colony of France; it was a protectorate. So I think that is
something we would not know without some detail.
GUMMOW J: That is right.
30 MR MAXWELL: But, your Honour, in our respectful submission, as a matter of principle
this will not turn on whether a person came from a country which was a monarchy or a
republic. The concept of allegiance - - -
GUMMOW J: The point I am trying to make to you is that notions of allegiance come out
of English medieval feudalism. That is where it comes from - monarchical feudalism.
35 MR MAXWELL: With respect, we fully appreciate that. As your Honours in the lengthy
joint judgment explained, the concept has developed very significantly since the original
notion of personal loyalty to a lord. It became, and it was declared in the Court of Queen's
Bench in the 1880s, as your Honours pointed out, that it changed from a personal
obligation or an obligation to the sovereign in his or her personal capacity to an obligation
40 to the sovereign in his or her political capacity. That is just one respect in which the
discussion about allegiance in the 21st century is a different discussion from that which it
would have been under more confined notions.
HAYNE J: And it is pointed up by your proposition that each renounced allegiance to the
country of his birth because the regime of the day would not protect him.
45 MR MAXWELL: Exactly so.
HAYNE J: But is allegiance concerned with allegiance to the government? Is it more
abstracted a notion than allegiance to whatever regime is in power?
GAUDRON J: There is a further question of course too and that is, by whose law is this
renunciation to be determined? That was addressed in Sykes and the general principle of
50 international law is that that is determined by the laws of the country of which the person
was a citizen or to which he or she owed allegiance.
Page 44
GAUDRON J: So it is not a simple question, I should have thought.
MR MAXWELL: No, and it is not necessary for our argument, with respect, that there
have been no renunciation.
5 GAUDRON J: Well - - -
MR MAXWELL: It is not. It happens to be the fact and it makes our cases a fortiori, but
what is the critical question is whether it can be said of the person that he has assumed the
obligation of allegiance and our submission puts it that it - - -
GAUDRON J: And you put that as a one-way traffic as well.
10 MR MAXWELL: Well, with respect, no we do not. We gratefully accept the analysis of
their Honours in the joint dissenting judgment, which points out that changes in the
relationship of allegiance can occur either by the joint act of the parties to it, the subject
and the sovereign, or by the unilateral act of either, which, apart from anything else,
enables us to put to one side the old notion that allegiance was perpetual and the natural-
15 born subject could never give it up. The concept of naturalisation scotched that notion 100
years ago. It can be given up by a formal act. We submit that one would expect to find a
parallel notion of renunciation by conduct, but we accept - and our learned friends say just
because you have renounced your citizenship of another country does not mean you have
become a citizen of Australia. Well, we accept that. We do not assert that the renunciation
20 somewhere else makes you a subject of the Queen of Australia. There needs to be an act or
a course of conduct of which it can be said that this person enjoys the protection of the
Queen of Australia and owes her obligations of allegiance.
GLEESON CJ: At which stage did your clients cease to owe allegiance to Cambodia or
Vietnam respectively?
25 MR MAXWELL: At the time they sought refuge in refugee camps or, alternatively, upon
the grant of permanent residence visas to each of them, enabling them to come from the
refugee camp to Australia. At that point, we have argued in our submission that the self-
description as a refugee is the explanation or the manifestation of the renunciation.
GLEESON CJ: They are interesting alternatives, in practice, because if the former is
30 correct, they would have been in the same situation even if they had been refused visas.
MR MAXWELL: That is so. Again, they were granted visas and that means that - and we
will take your Honours in due course to the findings of fact in the Tribunal in each case -
each of these persons was a refugee at the time and, as I understand it, there is no dispute
about that. We do not say that an application for refugee status was made and determined
35 in Australia. There is no evidence that that occurred. Nor is there any doubt but that they
were refugees in the sense in which that term is understood - defined in the Convention.
Your Honours will see in the material a question arises before the Tribunal "whether the
protection obligations which Australia owed under the Convention still obtained as at the
date of the Tribunal review?" Held: "No they don't. Conditions have changed in Cambodia
40 or Vietnam. The protection obligation does not subsist."
To come back to your Honour's question. The assertion of refugee status is the act of
renunciation because it is a statement that, "I cannot rely on the sovereign government of
my country to protect me." Indeed, that language is used in the Convention itself.
GLEESON CJ: Why did they need visas? I wondered if it was because they were aliens.
45 MR MAXWELL: Well, they otherwise had no right to enter Australia.
GUMMOW J: You seem to be asserting they did. Of course HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution - - -
MR MAXWELL: As a matter of international law - - -
GUMMOW J: Forget about international law, because HYPERLINK
50 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/" the Constitution operated in
some magical way.
Page 45
MR MAXWELL: No, your Honour. We conceded before Justice Hayne that these people
had not - I think we conceded they were aliens at the point of arrival. We will seek to
qualify that concession by the protection allegiance argument we have made in our reply.
We start with the proposition that Australia owed obligations of protection to these
5 refugees under the 1951 Convention. At that point there was an acceptance of what is
described in the Refugee Convention in these terms, and it is in the material, a person is,
"unable or . . . unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
What is helpful in this analysis, in our respectful submission, is what Sir John Salmond, in
the Law Quarterly Review article that we will take your Honours to, and the House of
10 Lords in Joyce refer to as "the reciprocal obligations of protection by the sovereign to the
subject and allegiance by the subject to the sovereign."
KIRBY J: Could I just ask a factual matter, that is partly a legal matter. Was there any
impediment to your clients becoming naturalised Australian citizens?
MR MAXWELL: Not that I am aware of, your Honour, no. No application was made. At
15 a certain point they may have, by their criminal convictions, become unable to satisfy the
"good character" requirement.
KIRBY J: Does one draw any inference at all from the fact that in the interval between
their arrival as children and their evictions, that they could have signified their allegiance to
the Queen of Australia and the people of Australia by becoming citizens but omitted,
20 failed, refused to do so?
MR MAXWELL: In our respectful submission, no. One draws no inference because - and
this comes back to the fundamental point - the assumption of citizenship - we have put this
in terms in the outline - is a sufficient condition of allegiance but it is not a necessary
condition, and that is what Patterson held. If that is correct, then the non-taking out of
25 citizenship does not disqualify a person from being a subject of the Queen of Australia.
GAUDRON J: But are we not a little bit off the track here? From a constitutional point of
view we are concerned with aliens and non-aliens. At least in the case of persons who are
not and never have been British subjects is it not the case that it is well within the
legislative power of the Parliament to decide and define who are and who are not aliens?
30 CALLINAN J: That is what Mr Justice Barton said in Ferrando v Pearce.
GAUDRON J: But is that not the case, that it has legislative power to define who are and
who are not aliens?
MR MAXWELL: Yes, but, with respect, to exclude from a statutory definition of aliens -
let me put that differently - to include within a statutory definition of aliens someone who
35 is not is beyond power.
GLEESON CJ: But if granting a visa to someone produces the result that they are not an
alien, then the entire scheme of the Migration Act 1997 has miscarried, has it not? Its long
title is it is "An Act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and the
departure or deportation from Australia of aliens". Visas can be cancelled, can they not?
40
By the reasoning of the Framers of the Constitution (the Delegates to the Constitution
Conventions) a “subject to the Crown” was anyone who was subjected to the laws of the Crown
regardless if they were aliens or not.
45
Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/72.html" [2003] HCA
72
9 December 2003
50 B99/2002

Page 46
10. However, contrary to the submissions for the applicant, the result of such a consideration
of his position is his classification as an alien for the purposes of HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/c167/s51.html" s 51 (xix) of the
Constitution. Much of the applicant's argument proceeded from the premise that, because
5 the expression "British subject" could be applied to him, he was not an alien. That
premise is flawed. First, "British subject" is not a constitutional expression; it is a
statutory expression. Secondly, and more fundamentally, if "British subject" was being
used as a synonym for "subject of the Queen", an expression which is found in the
Constitution, that usage would assume that there was at the time of federation, and there
10 remains today, a constitutional and political unity between the UK and Australia which
100 years of history denies.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitutional Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON.- I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are
alike subjects of the British Crown.
15
Mr. MUNRO:
. I am proud of being a citizen of the great British empire, and shall never fail to be
proud of that position.
20
Mr. HOLDER:
25 because I take it that the legal bonds which bind us to the mother-country, to the
great British Empire,
Mr. BARTON:
30 The association of the Queen with the action of the commonwealth is distinct, and is
firmly embedded in the whole bill. If that is done, there can be no association of the
idea of republicanism with this bill.
35 Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right
which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection
under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that
the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects
confided to the Commonwealth.
40
Dr. QUICK.-
we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire.
It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a
45 city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be,
subjects of the Queen.
Mr. BARTON.-
50 We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is an
undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects" expresses the
relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
Page 47
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?
Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose you say "subject" without definition, would that
include naturalized aliens?
5 Mr. BARTON.-Yes. Dr. Quick's definition is: Persons resident in the Commonwealth,
either natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and if they are subject to no
disabilities imposed by the Parliament they shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. Why
not use the word "subject," and avoid the necessity of this definition?
And
10 Mr. OCONNOR.-Exactly. It has two meanings, but we are only dealing now with
the one meaning-the general meaning. Mr. Isaacs' reference shows the danger that
might be incurred by using the word "citizen," because it might have the restrictive
meaning the last decision imposes. All we mean now is a member of the community or
of the nation, and the accurate description of a member of the community under our
15 circumstances is a subject of the Queen resident within the Commonwealth."
Mr. SYMON.-A person for the time being under the law of the Commonwealth.
Mr. OCONNOR.-A person for the time being entitled to the benefits of the law of
the Commonwealth.
And
20 Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If it is a fact that citizens, as they are called, of each
state are also citizens of the Commonwealth, there may be some little doubt as to whether
this is not providing for practically the same thing.
Mr. WISE.-No, there may be territories that is what I want to provide for.
Mr. BARTON.-In other portions of the Bill we use the words "parts of the
25 Commonwealth" as including territories, so that the object of Mr. Wise would be met
by using the words "citizens of every part of the Commonwealth" or "each part of
the Commonwealth."
And
Mr. BARTON.-
30 We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is
an undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects"
expresses the relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Is a naturalized alien a subject?
Mr. BARTON.-He would be a citizen under the meaning of this clause.
35 Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Suppose you say "subject" without definition, would that
include naturalized aliens?

Page 48
Mr. BARTON.-Yes. Dr. Quick's definition is: Persons resident in the Commonwealth,
either natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Queen, and if they are subject to no
disabilities imposed by the Parliament they shall be citizens of the Commonwealth. Why
not use the word "subject," and avoid the necessity of this definition?
5 Dr. QUICK.-This definition does not interfere with the term "subject" in its wider relation
as a member of the empire or subject of the Queen.
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized

subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in
America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his
10 rights.
And
Dr. QUICK.-The regulation would have to specify the ground of disability.
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but my honorable friend says not under any disability imposed by
the Parliament. Would not the difficulty be that if he were under any slight disability for
15 regulative purposes, all his rights of citizenship under the Commonwealth would be lost?
Mr. KINGSTON.-There might be a special disability on minors.
Mr. BARTON.-That might be one of the disabilities. Of course here the disabilities
as to minors would not matter much, but I would like to put this consideration to Dr.
Quick, that if we use the term "subject," or a person subject to the laws, which is a wider
20 term, we shall avoid the necessity for a definition of "citizen." You might say a subject or
resident being the subject of the Queen.
And
Mr. SYMON.-There is no man in Australia who is more profoundly versed in

constitutional law than Mr. Isaacs, and he knows that every point and every question has
25 been the subject of more or less debate and discussion, and will be until the end of time.
The words "subject," "person," and "citizen" can be made subjects of controversy
at all times if occasion requires it. At the same time, it does not affect the principle
that there should be a definition of "citizen," either in the form suggested by Dr.
Quick or by Mr. Barton.
30
And
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-I am afraid that the amendment is far too wide, unless we say
that the disabilities imposed by Parliament may extend to birth and race. This would,
notwithstanding the rights conferred under clause 52, deprive Parliament of the
35 power of excluding Chinese, Lascars, or Hindoos who happened to be British
subjects.
And
Mr. GLYNN.-

Page 49
I would like to mention, in connexion with what Mr. Isaacs said as to aliens, that this
provision would not interfere in the slightest degree in the way of preventing aliens
from coming in, because it is only when the aliens get inside the Commonwealth that
this provision is to apply to them. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ah Toy
5 v. Musgrove was that an alien had no right to land here, but that decision does not affect
his citizenship after he has landed.
And
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-My mind has wavered very much during this debate. I
10 have come to the conclusion that my original suggestion was wrong, that the best form
of all in which the original amendment could be moved is [start page 1793] that in which it
was proposed by Mr. Symon, and that then no definition such as is suggested by Dr. Quick
will be really required, because, if we allow each state to make its own standard of
citizenship, we shall reserve all the rights of the states, and obviate all the difficulties
15 contemplated by Mr. Trenwith, by retaining to each state the right to determine the
qualification of its own citizens. And then we will make a provision that is necessary as
part of the Federal Constitution, that when a man has acquired citizenship in one state he
shall be entitled to the right of citizenship in the other states.
20 And
Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-If the word "citizen" simply means resident or
inhabitant, why should we go to all this trouble about it? If it means inhabitant, what
is the use of saying the inhabitant of one state going to another state shall be an
inhabitant of that other state? It seems to me that if you are going to use the word
25 "citizen" in the sense of being equal to resident or inhabitant, and it is to have no
other meaning such as has always been attached to it, we had better leave out the
clause.
And
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I would suggest that Mr. Symon should accept the
30 amendment suggested by Mr. Barton, so that his clause shall read-
Every subject of the Queen resident in any state or part of the Commonwealth shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of subjects resident in other states or parts of the
Commonwealth.
I am altogether in favour of the principle of Mr. Symon's amendment; but the word
35 "citizen" creates a difficulty. If, instead of the word "citizen," we use the words "Every
subject of the Queen resident in a state," it really means the same thing. The meaning to
be given to the word "citizen" in Mr. Symon's amendment is not the narrow limited
meaning of the citizen who can exercise the franchise, but it is the broad general
meaning which the word has been held to have under the United States Constitution.
40 It has been decided there that the word "citizen" has, [start page 1796] in a general
and wide sense, this meaning:-
In its broad sense the word is synonymous with subject and inhabitant, and is
understood as conveying the idea of membership of the nation, and nothing more.
45 And
Page 50
Dr. COCKBURN.-But the present proposal if carried would raise an initial difficulty in
framing special laws. It might be urged that it was necessary to discriminate between
residents who are subjects of the Queen and those who are not, and the amendment
would introduce an element which would give rise to a great deal of trouble in the
5 future.
Mr. HIGGINS.-You want to keep both classes out.
Dr. COCKBURN.-We desire always to deal with Asiatics on broad lines, whether
they are subjects of the Queen or not; and in South Australia, and, I believe, other
colonies, those lines of distinction are obliterated. In South Australia we make no
10 difference between Chinese from Hong Kong and those from other parts of China.
That, I think, is the most effective way of dealing with this matter.
Again;
We are subjects in our constitutional relation to the empire, not citizens. "Citizens" is
an undefined term, and is not known to the Constitution. The word "subjects"
15 expresses the relation between citizens of the empire and the Crown.
Clearly, the Framers made clear it is not the relationship between a subject and some Queen, but
more significantly the relationship between the subjects as “citizens of the empire and the
Crown.” One must therefore be a citizen of the empire to have a relationship with the Crown.
20 If one is not a subject of the Crown residing as a citizen in the empire then no relationship exist.
This, the High Court of Australia never addressed as such. It simply sought to bypass this kind of
definition, being it unaware of it all together or not. But, the “Queen of Australia” is no Queen
recognised by the British Crown, or can be Queen of the Empire. It is a fictitious name and title
that can hold no water, so to say, to issue proclamation in that title, as to do so would create a
25 fictitious appointment not worth the paper it is written upon.
To get a bit of an understanding about “internal affairs” and “external affairs” the following may
be considered;
30 Dr. COCKBURN: I should like to justify the vote that I shall have to give on this matter,
because it will be rather dissonant with the votes I have been giving throughout the sittings
of the Convention. I shall vote for the clause as it stands, and also for the amendment
intended to be proposed by the hon. member, Mr. Gordon, because I take it to be essential
to federation. It is the very definition of a federation that, as regards external affairs, the
35 federation shall be one state, and only have one means of communication, and in regard to
internal affairs the federation should be many states-
Mr. GORDON: These are not internal affairs!
Dr. COCKBURN: These are internal affairs, and it is one of the principles of federation
that, in internal affairs, there should be complete autonomy. In local affairs, why do you
40 want to go outside the state at all? For the alteration of the constitution of a state, why
should you go outside the boundary of that state?
Effectively, “external affairs” referred to in the constitution deals with nations/territories not
within the Commonwealth of Australia and/or under the British parliament. The Delegates did
refer to the “Home Office” when referring to contact with the British government, as it is the
Page 51
“home” of the Commonwealth of Australia, which exist only because of the States (formally
colonies) being granted Letters Patents to have their own limited self government under British
law.
5 Mr. BARTON: The hon. member who is in the chair will be able to inform you. He said:
I do not think there is in this Convention a stronger advocate of State rights and State
interests than I am; but still I strongly support the clause as it stands, for it seems to me that
one of the very fundamental ideas of a Federation is that, so far an all outside nations are
concerned, the Federation shall be one nation, that we shall be Australia to the outside
10 world, in which expression. I include Great Britain; that we shall speak, if not with one
voice, at all events, through one channel of communication to the Imperial Government;
that is, as it has been put, we shall not have seven voices expressing seven different
opinions, but that Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain shall communicate to
Her Majestys Government in Australia through one channel of communication only.
15
Again;
Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain shall communicate to Her Majestys

Government in Australia
20
It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution referred to the one and only person and any
purported title of a legal fiction of “Queen of Australia” cannot amend or purport to amend the
Constitution, or the application of the Constitution.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-The Drafting Committee could not interpret the
intentions of the Convention, excepting in so far as they found them expressed in the
Bill, in the amendments, or in the debates. We have endeavoured to give effect simply
to what the Convention have said and done.
30 And
Sir RICHARD BAKER (South Australia).-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution
should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we
consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any
35 alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly
have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the
people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident
that too much care has not been exercised.
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[12.35]: I have not the Federal Council Bill before me; but
I believe that that bill contained the words "sailing between the ports of the colonies." The
bill was sent home with those words in it; but her Majesty's advisers at home deliberately
changed the wording of the measure so as to give the Council wider jurisdiction. There was
45 a limitation in the bill which does not appear in the act, and the Imperial authorities must
have made this alteration for some specific purpose. They could not have accidentally
inserted the words "port of clearance, or." There is no danger of conflict between the
laws of the commonwealth and the Imperial law. The moment a new act is passed in
Page 52
England which conflicts with any legislation passed by the commonwealth, that act
will to the extent of the difference abrogate the legislation under the constitution of
Australia. At the present time there is never any conflict. Our Marine Board and
navigation acts are not in conflict with the English merchant shipping acts; but they
5 give us jurisdiction, not to the 3 miles limit, but within Australian waters, as
specifically defined in these acts, that is, between port and port. Without these acts we
should not have this jurisdiction. As I understand the law, it was decided in the case of
the Franconia that, the 3-mile limit only applied in connection with intercolonial
disputes, that limit being arrived at in the first instance because it [start page 247] was
10 then the range of a cannon shot; and that civil and criminal jurisdiction stopped at
low-water mark. Originally there was no jurisdiction beyond the limits of mean low-
water mark; but that jurisdiction has been extended by legislation, and the Imperial
authorities deliberately changed words in the Federal Council Bill which would place
a limitation upon the existing jurisdiction as defined by our local acts, so as to amplify
15 it, and make it apply to any vessel leaving our ports for foreign parts, or coming from
foreign parts to the colonies. They did this deliberately, and in view of the fact that
there was no possibility of conflicting decisions being arrived at under the proposed
constitution, we have no criminal jurisdiction at all, so that if a crime is committed on
board a ship coming to Australia, the criminal will be tried according to the laws of
20 Great Britain.
We cannot give a sanction to a law

The Hon. E. BARTON:
without imposing some penalty or punishment!
Mr. GLYNN: The hon. and learned gentleman is quite right; but we have only
power to impose such penalties as will operate as sanctions for the civil legislation
25 under clause 52.
The Hon. E. BARTON: We cannot establish a new criminal offence!
Mr. GLYNN: No, unless it is part of a sanction to enforce the obligation of a civil
law. So that if an offence is committed on board a ship coming to the commonwealth it
will have to be dealt with according to the law of England, not according to the law of
30 the commonwealth. Seeing that the English authorities deliberately changed the
wording of the Federal Council Bill, although there is no possibility of the legislation
of the colonies clashing with Imperial legislation, because English legislation must
abrogate colonial legislation to the extent of the difference between them, I think we
should accept the words used by the Imperial advisers of her Majesty.
35
The latter about “abrogating” colonial laws do not apply when it comes to the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in that this provides that amendments of the Constitution
can only be made by a successful section 128 referendum. As such, it excludes powers of the
40 Imperial government (British Parliament) to amend the Constitution. However, State laws
remain subject to Imperial laws and are abrogated where they are in conflict of Imperial laws.
Again;
They did this deliberately, and in view of the fact that there was no possibility of
45 conflicting decisions being arrived at under the proposed constitution, we have no
Page 53
criminal jurisdiction at all, so that if a crime is committed on board a ship coming to
Australia, the criminal will be tried according to the laws of Great Britain.
The Statement;
There is no danger of conflict between the laws of the commonwealth and the
5 Imperial law. The moment a new act is passed in England which conflicts with any
legislation passed by the commonwealth, that act will to the extent of the difference
abrogate the legislation under the constitution of Australia. At the present time there
is never any conflict. Our Marine Board and navigation acts are not in conflict with
the English merchant shipping acts; but they give us jurisdiction, not to the 3 miles
10 limit, but within Australian waters, as specifically defined in these acts, that is,
between port and port.
Is not correct in that while normally the imperial government can make specific legislation to
amend a constitutional enactment, in this case it has ousted itself of doing so by including the
15 Section 128 provision.
Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up
20 by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of
the common law and rules of international comity
in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
In the Shaw case the high Court of Australia stated;
25 42. Jason Shaw, the applicant, migrated to Australia with his parents in 1974. He was then
two years of age and a citizen of the United Kingdom. Along with his parents, he was
granted a permanent entry permit. Under reg 4 of the Migration Reform (Transitional
Provisions) Regulations (Cth), after 1 September 1994 the permanent entry permit held by
the applicant continued in effect as a transitional (permanent) visa that permitted the
30 applicant to remain in Australia indefinitely. He has never left Australia since arriving in
1974. However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
Again;
However, he has never become an Australian citizen.
35 The judges simply seemed not to realize that they were talking about “citizenship” involving
political rights and not at all being about nationality.
Mr. SYMON.-
I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the
Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
40 and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
Page 54
not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a
leading inducement for joining the Union.
Therefore, Mr Shaw was an “Australian citizen” the moment he entered the Commonwealth of
Australia and began to reside in a State by obtaining State citizenship! He remained for all
5 purposes a “subject of the Queen” and as the Commonwealth of Australia is a limited
POLITICAL UNION and not a nation in its own rights one cannot have a nationality of being
an Australian (as incorrectly referred to being Australian citizenship”) as no such nation exist!
To hold that the Commonwealth of Australia is an independent “nation” would mean to claim
that the States no longer exist as such. The federation then was a confederation!
10
For the extensive set out above, it is clear that Jason Shaw was an Australian citizen from the
moment he came to reside in a State in the Commonwealth of Australia.
The High Court of Australia has only constitutional powers to interpret the meaning of the
15 Constitution provisions by the intentions of the Framers and it has no constitutional powers to
pursue to bring within the meaning of constitutional provisions that were never intended by the
Framers to be so!
Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 S.R. N.S.W. 155 at 158; 55 W.N. 63 Jordan C.J.
20 “This court however must take the act as it finds it, and cannot do violence to its language in
order to bring within its scope, cases, which although within its mischief are not within its
words.”
The following ought to be applied perhaps to Shaw, Sue v Hill and the Sykes v Cleary cases, to
25 mention a few, this as those cases, in my view were based upon ill conceived reasoning, and not
at all as to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution;
Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)

“That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21
30 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say, insufficiently argued and considered on the
last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as
conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgement that case was wrongly decided,
and should be overruled.”
35 The Shaw case;
45. In July 2001, the Minister cancelled the applicant's visa on the ground that he had a
substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test as defined by
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html"
s 501 (6).
40 HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" Section
501 does not apply to British citizens who arrived in Australia before 3 March
1986
46. There are only two heads of federal constitutional power that could arguably extend the
45 operation of HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 to a
person such as the applicant who is a British citizen and who arrived in Australia in 1974.
Page 55
The first is the immigration power; the second is the aliens power HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn49" [50] . A long line of
authority establishes that the immigration power does not authorise the Parliament
to make laws with respect to persons who have immigrated to Australia, made their
5 permanent homes here and become members of the Australian community
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn50" [51] .
Accordingly, the immigration power did not authorise the enactment of HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 in so
far as it purports to apply to the applicant.
10 47. The aliens power, however, gives the Parliament greater power over immigrants than the
immigration power. In Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn51" [52] ,
this Court held that any immigrant who has not taken out Australian citizenship is an
alien for the purpose of HYPERLINK
15 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s51.html" s 51 (xix) of
the Constitution. On that view of the aliens power, the Parliament can legislate for
the deportation of persons who are British citizens and have been permanent
residents of Australia for many years. In Nolan, the Court upheld an order of the
Minister deporting Nolan, a citizen of the United Kingdom who had lived permanently in
20 Australia since 1967 but who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
48. In Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn52" [53] , however, a
majority of this Court held that Nolan should be overruled in so far as it held that all
British citizens living in Australia who had not taken out Australian citizenship were
25 aliens for the purpose of the Constitution. Taylor was a British citizen who had arrived in
Australia in 1966 and had since lived here permanently. However, he had not taken out
Australian citizenship. A majority of the Court held that HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html" s 501 of
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/" the
30 Act could not constitutionally authorise the deportation of Taylor.
49. As I pointed out in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Te
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn53" [54] ,
Re Patterson has no ratio decidendi. The four majority Justices were Gaudron, Kirby and
Callinan JJ and myself. Gaudron J held that Taylor was a member of the body politic
35 that constituted the Australian community and that British citizens who were
members of that body politic and had been in Australia before 1987 HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn54" [55] , were not
aliens within the meaning of the Constitution. Kirby J held that Taylor was not an alien
when he arrived in Australia, that he "had been absorbed into the people of the
40 Commonwealth" HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/"
\l "fn55" [56] and that the Parliament could not retrospectively declare him to be an
alien. I held that British immigrants who settled in Australia before 1973 were subjects of
the Queen of Australia and could not be "aliens" for the purpose of the Constitution. I
selected 1973 as the earliest date on which the constitutional power to legislate with
45 respect to aliens could apply to British immigrants. I did so because 1973 was the
year in which the Parliament enacted the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal Style and
Titles Act 1973 (Cth). But I expressed the view that the relevant date "maybe later"
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/" \l "fn56" [57] .
50 Callinan J agreed with the reasoning of both Kirby J and myself.

Page 56
While a judge of the High Court of Australia may elect judicial powers because of some
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/" Royal Style
and Titles Act 1973 (Cth). The truth is that this latter Act is irrellevant to the issue of
constitutional powers regarding “citizenship”.
5
Constitutionally,
Mr. SYMON.-
I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the
Federal Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution,
10 and a very strong reason why it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a
question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the
Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or
diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am
willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am
15 not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a
leading inducement for joining the Union.
Therefore, becoming a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia is only achievable by

becoming a state citizen first.
The fact that the Certificate of Australian Citizenship states;
20 QUOTE
Certificate of Australian Citizenship
GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL

Born on 7 th June 1947
25
having applied for a Certificate of Australian Citizenship, having satisfied the conditions
prescribed by the Australian Citizenship Act 19448 for the grant of such Certificate
and having undertaken to fulfil the responsibilities of a citizen.
END QUOTE
30
It must be clear that no kind of application can be made for this and neither can any be granted
by the Commonwealth of Australia in that it is AUTOMATICALLY obtained upon obtaining
“State citizenship”.
35 Therefore, what is really occurring was that I applied to my understanding to naturalize and by
this dispose of my Dutch nationality to become a British national within the meaning of
Subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the Commonwealth of Australia purport this to be
somehow to be “Australian citizenship”.
40 Barton J, the parliament cannot give the word a meaning

not warranted by s73 of the Constitution.
Commonwealth v Brisbane Milling Co. Ltd. (1916) 21 C.L.R. 559; A.L.R. 272.
45 Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia cannot turn naturalization into something else not
contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.

Page 57
Subsection 51(xix) naturalization powers had nothing to do with political rights, that are included
in citizenship, but related to alliance to the British Crown.
“Australia” is a continent, and was so before Federation, at least that is what I perceived was
5 applicable also at the time of Federation.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that at all official functions the national anthem was
to bless the Monarch.

10
Mr. GLYNN:
The foundations of our national edifice are being laid in times of peace; the invisible
hand of Providence is in the tracing of our plans. Should we not, at the, very inception
of our great work, give some outward recognition of the Divine guidance that we feel?
15 This spirit of reverence for the Unseen pervades all the relations of our civil life. It is
felt in the forms in our courts of justice, in the language of our Statutes, in the oath
that binds the sovereign to the observance of oar liberties, in the recognition of the
Sabbath, in the rubrics of our guilds and social orders, in the anthem through which
on every public occasion we invocate a blessing on our executive head, in our
20 domestic observances, in the offices of courtesy at our meetings and partings, and in
the time-honored motto of the nation.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
25 Thus we are forced-after, forsooth, the 1891 Convention and the three sessions of this
Convention-back to the elementary consideration of whether this body is to be analogous to
the position of the House of Lords in [start page 2036] England, and we have the English
Constitution brought in, and an appeal made through our patriotism, and "God save the
Queen," and all that sort of thing. That is not the question which we have to deal with. We
30 have to do our best to arrange a Constitution which has very little analogy to the English
Constitution, but, at the same time, from the circumstances of our birth and the love of
country, we have to adhere to the English Constitution as nearly as is consistent with the
altered condition of things.
35 Whatever the argument might be of those seeking to advocate that the Commonwealth of
Australia is an independent nation, the truth is that constitutionally it never is and never can be.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move-
40 I wish to clear away the misconception in the first place that I have any objection whatever
to the word "Commonwealth," or to the use of the word "Commonwealth," in this Bill. I
have no objection to that where it is confined to the expression of the political Union. In
the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one
indissoluble Federal Commonwealth-that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the
45 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby
established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the word
Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we
are going to create under that Union. The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it
Page 58
is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
5 The first clause says-This Act maybe cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act." I assent to all that. Then comes clause 3, which says it shall be lawful for the Queen,
by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, to declare by
proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after
the passing of this Act, the people of the colonies enumerated shall be united in a Federal
10 Constitution under the name of-I say it ought to be "of Australia." Why do we want to put
in "the Commonwealth of Australia"? We are there by our Constitution giving the name to
our country, and, to the united people who are to be established as a nation under the
Constitution. By what name, I would like to ask honorable members, will they call this
Federal Union? It will be called by the name Australia, whether we like it or not.
15 Again;
That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to
be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of
"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
20 The Commonwealth of Australia is a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION by the Colonies (now

States) As like the EUROPEAN UNION is in Europe.
No one would seek to argue that the European Union is a country. Yet, it doesn’t matter if one is
a British national, a Dutch national, Frenchman, German or else they are all “citizens of the
European Union”
25 Citizenship is not limited to the nationality of the person but by the territory in which the person
resides that forms part of the European Union.
No one could dream of the European Union to become some Monarchy, Republic or Dominion.
Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia likewise cannot be a Monarchy, Republic or
Dominion. It is a federation out of the States.
30 The States themselves can perhaps become independent in time and then assume to become a
Republic or Monarchy but not while they remain dominions. If the states cannot become
Monarchies or Republics in the current climate then their Agent, so to say, the Commonwealth of
Australia hardly can take on some different constitutional position.
35 The term “citizenship” was not at all associated with “nationality” but rather covered any
“subject of the Queen” residing within the Commonwealth of Australia or for that the continent
Australia.
The terms “Australian citizen”, “Australian citizens” , “Australian citizenship”,

40 “Commonwealth citizens”, “federal citizen”, “citizen of the Commonwealth” were used ongoing
by the Framers of the Constitution, as shown below, and as such were terms not as to
“nationality” but in regard of citizenship as being a resident in the colonies (now States) and the
Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore any constitutionalist, as I am, is or should be aware that
the term “Australian citizenship” cannot be held to relate to nationality. Neither that there can be
45 an “Australian nationality” merely because some judges happen to desire to make such a
declaration as the proper powers to legislate for this is to follow the procedures within Section
128 of the Constitution.
13-02-1890 Re; Australian citizen

50 13-03-1891 Re; Australian citizens
25-03-1897 Re; Australian citizens
Page 59
Re; dual citizenship
26-03-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
29-03-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
30-03-1897 Re; federal citizen
5 Re; dual citizenship
Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
10 14-04-1897 Re; citizen of the Commonwealth
15-04-1897 Re; Dual citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizenship
28-01-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; Commonwealth citizens
20 08-02-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
Re; federal citizenship
01-03-1898 Re; Australian citizens
Re; federal citizenship
35 Re; federal citizenship
10-03-1898 Re; Australian citizenship
40 Such as Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-Yes. Mr. Wise asked why should New South Wales or Victoria-to take a case
which is extremely unlikely to occur-prohibit a citizen of the neighbouring colony from
acquiring property in the legislating colony, or only allow him to acquire it under adverse
conditions? But why not? The whole control of the lands of the state is left in that state. The
45 state can impose what conditions it pleases-conditions of residence, or anything else-and I
am not aware that a state has surrendered the control of the particular administration of
its own lands, or of anything that is left to it for the exercise of its power and the
administration of its affairs. I would much prefer, if there is to be a clause introduced, to have
the amendment suggested by Tasmania, subject to one modification, omitting the words-"and all
50 other persons owing allegiance to the Queen." That would re-open the whole question as to
Page 60
whether an alien, not admitted to the citizenship here-a person who, under the provisions
with regard to immigration, is prohibited from entering our territory, or is only allowed to
enter it under certain conditions-would be given the same privileges and immunities as a
citizen of the Commonwealth. Those words, it seems to me, should come out, and we should
5 confine the operation of this amendment so as to secure the rights of citizenship to the citizens
of the Commonwealth. I think, therefore, that with some modification the amendment suggested
by Tasmania would be a proper one to adopt.
And
Mr. KINGSTON.-I say we are creating a Commonwealth in which I hope there will be a
10 federal citizenship, and I shall be glad indeed to see the powers of the Federal Parliament
enlarged to enable that body to legislate, not only with reference to naturalization and
aliens, but also with reference to the rights and privileges of federal citizenship.
An HONORABLE: MEMBER.-What is the meaning of citizenship?
Mr. KINGSTON.-It is not defined here, but it ought to be defined in the Constitution, or
15 else we ought to give power to the Federal Parliament to define it. And, after having
defined what shall constitute Australian citizenship for the purposes of the
Commonwealth, we ought to carefully prevent any state legislating in such a way as to
deprive any citizen of the Commonwealth of any privileges which citizenship of the
Commonwealth confers within its borders. I have the honour to come from a state which
20 has already adopted a system of absentee taxation, but I do not hesitate to say, speaking on
my own individual account, that I think the continuance of that system, applied to citizens
of the Commonwealth resident in other states of the Commonwealth, would be a great
mistake and an unfederal act.
Mr. HIGGINS.-If a rich South Australian went to live in Tasmania, on account of the
25 cool climate, would you allow the imposition of the absentee tax on him?
Mr. KINGSTON.-I do not think it ought to be imposed on him.
And
An HONORABLE MEMBER.-How would that affect a tax on absentees?
Mr. WISE.-It would give full power to impose a tax on absentees outside the
30 Commonwealth, but not within it. There [start page 675] should be no absentees within the
Commonwealth after federation. I do not see, how, after federation, a man can be regarded
as an absentee at Sydney when he lives in Melbourne. If we are to have federation, the idea
that when a man moves from one part of the Commonwealth into another he becomes an
absentee, or ceases to be an Australian, is one that must vanish, and we ought, as far as our
35 Constitution will permit us, to do everything to make it vanish quickly. It is a survival of
the old idea that there is a distinctive citizenship in a Victorian, and a distinctive
citizenship in a New South Wales man. That is the idea which I am endeavouring to
destroy by supporting the amendment of Tasmania, that Australian citizenship, and that
alone, shall be recognised in every part of the Federation. The way to secure that is to
40 provide in the clearest terms, as Tasmania suggests, that no local Parliament can have any
authority to, in any way, abridge the citizenship of an Australian.

Page 61
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I really think that the constant attempts which are being
made to interfere with the rights of the states, in matters which are left to them expressly, is
becoming quite alarming. There are a number of general words already in this Constitution
which, I fear, may be used so as to almost destroy the independent powers of legislation of
5 the states, with reference to every conceivable subject that they have left to them.
For the above, and what already has been placed before on file in previous proceedings the issue
therefore is that if the Commonwealth of Australia holds that “Australian citizenship” purports
some kind of Australian nationality then this is ULTRA VIRES, as no such constitutional
10 powers were granted by the Imperial parliament and neither by any Section 128 referendum.
Section 51(xix) only provides for naturalization of “aliens” to be made “British nationals”.
The problem with this is that if the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 purports to be “Australian
nationality” then this likewise is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
If therefore the Constitution of the State of Victoria relies upon the Australian Citizenship Act
15 1948 as to provide State “franchise” then this is also ULTRA VIRES, as an the State cannot rely
upon an unconstitutional enactment.
If the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 is purporting to grant “citizenship” as to refer to political
rights then that too would be unconstitutional, and so ULTRA VIRES.
20
If the “AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP” referred to in the “Australian Citizenship Act 1948”
in fact is and remains to mean that a person is naturalized to be a British national, then in any
case it is ULTRA VIRES where it purports to define/declare the nationality of any person born
within the States, as any subject born within the realm of the King (Queen) is automatically a
25 national and so a subject of the British Crown. Any reliance by the State Constitution to allow for
franchise based upon a unconstitutional provision in that regard also remains ULTRA VIRES.
It ought to be kept in mind that in 1948 most likely no one really has a slightest understanding
and perception as to what was constitutionally appropriate. Whatever was enacted at the time by
30 ill conceived perceptions cannot make it lawful. It remains ULTRA VIRES for so far it is
beyond constitutional powers or exceeding constitutional powers.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could put a
disability to any “alien” upon naturalization to obtain “citizenship”, this by legislation any race is
35 subjected to provided within subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution or otherwise being limited,
such as that a person naturalized cannot obtain citizenship within, say, 2 years of naturalization,
then a “Certificate of Australian Citizenship” cannot be granted to anyone. For example, since
the 1967 referendum that provides for Aboriginals to be dealt with under the “race” provisions of
Section 51(xxvi) constitutionally not a single Aboriginal can have citizenship involving franchise
40 as they are constitutionally barred once the Commonwealth of Australia enacted legislation
within its race constitutional powers.
Likewise, while the race powers did not give the Commonwealth of Australia any powers to
legislate against the “general community” the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia
nevertheless did so and so with the Racial Discrimination Act, by this in effect it also robbed
45 each and every citizen of their right to have franchise and indeed be a Member of Parliament!
Because “Australian citizenship”, albeit wrongly, has been the core requirement of numerous
positions, such as to be a judicial officer, to be a police officer, to be a Member of Parliament,
etc, it is having horrific consequences that follows from what currently is so wrongly applied.
50 Still, the rule of law, so constitutional law, must be applied in a proper manner, and not some
Banana Republic kind of system.
Page 62
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also relies upon the unconstitutional declaration/
definition of “Australian citizenship” as to provide for “franchise” where in fact “franchise in the
Commonwealth of Australia is obtained only by having obtained State franchise through “State
5 citizenship”.
What is missing is the States legislation to provide for State citizenship and by this for
“franchise”!
Moller v The Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 (10 March 1999)

10
16. The concept of allegiance was considered by Ormiston, J. (as he then was) in Nicholls v.
Board of Examiners for Barristers and Solicitors [1986] V.R. 719. At p.728 his Honour
said:
"Allegiance is a concept which is at the same time both obvious and subtle. Its precise
15 nature has varied over the centuries in ways which it is unnecessary to discuss here.
For those reasons it is undesirable to say more about the duty of allegiance than is
necessary for the decision in this case. It should be observed, however, that it is not
now an obligation peculiar to monarchical systems of government, whatever may have
been its basis in Stuart times: cf. the Case of the Postnati:: Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co.
20 Rep. 1a; 2 State Trials 559; 73 E.R. 761 and Re the Stepney Election Petition (1886)
17 Q.B.D. 54. Secondly, the present case does not concern the oath of allegiance to be
given by a subject, national or citizen. Even when an alien had virtually no rights, the
correlative right of protection by the sovereign was sufficient to justify a duty of
allegiance on the part of aliens, at least aliens from friendly countries, who lived
25 within the realm. Since the disabilities of aliens have been largely abolished, except as
to the right of entry into the country, their duty of allegiance, when they live within
this country, cannot be disputed. On the other hand, I have found no authority, at least
since the Middle Ages, which suggests that the taking of an oath of allegiance creates
any new or different obligation on a resident foreign national. In making this latter
30 observation, I am in no way referring to those oaths which are taken as part of a
naturalization ceremony or which otherwise contain a renouncing of all other
allegiance, as appears in the oaths in Schedules 2 and 3 to the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
Citizenship Act 1948. I add that what I have said as to the status of aliens appears
35 applicable to all those who do not owe a general duty of allegiance and I say nothing
as to the effects of the repeal of the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/aa194775/" Aliens Act 1947 and
the prospective repeal of the definition of 'alien' in the HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/" Australian
40 Citizenship Act 1948 (Act No. 129 of 1984, HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/c167/s4.html" s.4 (2)(a)).
Consequently there would appear to be significant differences between the local duty
of allegiance owed by aliens or non-citizens, and that owed by citizens or those who
otherwise owe a general duty of allegiance. When Parliament amended s.5(2) of the
45 Legal Profession Practice Act 1958, it chose to retain the obligation to take an oath of
allegiance for those who wished to become admitted to practise, but gave a right to
those applicants to seek exemption from that obligation. As was pointed out by the
Chief Justice in Re Miller [1979] V.R. 381, at p.383, this appears to be a recognition
by Parliament of the importance attaching to that obligation. It is therefore neither
Page 63
necessary nor desirable that any opinion should be expressed as to the right of persons
other than aliens or non-citizens to seek exemption under the amended sub-section.
The present applicant is a citizen of a foreign country and the considerations applicable
to him are not necessarily considerations applicable to citizens of this country, nor to
5 persons who may hold dual citizenship."
Dual citizenship is not a dual nationality this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear;

10 Mr. SYMON.-
Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in
each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are
citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be
the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and
15 myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal
20 Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners [1999] VSCA 116 (30 July 1999)
24. Mr Bevan-John's next submissions related to the appellant's personal position. He put it
that the appellant has already publicly and deliberately declared his allegiance to
Australia and that the purpose of his taking the oath has been fulfilled by his pledge upon
taking citizenship. He submitted that it was unfair to use the exemptive power under
25 HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" the
Act to excuse those who do not want to make any commitment of allegiance to
Australia at all and to deny it in respect of one who has already made the solemn pledge
of that allegiance when he formally undertook Australian citizenship.
And
30 32. The requirement which the Court imposes on those seeking admission to practise as
barristers and solicitors in this State to take an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance
retains a significance which goes beyond the mere academic and the pompous. Young,
C.J. explained its importance in Re Miller [1979] V.R. 381 at 383 in terms of the statutory
recognition given by the Parliament to the oath of allegiance and its administration to
35 persons carrying out significant functions in this State.
33. To my mind his Honour's comments remain valid, notwithstanding the differences to be
found between the terms of HYPERLINK
"http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/s6.html" s.6 of the
HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" Legal
40 Practice Act 1996 and those which existed in s.5 of the Legal Profession Practice Act
1958. As Street, C.J. said in Re Howard [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 641 at 643, the significance
of the oath being administered to those wishing to practise as barristers and solicitors is
its reminder to them that their role will be to serve law and justice in the State, of which
the Sovereign is the fountainhead.
45

Page 64
34. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Court, in exercising its role as the ultimate
controller of the profession, imposes as one of the prerequisites for admission to practise
a promise of allegiance and does not lightly entertain applications to exempt persons from
that obligation. Where, as here, exemption was sought on the grounds of a strongly held
5 commitment to a republican model of government and a fear of compromising conscience
and principles if required to take an oath of allegiance, it is equally, in my view, not
surprising that His Honour exercised his discretion against exemption.
Again;
He submitted that it was unfair to use the exemptive power under HYPERLINK
10 "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lpa1996120/" the Act to excuse
those who do not want to make any commitment of allegiance to Australia at all and to
deny it in respect of one who has already made the solemn pledge of that allegiance when
he formally undertook Australian citizenship.
15 What was misconceived was that the “oath of alliance” is not as to “citizenship” but to
“naturalization” in regard of Subsection 51(xix) op the Constitution The oath of alliance to be
admitted to the Bar to practice in the State of Victoria is a different kind of alliance as it related
to uphold the specific laws of the State of Victoria. The oath of alliance in the State of NSW, for
example, is to uphold the laws of that State when seeking admission to the Bar there.
20 There can be no “oath of alliance” in regard of “Australian citizenship” as referred to by the
Framers of the Constitution as it is obtained “AUTOMATICALLY” when obtaining state
citizenship.
As I perceived it at the time of what I considered to be “naturalization” I made an oath of alliance

25 to become a subject of the British Monarch and indeed the Dutch Government advised me that
by taking up this naturalization I no longer have the Dutch nationality. This being so then clearly
the “oath of alliance” was in regard of the naturalization powers provided for within Subsection
51(xix) to naturalize “aliens” to become British nationals, and as such nothing to do with
“citizenship” as to being to include “franchise”.
30
It is not relevant if the intentions of the Commonwealth of Australia is to include “franchise” as
it simply is unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.
Many “aliens” who arrived as children in the Commonwealth of Australia with their parents,
35 who subsequently naturalized, found that years later they never were actually naturalized even so
they were voting in elections. Indeed, the Australian Electoral Commission is on record that
people were found not to be naturalized and so not entitled to vote even so they had filled out a
card to be an Australian citizen and so entitled to vote.
40 What has occurred that often “children” understood, as their parents did, that they were
naturalized at the time their parents were but this was somehow omitted from the documentation
to show so. My own 45 year old stepdaughter discovered this only a few years ago! By this,
while she considers herself to be an State citizen, and so an Australian citizen and also having
been naturalized, the Commonwealth of Australia however never accept any of this. The Pochi
45 case is another clear example, where Mr. Pochi was deported where the High Court of Australia
in 1982 held he was not an “Australian citizens” despite that he had lived for most of this life and
had children here. The High Court of Australia confusing “Australian citizenship” with
“nationality”.

Page 65
To many “Australian citizenship” remains to be relating to having political rights and nothing to
do with nationality, and yet the Commonwealth of Australia keep advertising about “Australian
citizenship” but in real terms may and does in fact refer to some concocted “Australian
nationality” even so no constitutional powers exist in that regard.
5
Therefore, the fact that I had filled in enrolments cards to vote in Federal elections is of no
meaning where this was done upon misconceptions created by the Commonwealth of Australia
itself to refer to “Australian citizenship” but which in fact was not at all referring to “franchise”
of citizenship as such but to some purported Australian nationality.
10
As a self educated “constitutionalist”, I view that the Racial Discrimination Act in effect (even
so unconstitutional in its conception) in fact robs every person of their “citizenship” and so their
“franchise” as the Framers made clear that any legislation within the race provisions disqualified
every such person of their “citizenship” and so their franchise”. Hence, there can be no one who
15 is eligible to vote or to be a Member of Parliament.
In any event, where I claim that constitutionally I am a British national if the naturalization was
effected within the constitutional provisions of subsection 51(xix) of the Constitution, and the
High Court of Australia already made clear in Sue v Hill that British nationals are “foreigners”
(“aliens”) and so kicked out Heather Hill, then clearly I cannot be deemed to be entitled to vote
20 in any event. Australians are “Australians” by the fact that they are residing within the
Commonwealth of Australia, not because they are naturalised or born in the Commonwealth of
Australia.
Those born in the United Kingdom, but residing then in the colonies (now States) and
25 participating in the Constitution Conventions to create a federation nevertheless
considered themselves to be Australians, besides being British nationals.
Lord Denning M.R. in Reg. v.

Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Soblen (1963) 2 QB 243, at p 299, stated
30
4. The law of this country is very jealous of any infringement of personal
liberty (Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, at p 527) and a statute or
statutory instrument which purports to impair a right to personal liberty is
interpreted, if possible, so as to respect that right: R. v. Cannon Row Police
35 Station (Inspector) (1922) 91 LJKB 98, at p 106.
CHU KHENG LIM AND OTHERS v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER (1992) 176 CLR 1 F.C. 92/051
14. Aliens, not being members of the community that constitutes the body
40 politic of Australia, have no right to enter or remain in Australia unless
such right is expressly granted. Laws regulating their entry to and providing
for their departure from Australia (including deportation, if necessary) are
directly connected with their alien status. And laws specifying the
conditions on and subject to which they may enter and remain in Australia are
45 also connected with their status as aliens to the extent that they are capable
of being seen as appropriate or adapted to regulating entry or facilitating
departure if and when departure is required((107)
This indicates that permission to be and remain in Australia is not depending on being a natural
50 or born national, but rather if one has become a member of the body politic of Australia. This
body politic is in fact being an Australian citizen.
Page 66
The right of exercising any rights as an “Australian citizen” is enshrined in the Constitution
5 Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
It falls under personal liberties to exercise ones right to vote or not to vote.
10
LEGAL FICTION
Sue v Hill Authority;
15 GRADUAL INDEPENDENCE, that is what the High Court of Australia argued in the Sue v Hill
case to oust her, despite being a subject of the British Crown from the Senate. Quit frankly, at
that time, I had myself argued that in 1919 by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles the
Commonwealth of Australia had become in effect an INDEPENDENT nation and by this the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was no more valid then any other
20 colonial legislation.
The Family Court of Australia even published this in its judgment!
But, while I had this great kind of argument as to why the Commonwealth of Australia was an
INDEPENDENT nation, I later discovered that constitutionally this could not be so. If, the
25 Commonwealth of Australia somehow became an INDEPENDENT nation then at some point of
time legislation enacted in the commonwealth of Australia and in any of the states would be
defective as they would no longer be what the respective Constitutions required.
The commonwealth of Australia exist as a part POLITICAL UNION between the States, and it
would be sheer impossible for the Commonwealth of Australia to somehow then dictate the
30 States if it remained to be colonial entities or become independent. No such constitutional
powers were ever provided for in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
and the Framers of the Constitution clearly opposed such possibility without a Section 128
referendum! Indeed, they made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia could not , so to say,
throw off the Imperial connection under this Constitution.
35 The signing of the Treaty of Versailles could not have somehow invoked the Commonwealth
of Australia to become INDEPENDENT and neither can there be something like a gradual
becoming of INDEPENDENT as to even contemplate this on constitutional grounds would mean
that having a Constitution is of no avail as no one will know when things are purportedly
changed over time as it be the judges who may declare what they view by hindsight.
40 The POLITICAL UNION between the Colonies (now States) to form a political alliance, albeit
partly, was a contract that was binding among them. However, can we accept that somehow a
contracts between them on partial political issues somehow then can change everything?
Would this mean that if tenants of a building are making an alliance then somehow they can
become the owners of the building merely because they claim that over time they became the
45 owners by what they did?
As the Framers of the constitution made clear, “external affairs” gave the Commonwealth of
Australia powers to make treaties but only for so far it already was within its constitutional
powers. It could not use it to acquire somehow powers it didn’t possess in the first place. As
50 such, while the Commonwealth of Australia, for example, may make a treaty with any other
foreign nation that their citizens drivers licences will be accepted as valid without needing a
Page 67
international driving licence, the truth of the matter is that there is no constitutional powers for
the Commonwealth of Australia to do so in the first place, as only the States have the legislative
powers in that regard.
If it were to be allowed for the Commonwealth of Australia to make any kind of treaty in regard
5 of matters the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) specifically withheld
any legislative powers for, then the whole notion of having a Constitution that can only be
amended by way of Section 128 referendum no longer is applicable as the Commonwealth of
Australia can simply circumvent any constitutional limitation by making treaties in regard of
matters it didn’t have constitutional powers for.
10 The Constitution is “constant” and can only be amended by Section 128 referendum. CoAG
(Council of Australian Governments) is an unconstitutional entity and cannot therefore somehow
circumvent Section 128 provisions either.
When I contested the legal validity of the application of the Cross Vesting Act, in 1994, I was, so
15 to say, thrown out by the Courts, yet in 1999 the High Court of Australia in the Wakim case then
formally declared the purported Cross vesting act to be unconstitutional.
In my 28 October 2002 to Mr Justice Michael Kirby I contested the validity of the Australian
Act, and on 17 June 2003 His Honour in the MIMA case then made clear the Australian Act had
20 no legal enforcement against the Constitution.
It doesn’t matter if the States therefore somehow agreed to the enacting of the “Australian Act”
as it was beyond the powers of Subsection 51(xxxvii) to allow for this in that this subsection only
allows for matters to be referred that is in dispute between two or more States but not all States.
25 The “Australian Act” could not be held to have been a matter of dispute between two or more
States such as the Murray River can be!
There never was any constitutional powers given to the High Court of Australia to declare the
Commonwealth of Australia to be some alleged INDEPENDENT nation as its constitutional
powers are bounded by the limits of the Constitution.
30 Are we next going to have that essentially we have become part of the Republic of Indonesia
because we now are enacting legislation dealing with refugees to please the Indonesian
Government?
As Author of various books about certain constitutional issues under the INSPECTOR-
35 RIKATI® label I have extensively canvassed those constitutional issues, and rely upon my past
published books also in support of this argument that Australians are Australians because they
are living in the Continent of Australia and that they are British nationals and this is
EMBEDDED in the Constitution to remain so. No one can point out that there is a country
named Australia where it makes laws regarding, say, driving licences, council rates, etc for the
40 whole of the nation. The Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t even have legislative powers over
local governments in the States.
It is simply a LEGAL FICTION that the Commonwealth of Australia is a INDEPENDENT

nation, and so also that somehow the Commonwealth of Australia has a “Queen of Australia”.
45
Would it not encompass that judicial officers who made an oath of alliance to the British
Monarch and since remained judges of the Courts but never did make a new alliance to the
pretended “Queen of Australia” then are disqualified from sitting as judicial officers at the
bench of the Queens Courts?
50

Page 68
Surely, no one could accept that lawyers who swore an oath of alliance to the British Monarch
somehow could continue to be members of the Bar and be judicial officers when we somehow
now hold that the British Monarch and its subjects are all “foreigners” and ousted from not only
voting but also from being Members of Parliament, as Heather Hill was?
5
When I applied to naturalize it was in the perception that the I would become a British national
with the British Crown as head of the Empire. It is not, in my view, for the High Court of
Australia then to somehow imply later with the Sue v Hill case that somehow I never gained any
alliance to the British Crown, neither became a subject of the British crown but somehow
10 became a subject to a non existing Queen of Australia of a fictional country.
In my 30 September 2003 published book titled;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
15 A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X
I canvassed the issue then about the case of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge as to what I
considered to be their wrongful conviction. I pointed out that it was immaterial what was stated
20 on the flip side of the membership card as what was relevant was that the membership Card
showed that the person was a Member of Pauline Hanson One nation and as such were full
members for purpose of legislation. On 8 October 2003 the Queensland Attorney-General and
Minister of Justice then wrote to me that in fact legal issues I had raised had not been canvassed
by any of the parties in any of the proceedings. Yet, subsequently the Court of Appeal about
25 word for word used the very legal argument I had used in my book as to overturn the
convictions.
What was clear is that those who joined Pauline Hanson One Nation for all purposes were
“Members” regardless of what may have been stated otherwise to try to interfere with this on the
30 flip side of the membership card.
Likewise, I naturalized to become an British national referred to as “Australian” because of being

resident in the Commonwealth of Australia, and do not accept that somehow years later the High
Court of Australia, and notably beyond its constitutional powers (as it did with the MABO case,
35 as the colonies joining Federation did not accept there was a native title issue in Australian
colonies existing) can then interfere with my constitutional rights being a British national. It is
not relevant for this if the British Parliament did or did not legislate as to Australians being
“foreigners” as it would be ULTRA VIRES, as it has no legislative powers to deny Australians
their British nationality that is embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
40 1900 (UK).
Mr. DEAKIN.-
45
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
Because no judge can be an adjudicator in his own cause, it must be clear that in effect not a
single judge could purport to have a position to decide this matter if his/her own position depends
50 upon the outcome of this matter to be decided.

Page 69
It would be judicial bias for any judicial officer to decide a matter in which his very own survival
of being a judicial officer depends upon the outcome of the matter.
The first principles of British law incompetence, propter affectum to sit upon the trial must be
5 considered.
In my view a Jury of men in the language of omni exceptions majores could without difficulty
consider the matters and if it is tenable for a High Court of Australia to somehow create on its
own some kind of a LEGAL FICTION that does not exist but affects by this the very
constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution!
10
Now, still assuming them to be a Jury, and of course invested with all the attributes of
Jurors at the Common Law, this challenge propter affectum certainly ought to hold good
for even were the statute construed as bearing out a different signification, still an
15 established right was not to be overturned by any supposed negative clause, but by a direct
and express affirmation. It was an immutable law of justice of Great Britain, in fact of
every civilised country on the face of the globe, and well laid down had that doctrine been
from time immemorial, so far had the doctrine been carried too, that Blackstone, book i p.
91. Christian's edition, conceives it impossible so monstrous and absurd an injustice should
20 ever exist any where, as that any man should be constituted a judge in his own cause.
And
Mr. Wentworth gave a very lucid explanation of what in law sedition meant, and how it
could most properly be applied, considering it a Scotticism. Mr. Chief Justice Forbes rather
25 thought the word had its origin from the Latin tongue, and his Honor, with much classic
taste, proceeding to elucidate his idea used an apt quotation from the Mantuan Bard -- from
the Æneid of Virgil 1 Book, lines 152, 3, 4, as follows:--
"Ac veluti magno in populo, cum soepe coorta est SEDITIO, soevitque animis ignobile
vulgus,
30 Iamque faces, et saxa volant -- furor arma ministrat."
After a most elaborate, eloquent, and argumentative appeal as to the justice and the facts
applicable to his client's case Mr. Wentworth again sat down.
Forbes C.J., Stephen and Dowling JJ, 20 June 1829
Source: Sydney Gazette, 23 June 1829
35
As already set out above that Australians (British nationals) are governed by Constitutional law
and British law! It is impossible for the High Court of Australia to somehow throw of the
Imperial powers while still maintaining that the Imperial legislation such as the Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) remains in force albeit upon conditions what they
40 themselves consider is relevant. Some kind of, so to say, “cherry picking” tactic.
The mere fact that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia rejected a referendum to
become a REPUBLIC in itself underlines that Australians never accepted that the
Commonwealth of Australia is an INDEPENDENT nation but rather that it remains under the
45 British Crown.
Indeed, the monarchist argued that the British monarchy had been good to us and the Republican
were having their say why to keep this kind of pompous royalty if we can do without. The mere
fact that such kind of arguments were going on in itself indicates that the people of Australia
didn’t accept to become an INDEPENDENT nation and neither regarded to be so. While for
50 political purposes members of parliament and indeed those in seat of power of Government may
elect wanting to wield unlimited powers, it is not the function of the High Court of Australia to
Page 70
look after their power hungry desires but to declare constitutional provisions as intended by the
Framers of the Constitution aligned with what was amended by successful referendums.
David Hick, as I view it, was therefore a British national by birth, irrespective if his mother was
5 born in the UK!
My children and grandchildren born in the Commonwealth of Australia are all British nationals,
as this is their birthright that was embedded in the Constitution!
10 For the record, it ought to be understood that my naturalization never involved any State official,
as it was done at 55 Kings Street, Melbourne at the then offices of the Immigration Department,
and as such unlike most other people my naturalization was purely conducted by Commonwealth
of Australia officers, who obviously lacked any constitutional powers to provide me with
“franchise” as that was a State matter. It can therefore neither be argued that somehow the state
15 of Victoria did provide me with “franchise” as it never did. It erroneously relied upon the
ULTRA VIRES Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as to somehow take it that I was granted
“franchise” where clearly this never could be so.
In the Moller v Board of Examiners for Legal Practitioners case it is clear that some “oath of
20 alliance” was required. Now, if there was some change of “oath of alliance” because of
purportedly the Commonwealth of Australia having become INDEPENDENT then at what time
was the “oath of alliance” taken by lawyers to practice at the Victorian Bar valid? And, when did
lawyers already have taken this “oath of alliance” to the British Monarch then make a new “oath
of alliance” to the purported “Queen of Australia”? Or is it that we have lawyers (including
25 judicial officers) where some have sworn an “oath of alliance” to the LEGAL FICTION of
Queen of Australia while others to the British monarch?
I take the position that it is not relevant what the High Court of Australia may purport to make
out of matters in the Sue v Hill case, as ultimately it is ULTRA VIRES where they are making
30 decisions that are in conflict to the intentions of the Framers (and so amended by the successful
referendums) as expressed in the Constitution.
I view it is beyond constitutional powers for the High Court of Australia to interfere with
constitutional provisions and as such we are and remain to be British nationals and ultimately it
will be up to the people to decide otherwise.
35
Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can
40 reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also
a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples
whom it will embrace and unite.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not
intend to enter into any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the
45 Constitution which we have been engaged in framing. But, sir, no man can remain
unmoved upon this momentous occasion. We who are assembled in this Convention are
about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are
about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I
can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
Page 71
world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king.
This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
5 Again;
This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
My view is that, “We, the people” have the only power to amend the Constitution and political
appointed judges who may lack any proper perception of what is constitutionally appropriate
10 have no powers whatsoever to rob us of our constitutional rights.
Again, if the High Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill that British nationals are not entitled to
franchise and sit in the parliament then this means every Australian by this is in effect excluded
from participating in any election, because of the embedded constitutional provision that we are
15 and remain British nationals by birth or by naturalization!
And, as the British Parliament did provide for what the Framers of the Constitution intended that
any person subjected to a race legislation by this is having a disability that denies the person to
have citizenship and so franchise (obviously as to avoid persons subjected to race legislation to
overturn the legislation) then by the unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act each and every
20 Australian is by this disqualified to have citizenship and so also franchise and to be in the
Parliament.
Unlike what I did, I found it remarkable that the High Court of Australia never appropriately
quoted the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates such as in the Sue v Hill,
Sykes v Cleary, the MABO, Pochi, and other cases. Indeed, in the Sykes v Cleary it incorrectly
25 referred to the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates, taking it out of
context, as I have already extensively canvassed in previous published books. Hence, likely those
decision will be overturned in time to come as having been erroneously made.
Therefore, on this basis also, the Court could not invoke

30 legal jurisdiction as to federal jurisdiction because if
Australians are all disqualified to have citizenship and so to
be electors, by whatever reason set out above, then the Court
cannot entertain any alleged breaches of electoral laws.
35 It might also be asked if the Commonwealth tor of Public Prosecutors lawyers made an “oath of
alliance” to the FICTIONAL “Queen of Australia” or made an “oath of alliance” to the British
Monarch. After all, we cannot uphold British constitutional law, as the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is by officers who have sworn an “oath of alliance’ to a
foreigner and by this are, so to say, perhaps bend to pursue their own cause regardless how
40 inappropriate and indeed unconstitutional this might be??
In my view, one can only have a “Queen of Australia” if there is such a country as Australia
where the government of that country has all powers over its subjects by its constitution. Clearly,
no such country exist, as like the European Union, the Commonwealth of Australia is a
45 LIMITED POLITICAL UNION where there can be no kind of monarchy existing.
The only reason that Australians have the Monarchy is not because the Commonwealth of
Australia is a Monarchy, but because it is created by a LIMITED POLITICAL UNION of the
Colonies (now States) who were and remain dominions of the British Empire. Hence, if the
States were to become independent then automatically the Commonwealth of Australia would by
Page 72
this become INDEPENDENT provided such INDEPENDENCE was reflected by the people of
Australia to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) that
Australians no longer would be British nationals, etc.
Again;
5 This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
In my view, it would be sedition for any judge of the High Court of Australia, having made an
“oath of alliance” to the British monarch then to make a ruling against the Monarch that would
undermine the very intentions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
10 that succession of the British Crown will be the monarchy, as for example by the Bill of Rights it
is well recognised that all judicial officers as well as Parliamentarians are to respect the
Monarchy and its position.
Also, as I pursued naturalization after about 23 years having resided in the State of Victoria, and
as such did not quickly get naturalized but indeed took my time to understand what seemed to be
15 applicable and for all purposed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second was the rightful
Monarch to the British throne, and being the British Monarch who was for all purposes was and
remained the Queen under which Australian State and Federal laws are enacted, then a later
fictitious Queen of Australia for an INDEPENDENT Australia cannot be deemed to override
constitutional foundations.
20 By marriage, I had a name change, from “Schorel” to “Schorel-Hlavka”, to but for all purposes
remain the same person. As such, regardless if for title purposes there was some alleged name
change the person was and remained the British Monarch, the rightful Monarch in regard of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
As I understand it the British Monarch cannot obtain an other titles as Queen of Australia where
25 no such Monarchy exist. In my view, it is an insult to name the British Monarch “Queen of
Australia” as being a Queen without a country.
As the British Parliament enacted Section 51(xix) that the Commonwealth of Australia could
naturalize “aliens” to become British subjects, then neither the Commonwealth of Australia and
30 for this matter the High Court of Australia can turn this into naturalization of “aliens” to become,
say, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Indonesian or whatever other kind of nationality. The British
Parliament had itself no legislative power but to provide for the Commonwealth of Australia to
naturalize “aliens” to become British nationals, being subjects of the British Crown.
Indeed, if the British Parliament were to have contemplated to provide for Subsection 51(xix) for
35 naturalization for “aliens” to somehow obtain nationality of anything other then British
nationality then its may itself have been guilty of sedition, as it could not undermine the British
Crown and rights to its subjects.
In my view, the later Sue v Hill judgment, after I had already naturalized in 1994, cannot affect
40 my constitutional rights to be a British national, and neither that of my children and grand
children born in the Commonwealth of Australia, or for that matter other born or naturalized in
the Commonwealth of Australia.
As such, I am an Australian resident with British nationality since naturalization and failing there
45 being any State legislation as to define/declare “citizenship” it effectively means that no one is a
“State citizen” and hence neither “Commonwealth citizen” (Australian citizen).
For some years now I have promoted that there should be an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a
constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Government and the Courts
50 as to the application and limitations of constitutional powers. Because there appear to be no such
constitutional council and judges appointed to the High Court of Australia lack to be

Page 73
constitutionalist we are ending up having ill conceived judgements handed down that causes
uncalled problems. Then and only then will all people get the same kind of extensive information
and then judges can consider this kind of extensive information rather then unprepared and often
taking out of context or not considering at all Hansard records of the Constitution Convention
5 Debates.
“Naturalization” was never intended to include any legislative power to define/declare

citizenship and the Framers made clear that the States would retain their legislative powers to
define/declare citizenship. Hence, it is beyond constitutional powers of the High Court of
10 Australia to somehow include “citizenship” into “naturalization” as it would be ULTRA VIRES.
My stepdaughter, (now 45) herself having obtained several law degrees at Monash University,
such as in International Law, never realised then that she was in fact allegedly not naturalized at
the time her parents were, even so my wife insist even to today that to her perception she was
15 included in the naturalization.
It appears to me that the Commonwealth of Australia basically did a con-job to name the
legislation Australian Citizenship Act 1948, where it knew or ought to have known that the
framers of the Constitution referred to “Australian citizenship” in the same manner as being
20 “Commonwealth citizenship” and being only obtainable by obtaining “State citizenship”.
As the Framers made clear, to hand over to the Commonwealth of Australia to declare/define
“citizenship” would be to allow it to undermine al, provisions otherwise provided for in the
Constitution.
After all, if the Commonwealth of Australia could define/declare “citizenship” then by this it
25 could decide who shall or shall not have a right to vote in State elections, or indeed if any state
elections were to be allowed. It could turn the Federation into a confederation by abolishing the
States by not allowing any State elections to be held. My published books already have
canvassed these matters more extensively and therefore no need to set this out in hundreds of
pages for this court, as I refer to my various books published under the INSPECTOR-
30 RIKATI® label.
If this Court were to go along with the fact that “British nationals” are “foreigners” and excluded
from being a Member of Parliament, as Sue v Hill purports, albeit wrongly, then not a single
Australian could be entitled to be in the Parliament and not a single Member of Parliament for
35 this could be rightful hold a seat in the Parliament.
If the unconstitutional Racial Discrimination Act is deemed to be valid, then again it is a
“disability” against every Australian, British national or not, and then this disability
automatically disqualifies every Australian from having “citizenship” and so “franchise” in both
State and Federal elections.
40
As was also placed before the Magistrates Court of Victoria the evidence in the ADDRESS TO
THE COURT that the Attorney-General in November 2002 advised me that the State of
Victoria has no legislation to provide State citizenship!
Mr. SYMON.-
45 As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not

want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be
prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.
And

Page 74
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must
shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except
5 with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens,
and so on.
Therefore, regardless if the Commonwealth of Australia purports to call “nationality” citizenship

10 it still does not encompass a right to declare/define “CITIZENSHIP” that includes state
citizenship and State franchise.
Section 41 of the Constitution is very clear that the right to vote, and it is a right not an
obligation, is based upon being a State lector. If therefore, the state or States do not have any
State citizenship, then there neither can be a State franchise right, and so section 41 of the
15 Constitution does not come in play either.
It might be clear that the magistrate on 4-12-2002 upon submission of the Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions held it better that these matters be determined by the High Court
of Australia before any further proceedings were to be dealt with, if at all.
20 As the onus of proving jurisdiction was upon the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecution
then it had the obligation to have a ruling by the High Court of Australia upon these matters.
The fact that it failed to pursue the matters before the High Court of Australia in my view
was tantamount to abandoning its prosecution against me.
25 Any notion that somehow I had to pursue the matters before the High Court of Australia is
absurd, as I am not the one who instituted proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Victoria!
END QUOTE
30 (19 July 2006 both appeals unchallenged upheld)
QUOTE
 To what extend, if any, is are the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948
ULTRA VIRES?
 The usage of purported Commonwealth electoral rolls rather then what ought to be
35 used being the State electoral rolls, as electors are already (by State legislation)
qualified to vote.
 Was the proclamation constitutionally and/or otherwise legally validly published?
 Were the writs constitutionally and or otherwise legally valid?
 What is required to invoke any Commonwealth legislation for elections to be held,
40 voting issues, etc?
 What prior process is required to be able to issue writs for general elections?
 Is the Special Gazette S421 appropriately worded to reflect being printed by the
“Government printer”?
 Was the Proclamation validly published?
45  What is required to be able to issue writs?
 What is “citizenship” (“State citizenship”, “Australian citizenship”, “Commonwealth
citizenship”) within constitutional meaning?
 How does one obtain “citizenship”?
 What is “citizenship” within constitutional meaning?
50  What is the difference between State citizenship and Commonwealth citizenship?
 Who has the power to legislate regarding citizenship?
Page 75
 How does the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) relate to deny any person citizenship
and so the electoral rights (Franchise)?
END QUOTE
And now the 29-8-2016 PRESS RELEASE:
5 QUOTE
ISSUE - Plebiscite, referendum or parliamentarian vote on homosexual marriage, etc & the
constitution
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the
10 constitution.
We have ongoing that homosexuals refer to same-sex marriage rather than to homosexual
marriages as to try to make it sound differently. And this shows the dishonesty in their campaign,
at least in my view.
QUOTE Thu, 31 Oct 2002 Email His Honour M Kirby J to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
15 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case
involving women or a male judge in a rape case.
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.
20 If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true
that an amendment of the Constitution might be required. Alternatively, there are
cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours is a cooperative federation, as the
Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
25 END QUOTE Thu, 31 Oct 2002 Email His Honour M Kirby J to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
His Honour M Kirby J (then Judge of the High Court of Australia since then never detailed as to
why a referendum would not be required to amend the constitution to allow for homosexual
marriage to be constitutionally permissible. As with everything, one has to go to the source of the
30 constitution, which is the Framers of the Constitution.
Let us say a plebiscite is successful (not that I seek to imply it will) or the Parliament votes upon
it and well passes the bill (again, not that I seek to imply it will) and then subsequently the High
Court of Australia (as it did in HCA 27 of 1999 in the Wakim case with the purported Cross
Vesting Act) then decides that the legislation is unconstitutional, then this could result in
35 numerous if not thousands upon thousands of purported homosexual marriages to be without
valid law. Politicians are often pursuing something that may harness votes regardless of the
consequences to those it purports to represent its interest. We must have responsible Government
and indeed likewise so a Parliament. As His Honour Kirby J himself indicate in his 31 October
2002 correspondence to me “Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s
40 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that power were not enough, and none of the other heads of
power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the Constitution might be required.”. As
such His Honour M Michael Kirby J didn’t rely upon the marriage power specifically but rather
sought to rely upon Ss51(xxxvii) external affairs powers. The problem with this is that the
external affairs powers was intended to be used only to make treaties , etc, within the legislative
45 powers otherwise provided within s51 and s52 of the constitution. As such, if the provisions of
the constitution of Ss51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) do not provide for this then Ss51(xxxvii) cannot be used to circumvent this by some
treaty. ((xxi) marriage;) ((xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental
rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;)
50 Hansard 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Page 76
The Right Hon. G.H. REID: I strongly support the amendment for the reasons which my hon. and learned friend has hinted at. This is
an expression which would be more in place in the United States Constitution, where treaties are dealt with by the President and the
senate, than in the constitution of a colony within the empire. The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the
people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to
5 treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very
seriously without involving any important legal consequences. The expression, I think, ought to be omitted. I will deal with the other
suggested amendments when the time comes.
END QUOTE
This means that Ss51(xxxvii) cannot give legislative powers where none existed in the first place
10 within other headings.
I am well aware of the decision of KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168
High Court of Australia and the (THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v. TASMANIA.
(1983) 158 CLR 1 – 1July 1983)) THE TASMANIAN DAM CASE but let be clear about it they
defied the true meaning and application of the constitution, but this PRESS RELEASE will not
15 delve into the finer issues as it would make it too long, safe to say that in my published books in
the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series I have canvassed it extensively. Members of parliament
may like some kind of legislation at times but to abuse and misuse their legislative powers for
this is to violate why they are elected to the Parliament. And would they approve of others doing
so if it goes against them, I doubt it. As such, no excuses to violate the constitution merely
20 because of some personal views.
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
25
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting
Committee will not fail to exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which
30 they do not understand, and that they will put in words which can be understood by
persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE

35 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE

40 QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has described, of choosing or
setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be
handed over not to a Convention similar to this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for
their acceptance or rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and it is
45 the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand clearly everything in the
Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have
on the platform, when this Constitution is commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which
may or may not be appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
50 The question to be asked is if at the time of the referendums held at the colonies and the British
Parliament (consider the British Interpretation Act 1889) it was then part of and/or intended that
homosexual marriages would be within the definition of “marriage”?
QUOTE:-
55 “..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what Judges think is in the best
public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of
the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost
a century ago by people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are
out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.”
60 END QUOTE
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

Page 77
"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant. We are not
to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
5 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
QUOTE
Constitutional interpretation
The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not
mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of
10 those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the
words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at
Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]:
"We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question
intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean
15 peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an
historical event - someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular
way on a particular occasion."
END QUOTE
20 Well as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I did research the INTENTIONS of the Framers of the

Constitution and what is clear is that they were talking about transferring legislative powers from
the colonies to the newly to be formed Commonwealth of Australia because as they commented
many a mother went inter colonial causing a father having to re-litigate in another colony to gain
access to his child and by providing this legislative power to the Commonwealth then the need
25 for re-litigation would be no more. And any purported legislation called “same sex marriage”
would be beyond the powers of any state/Territory this because it would imply legislative powers
as to marriages which clearly the States no longer possessed since federation after the
Commonwealth commenced to legislate as to marriages.
Let it be very clear thatS51 doesn’t give any legislative powers to any state. The Framers of the
30 Constitution merely embedded the legal principle that unless and until the Commonwealth of
Australia commenced to legislate upon a certain subject matter the States could continue to
legislate on this subject matter, with the exception of taxation where it relates to specific taxation
matters.
QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must
retire from that field of legislation.
END QUOTE
40
QUOTE Mr. REID:
We must make it clear that the moment the Federal Parliament legislates on one of those points enumerated in clause 52, that
instant the whole State law on the subject is dead. There cannot be two laws, one Federal and one State, on the same subject. But
45 that I merely mention as almost a verbal criticism, because there is no doubt, whatever that the intention of the framers was not
to propose any complication of the kind.
END QUOTE
.
50 QUOTE
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR (New South Wales)[3.18]: We ought to be careful not to load the commonwealth with any more duties than
are absolutely necessary. Although it is quite true that this power is permissive, you will always find that if once power is given to
the commonwealth to legislate on a particular question, there will be continual pressure brought to bear on the commonwealth to
exercise that power. The moment the commonwealth exercises the power, the states must retire from that field of legislation.
55 END QUOTE
.
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised.
60 END QUOTE

QUOTE

Page 78
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the
power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under
clause 100.
10 Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they
can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

15 QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be practicable, and if the people
require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
END QUOTE
20 Constitutionally it means all land taxes, road speed camera’s (if not certified by the
Commonwealth within weight and measures), etc are all unconstitutional.
Those who are in the parliament pursuing their own personal agenda in violation to the
constitution simply are betraying the position they are holding and should vacate their seats. It is
clear that His Honour Michael Kirby J in his 31 October 2002 correspondence to me didn’t at all
25 seek to rely upon the marriage power but on external treaties. But again this is well outside the
treaties power. Why indeed have a constitution at all with limited powers if the Commonwealth
can sidestep this by whatever treaty is were to engage in? Why have the referendum power if the
treaties power can circumvent constitutional limitations?
30 Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to
legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall
get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a
35 violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions
for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the
Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at
all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I
will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
40 END QUOTE
.
The States cannot give the Commonwealth reference of powers where it in the first place has no
such legislative powers. Even if, without seeking to imply they have, the States had legislative
powers to provide for a non-marriage type of relationship between homosexuals then any such
45 reference of legislative powers must be approved within s123 of the Constitution by a State
referendum!

QUOTE
50 Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been
the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer
supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation,
but the power of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary sovereignty. No
parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own
55 will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split
up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary which towers above all
powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.
END QUOTE
60
Page 79
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of England. But here we are framing a
written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.
END QUOTE
5 After all referring legislative powers includes referring associated judicial powers and due to the
separation of powers within every State only a State referendum if approved by the State electors
can authorise this.
For the above and my past publications I hold that any homosexual marriage to be
constitutionally permissible as law requires a referendum to insert a special provision that allows
10 for such kind of marriage, including De Facto marriages, as currently any De Facto marriage
kind of benefits/payments/etc are unconstitutional. In my view a “widow” pension doesn’t allow
payments to non-widows being single parents. ((xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances,
widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital
benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil
15 conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;).
If about 14 years later (after his 31 October 2002 correspondence) His Honour Michael Kirby J
still has been unable to show me about the constitutional powers existing within the constitution
then surely parliamentarians should take heed that it is far more complicated then what His
20 Honour M Kirby J now may profess!
Those who pursue a parliamentarian vote above a referendum may rather be the villain to the
homosexual community if afterwards the constitution were to be declared to have been violated
by this, and the same regarding a plebiscite. If you really care about the homosexual community
25 then make sure you do it right in the first place!
One has to ask if His Honour Michael Kirby J or now perhaps just Mr Michael Kirby disclosed
to anyone what he wrote to me on 31 October 2002 and if he has now a different view then why
does he hold now a different view? Or is it that no matter what he pursues his own personal
interest even if this is unconstitutional and hope perhaps that subsequently judges of the High
30 Court of Australia will betray their oath of office to go along with it in a treasonous manner to
declare the constitution as they deem fit rather then what the true mean in and application of the
constitution is about?
For the record it was the then His Honour Michael Kirby J who advised me through his office
that no further correspondence would be entered into. As such not I but His Honour Michael
35 Kirby J was the one who so to say went on the run.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
40 END QUOTE
The length of this documents may indicate that I base my views upon what the Framers of the
constitution stated but regretfully most of it is being ignored by the judiciary somehow as to
pervert the true meaning and application of the constitution as to what may suit their
contemporary views. We cannot and must not tolerate this.
45 .
My view is that the armed forces causing ‘Halal’ kind of food to be provided that may prevent
those employed by the armed forces to eat what they desire would be unconstitutional as it would
be to impose religious doctrines of others.

Page 80
Moreover, I view that any religious or other text that promotes the killing of non-believers would
be violating the very legal principles embedded in the constitution such as s116.
5 In my view any text, religious or otherwise, that promotes harm or even the killing of another
person merely because they do not follow a certain religious belief should be banned by the
armed forces as such writings are in conflict with s116.
The following are internet published details of the Koran:
10 Koran 2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.

Koran 3:28 Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.
Koran3:85 Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.
Koran 5:33 Main and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.
Koran 8:12 Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran.
15 Koran 8.60 Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.
Koran 8:65 The unbelievers are stupid: urge the Muslims to fight them.
Koran 9.5 When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them.
Koran 9:30 The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.
Koran 9:123 Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood.
20 Koran 22:19 Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt
their skin and bellies.
Koran 47.4 Do not hanker for peace with infidels: behead them when you catch them.
QUOTE 14-4-2016 EMAIL

25 From: Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 April 2016, 17:00
Subject: Incitement to Kill Australians.
30 ----- Forwarded message -----

From: Gil May <yamlig352@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:58:04 +1000
Subject: Incitement to Kill Australians
35 *Incitement to Kill Australians*
By taking no action on Muslims religious teaching incitement to kill,

torture, commit terrorism and breach of Antidiscrimination Law and
Incitement Law shows the incompetence of AFP and government—such lack of
40 action on open blatant teachings that breach law are undeniable: Such is
giving tacit approval to continue.
European migrants are showing us photos of Muslims wearing tee shirts with
slogans* WE TAKE OVER IN 2030, *clearly it will be much sooner than that with
45 bombs here as well.
*Moslem Incitement to Kill*

Page 81
(For the record we have no religious conviction, however we are concerned
about breach of law and Australia’s future for our grandchildren and yours:
and their global plan to introduce Sharia Law—based on having politicians
too frightened to oppose them that has worked successfully in Europe.)
5
*Several years ago an old Muslim gentleman gave me these sections of the
Qur’an hereunder*, he said *“While this is brainwashed into young people’s
minds there will always be horrific murders and laws will be treated with
contempt, the Australian government should stop this horror being taught as
10 it is in breach of law to incite murder and hatred”.* He and other
*Australian* Muslims cannot understand why fellow Muslims would come to the
greatest country on earth where they have a wonderful life, their daughters
are educated and they are truly free, then want to change it by following
ancient outdated religious/political teachings, instead of accepting it
15 with open arms*: “Australia is the paradise holly books talk about, and
they want to spoil it”. “Maybe they have been marrying cousins, marrying
cousins, for too many generations and have lost their ability to understand
and see the beauty of Australia”.*
20 To incite, encourage and instruct others to commit murder, torture or other

offence is a serious crime.
Incitement and legislation is cited at the end: Muslims must be made very
aware of our laws that must be upheld. Claiming a religious/political
25 belief or allegiance to foreign or religious law or teachings is no
defence. This law must be heavily enforced, all religious/political
organisations must be warned their teachings must comply with law or they
will be charged in particular what they are teaching children; the
government must approve the teaching agenda: if needed tighten existing
30 law. *We urgently need a law allowing deportation for giving allegiance to
or promoting any foreign law that is contrary to Australian Law*
*Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious
authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims, supported by
35 **Ayatollahs, Imams, Sheiks**. *So unless you challenge his authority with laws to
make
it an offence to follow religious/political instruction and foreign laws
contrary to Australian law, then you are just one of their puppets who is
afraid to act, and there is a lot of them.
40
There should be an irrevocable legally binding document signed by all
migrants that if they are convicted of any criminal or terrorist law or
promote allegiance to any foreign law they are deported without legal
redress.
45
You cannot deny the Muslim teachings hereunder of instruction,
encouragement and incitement to commit terrorist acts, torture violence and
murder.
50 *The Qur’an states:-*
*Qur'an 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”*
Instruction, encouragement and incitement to commit terrorist acts,

55 violence and murder.
*Qur'an 3:28 “Muslims must not take infidels as friends.”*

Page 82
This make a fool of multiculturalism as is very evident in the actions of

many migrants who openly say they can ‘use our stupid laws against us’.
5 *Qur'an 3:85 “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.”*
Promoting and inciting breech of the Anti-discrimination laws making a fool

of Multiculturism.
10 *Qur'an 5:33 “Maim and crucify infidels it they criticise Islam.”*
Instruction, encouragement and incitement to commit terrorist acts, torture

violence and murder.
15 *Qur'an 8:12 “Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other
than the Qur'an.”*

20
*Qur'an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to
Allah.”*
Kill every one of them including women and children.

25
*Qur'an 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels.”*
Instruction, encouragement and incitement to commit terrorist acts violence

and murder.
30
*Qur'an 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid; urge all Muslims to fight them.”*
Instruction, encouragement and incitement to commit violence and crime.
35 *Qur'an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he
has made a great slaughter in the land.”*
*Qur'an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the
infidels out to the last.'”*
40
Kill everyone who is not a Muslim, that is your family and mine, every
politician and police officer who is not a Muslim.
*Qur'an 9:5* *“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take
45 them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every
stratagem of war.” *
As everyone who is not a Muslim is a disbeliever they are urging the

killing of every other adult and child in Australia.
50
*Qur'an 9:30 “The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.”*
Multiculturism, antidiscrimination and tolerance working well.
55 *Qur'an 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood.” *

Page 83
Multiculturism working well.
*Qur'an 22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron
5 rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies.”*

10 *Qur'an 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when
you catch them.”*
Encouragement, Incitement, instruction and ordering to commit murder and

terrorise. Multiculturism working well.
15
*Tabari IX:69 “He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his
life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight
them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us.”*
20 Your laws do not matter to us we are taught not to respect or obey them,
slaughtering you and your children is of no concern to us Muslims.
*Ishaq:324 “Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion,

all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must not have rivals.”*
25
As a Muslim it is your duty to kill all others, members of any other
religion and disbelievers must be killed, you are not a good Muslim unless
you accept this as your duty.
30 *Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall

fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly
seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight
whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have
mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the
35 command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is
established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”*
Ruthlessly, violently, torture, maim; amputate hands, arms, legs, breast,

castrate and cut off heads; rape and kill every many woman and child.
40
*Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with
terror.'”*
Creating Terror is expected and esteemed to, to be a terrorist is the grand

45 teaching of Muslims.
*Qur'an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and
incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.” *
50 Terrorise and kill all non Muslims.
*Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting

captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved
the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring.
55 But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'”*

Page 84
Murder, slaughter, torture of all non-believers is taught to all Muslim
children as the correct goal to achieve in life.
*Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to

5 Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So
Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick
until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who
beheaded him.”*
10 Hideous slow torture, cutting body parts and beheading is taught as normal
practice for Muslims to inflict upon non-believers.
*Ishaq:580 “Our strong warriors obey his orders to the letter. By us

Allah's religion is undeniably strong. You would think when our horses
15 gallop with bits in their mouths that the sounds of demons are among them.
The day we trod down the unbelievers there was no deviation or turning from
the Apostle's order. During the battle the people heard our exhortations
to fight and the smashing of skulls by swords that sent heads flying. We
severed necks with a warrior's blow. Often we have left the slain cut to
20 pieces and a widow crying alas over her mutilated husband. 'Tis Allah, not
man we seek to please.”*
Reinforcement of the right to torture and kill as normality for Muslims.
25 *KILL, KILL and KILL again is the profound teachings of Muslims*
*Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of

Allah that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!'”*
30 *Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with

terror.'” *
*Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will
be left when he leaves.” *
35
*Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their women and
children taken captive.”*
*The most repeated verse of the Qur’an is: "Obey Allah and obey his
40 messenger”.* This is the man that Muslims follow today. Terror is
mainstream Islam. Follow Muhammad who led 75 brutal raids in less than 10
years. Osama bin Laden and others were just following his example, as were
those here and 1000’s in the middle east implement the worst primitive
atrocities recorded.
45
*Their Holiest of books the Qur’an teaches absolute obedience to kill
infidels—read it yourself. *
Where violence, torture, terror, mutilation, slaughter, sexual slavery of

50 women, kill kill kill are glorified, justified and naturalised in the
Quran invoking religious authority for killing. Where the vast possibilities of
imagination are triggered by clever, subtle and insidious
religious/political teaching.

Page 85
The Koran is full of death, floggings, torture, and bloodshed. No love or
forgiveness. No peace to all men. The Qur’an teaches hate, violence and
death.
5 Islam teaches Homosexuals must be killed, honour killings are

necessary, paedophilia as described under Australian law is encouraged, total
allegiance to Sharia
law is mandatory where amputations, beheadings, stoning-to-death, total
subjugation of women to sexual slave status and other atrocities; far worse
10 than the executions the parliament and government so loudly protested about
in Indonesia—clearly there is a serious double standard.
“One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar – the
infidels – and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established
15 aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law,” wrote ISIS, reports *CNN*.
Harrowing reports have surfaced of the endless rape and torture

<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/185035> being imposed on
Yazidi women and girls, with many opting for mass-suicide
20 <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184117> after the
brutalities. Christians being horrible tortured, raped and their throats
cut slowly with a blunt knife, churches full of Christians were sprayed
with petrol and burnt, their children decapitated in front of their
parents *CNN
25
REPORTS*. These horrific photographs are on ‘youtube’.
The Koran (their perfect book) teaches laws and principals which are
opposed to the Australian constitution, Australian law, Australian culture
30 and way of life.
*We need very powerful new laws that make it an extremely serious offence
to teach or encourage ‘Terrorism acts’ in any form, to burn our flag or
threaten our democracy our soldiers died fighting for, without such all the
35 ANZAC speeches are just hypocrisy—our form of democracy must be indelibly
protected and enshrined at Law making it an offence to teach subversions,
commit subversive acts or make or carry placards/posters threatening
violence or subversive acts. Such laws must be very powerful with mandatory
deportable and imprisonment penalties, such laws should be tied into Acts
40 governing treason. We have a small window of opportunity to act before it
gets completely out of hand and police are killed as a result of political
cringe.*
*All the undeniable facts are before you of **Instruction, encouragement

45 and incitement to commit terrorist acts, torture violence and murder, this
is in breach of state and commonwealth laws—and what does the AFP and
Government do—nothing as usual. What if a citizens group starts teaching
and encouraging these same acts of Incitement, Murder, Torture and
Terrorism? Will ignore it and pander to it with millions in education
50 grants to encourage it as is done to with Muslims? *
*Terrorist Activities Can Be Stopped.*

Page 86
*This does not affect anyone unless they are planning to become a terrorist
or a criminal.*
Much is written about these shocking incidents and everyone has an

5 opinion—but no answers to prevent it re-occurring. It can be stopped
relatively easily.
The rule of investigation is that when the root-cause of the problem is

identified you must find a way to prevent it reoccurring, otherwise massive
10 cost and loss of life result--which applies in this instance. Applying the
same principles we can remove the incentive to commit such acts. All
terrorist believe in religious/political idealism which is the basis of
their actions and the (mistaken) belief that any such act will guarantee a
trip to (a mythical) paradise (and 72 virgins)?
15
*The main criterion clearly is how to simply cancel the 'ticket' to this
paradise? *
As this ‘ticket’ is applicable only after death, then it becomes an easy

20 solution. Any terrorist killed will not be given a religious burial, the
state will retain the body with a disgraced unmarked burial in in pig
faeces. Terrorists detest pigs believing they are filthy animals, to eat or
touch a pig or any pig products is to be instantly barred from their
mythical paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to Hell. That alone will
25 be a massive deterrent.
As further deterrent to such associated criminal activity, prison food will

continue to be cooked with lard (pig fat)—no halal food to be provided
ever; jail is not a holiday-home paid for by taxpayers where you can order
30 food to your liking (McDonalds, ice creams etc.), you get what is served or
nothing that’s part of the penalty. Losing your rights of free activity
and choice is part of the incarceration penalty.
*Should any religious/political groups, social engineers, Greens or

35 ‘do-gooders’ bellow objections; as law abiding citizens they do not have
anything to worry about—this is specifically for terrorists and
criminals—unless they are intending to become one? These provisions will
never be applied unless they are a terrorist or criminal; so good citizens
need not have concern as it does not apply to them.*
40
Recently on TV a Saudi Minister was showing how children in schools were
being taught the best ways to cut off hands and feet of criminal and behead
infidels.
45 Muslims in Europe have for a long time been wearing Tee-Shirts printed
with *'We Take Over In 2030'.*
A very carefully planned operation is well underway with brilliant

tacticians and funded covertly by Billions from Saudi Arabia and it
50 encompasses Australia.

Page 87
The date 2030 is a bait for stupid countries that allow Muslims to use
their anti-discrimination laws against host countries and their citizens:
The real date when there will be terrorist attacks simultaneously across
most European counties, including US, UK, Scandinavia and Australia will be
5 about 2020-2025.
In Europe authorities are treated with total contempt, their leaders are
telling them not to respect any law other than Shari, they have a duty to
rape and impregnate European women as their men have lost their fertility;
10 the raping of women is now totally out of hand—expats give us harrowing
stories of rape, torture and murders being hidden by European governments
to stop massive revolt of national’s.
They want the momentum to be maintained and at its peak when the hyped up
15 wretches will literally go-mad with bloodshed and brutality—these
brainwashed wretches lust for death as a martyr and their mythical paradise
and 72 virgins, they cannot ever be stopped other than by death.
Muslim fanaticism has already started here costing us $1.1B we cannot afford, with
20 police and Journalists threatened, the Lindt Café hostages, attacks and
threats against police, those leaving to join ISIS who are stopped will
carry out their gruesome ideals here—better to let them go and prevent them
returning; everyone prevented from leaving will likely kill here, *the
choice is let them kill overseas or here*, religious fanaticism is
25 uncontrollable.
It is time Police told the government to let these fanatics

leave as if prevented it is the police they will try to kill here, we owe
our police greater respect than making them targets, with powerful laws to
30 stop political/religious teachings to kill non-Muslims. It is the police
who they will kill and frightened politicians kowtow to them as exampled in
Europe and UK. We know of police who out of family concern are looking at
alternative careers. Australian Police Commissioners and Defence Force
Chiefs should take a very united front to politicians on this issue—clearly
35 politicians are out of their depth with theoretical idealism that has
seriously failed everywhere.
*There will be little change until a politician is killed then sudden

change will occur—at present a police officer’s life is not worthy of
40 change. Take note of these words—for they will be fulfilled.*
*We either deal with the aforementioned problems or it will deal with
us—Europe and UK are examples.*
45 *Moslems have created massive problems and murder, threats, intimidation,

costing millions in every western country they migrate to. We currently
have a $1.1B budget to counter terrorism, such would not have been required
with better choice of migrants.*
50 Due to religious direction of marrying cousins for 1,400 years the end
result is devastating inbreeding, infant deaths, deformities and low IQ. The
end result as determined by several overseas courts and recently the London
Coroner’s Court ruling shockingly deformed babies that died were the result
of serious inbreeding genetic defects and had no hope of survival and not
55 discrimination and neglect by white doctors/hospitals as claimed. The

Page 88
ongoing problems of inbreeding also create intelligence rationale
difficulties used by their leaders to incite them into shocking acts.
*US and UK defence experts all tell the same story of the extreme
5 difficulty in training Moslems because of low IQ from inbreeding
(generations of cousins marrying cousins marrying cousins) they found that
most pilot trainees had very limited night vision, even on the brightest of
moon-lit nights. Their training retention rate was minimal, including
maintenance personnel. Some had dim memories and had to be constantly
10 reminded of things that were told to them the day before. The western
instructor gets burned-out quickly due to the futility. It actually took
Moslem pilots years before they could fly in the dark safely and then would
be reluctant to leave the lights of a city. Ask any Marine, airman or Army
personnel who's been trying to train Iraqis and especially Afghans.
15 European governments tell the same story these migrants unable to learn a
new language, hold employment or meet entrance qualifications for the
military *
*The horrific teachings of the Quran are the problem*; there are more
20 Buddhist then Muslims in Australia, they do not cost our nation billions to
control them, they do no harm, integrate well, have no wish to change us
nor impose their beliefs at the point of a gun or to kill us for
disbelieving, and are proud Australians. The problem is easily
identifiable, thanks to the stupidity allowing non-compatible migrants
25 entry that are costing us billions and threaten the lives of many. The
silent majority as very concerned, the common theme we hear is more
independents needed in the senate and lower house with frequent one term
changes of government.
30 History always repeats, just different nations, different clothes, but the
murder squads are just as efficient; sadly, such is indelible world history.
*History Is Our Greatest Teacher*
35 Before you buy a business you examine the trading history.
Before you get pre-selection as a candidate your history is checked for

suitability.
40 You check the history of Political candidates before you vote for them.
Before you approve your children’s friends you like to know a bit about
their history.
45 You check the history of the school before you enrol your children.
You community and state histories are so important it is protected by law.
Schools and universities teach knowledge derived from research,

50 experimental, mathematical histories.
Education if totally based on teaching the history of knowledge we have

acquired.
55 What real history do you have on Islam, having no religious interest I had
little like most people I have spoken with. As this is a major world
problem of terrorist crazed religious delusions and all its grisly results

Page 89
it is time everyone leant about the historical facts—a senior Saudi
minister was recently speaking on TV of how schools were teaching children
how to cut off hands, feet and heads of criminals.
5 So what do you really know about Islam who claims we as infidels are their
enemy.
Do you know when Islam invaded Spain they executed most of the military,
leaders and business owners; they spent weeks decapitation people pilling
10 severed heads meters high.
In 906 they destroyed all classical books and all libraries of the
countries they overran.
15 Muslim terrorists have murdered Australians and there will be more, we

witnessed the atrocities in Paris, Indonesia and around the world every
day—so the history behind this is important knowledge.
*From 1999 to 2014 there have been 47,723 terrorist attacks killing 43,856
20 people *
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/annual_casu
alties.htm
In 2014 per month worldwide there were 1,122 terrorist attacks (Total
25 13,463), 2,727 deaths (Total 32,727) and 2,899 injuries (Total 34,791) and
more than 9,428 people were kidnapped or taken hostage in terrorist attacks
in 2014. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/terrorstats.html).
Plus 2015 figures.
30 Why are we afraid to read and to teach the ‘1400 Year Muslim History’?
Here it is for your better historical understanding and learning, it’s an

interesting short factual history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y* by Dr Bill Warner.*
35 *Form your opinion after you have learnt this interesting history.*
*European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)*
For security reasons the burqa or any other face coverings ( veils, hoods,
40 bala clavas, helmets ) that conceals a person’s facial identity should be
banned, to aid police, security and cameras to identify people; police
cannot identify potential bombers behind a Burqa. Refer NSW JP handbook
page 78, a Burqa must be removed for identification…..
45 Several European and Moslem counties have such bans for security purposes,
now or in the past, for persons in public places, including
universities. *Google “ burqa bans in countries”* – Turkey, Syria Tunisia, Holland,
Germany,
France , Belgium, Spain, have all banned the Burqa in public places.
50
*Police and Security need this help now and in the future. If some Moslem
countries can do this, why can’t we?*
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights have upheld France's burqa
55 ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live

Page 90
together". *That Judgment has established a legal precedent to be used
here.*
Many Moslems came here as early settlers and assimilated into Australia
5 because they were not consistently brainwashed by fanatical leaders, they
appreciated our paradise and understood ancient teachings in holy books
were rules suitable for ancient times centuries ago, and unless they amend
and adapt they destroy themselves from within.
10 *We have been tolerant of the intolerant for too long, they want respect of
their culture but give no respect to others—their religious teaching is
incompatible and in breach of our laws—they must be charged and a judgment
sought to show our determination uphold our rights and standard of law:
they must be told to modify their teachings to be compliant with Australian
15 laws—or leave. We must not tolerate adherence to foreign laws, animosities
and hatred. *
*Incitement and legislation*

20 Incitement is defined in legislation in many states, and using s 321G of
Victoria’s Crimes Act as our statutory example, incitement is:
“(1) Subject to this Act, where a person in Victoria or elsewhere incites

any other person to pursue a course of conduct which will involve the
25 commission of an offence by-
(a) the person incited;
(b) the inciter; or

30
(c) both the inciter and the person incited-
if the inciting is acted on in accordance with the inciter's intention, the

inciter is guilty of the indictable offence of incitement.
35
(2) For a person to be guilty under subsection (1) of incitement the person-
(a) must intend that the offence the subject of the incitement be
committed; and
40
(b) must intend or believe that any fact or circumstance the existence of
which is an element of the offence in question will exist at the time when
the conduct constituting the offence is to take place.
45 (3) A person may be guilty under subsection (1) of incitement

notwithstanding the existence of facts of which the person is unaware which
make commission of the offence in question by the course of conduct incited
impossible.”
50 *A person does not have to act on the incitement*
One of the interesting aspects of incitement, is that the substantive

offence does not require a person to act upon the incitement, but rather,
an attempt to incite is sufficient, as was noted in the Victorian Court of
55 Appeal in R v Dimozantis, with the Court approving the ruling of the trial
judge:
“The learned trial judge ruled that it was not necessary, as an element of
Page 91
the offence, to prove that the person incited acted upon the incitement,
although it was necessary to prove that the course of conduct urged would,
if it had been acted upon as the inciter intended it to be, amount to the
commission of the offence.”
5
Generally speaking, there is no requirement that a person incited to commit
an act, but rather, the inciting behaviour must be within the knowledge of
the other person.
10 *How is the offence proven?*
In order for incitement to be proven, the onus is on the prosecution to

show that there was incitement to commit an offence as stated by Isaacs J
in Walsh v Sainsbury:
15
*“The mere fact that A “incites to” or “urges” the commission of an offence
or offences against a Commonwealth law is enough to constitute A an
offender. He may “incite” or “urge” a particular person or generally, but,
the “incitement” or the “urging” once proved, the offence is complete.
20 Withdrawal does not obliterate it, though no doubt it may affect the
measure of punishment. But to be itself an offence the “incitement” or the
“urging” must be to the commission of some ‘offence’.”*
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) also provide offences
25 motivated by religion, as does the Commonwealth Crimes Act Amendment
(Incitement to Violence) Bill 2005
END QUOTE 14-4-2016 EMAIL
QUOTE 17-2-2017 EMAIL

30 Islamic Constitution for Australia.
People
 Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au>

 Today at 17:42
35 To
 Jim
Hide
Photos
 image001.jpg
40  image002.gif
 image003.png
Download All
Message body
45

Page 92
From: Brian McDermott [mailto:governor@cqfreestate.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Pauline Hanson
Cc: PATRIOTS EVERYWHERE; CHURCH MILITANTS; DIGITAL CURRENCY CLIENTS
5 Subject: ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION FOR AUSTRALIA
Plans to Create an Islamic Nation

Hizb-ut Tahrir is a proscribed terrorist group in many countries. Our government refuses to
declare them a terrorist danger and ban the group.
10 Hizb have openly posted this draft Islamic Constitution of Australia on their website. Their aim is
to make Australia an islamic state within 25 years. The longer we wait to declare islam a terrorist
ideology and ban islam in Australia the greater the danger we will all face.
They are shoving their plans in our faces every day. Each time you pass a woman in a veil or
burqa she is shoving her religion in your face. There is nothing in the koran that commands
15 women to wear one.
Every time a bank allows sharia law, they are pushing us faster towards becoming an islamic
nation.
Buddhism is the second largest religion in Australia. Yet they have only seven temples around
our nation.
20 Islam has already built more than 300 mosques and they are pushing to build even more. Every
mosque is a center of sharia government where they administer sharia law, plan terrorist
attacks, and much more. While we do not resist and stop mosque building we are allowing
sharia to take stronger root in our nation.
Islam is dedicated to subjugating us all to islam, or they will kill us. It’s that simple.
25 Read this islamic constitution for Australia and then you will understand exactly what they plan
to do to our beautiful nation.
THE ISLAMIC CONSITUTION OF AUSTRALIA EXCEPTS:
“We wish to mention that the book entitled “The Draft Constitution or the incumbent
reasons” published in 1382 Hijri (1963) by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, acts as the main reference for this
30 series, in addition to the book of “The Islamic State” and “The Ruling System in Islam” both of
which are also published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir. The articles of this constitution are considered –
according to information available to us – an unprecedented and a leading study in this field,
and the main features of this study are:
1 – The articles of this constitution are characterised by the fact that they are exclusively and
35 purely Islamic opinions and thoughts. They contain nothing whatsoever that is non Islamic, nor
are they influenced by anything that is non-Islamic. They are rather Islamic in every sense and
nothing else, and they are based upon nothing but the foundations and texts of Islam.
2 – When the constitution’s articles were deducted or when they were obtained from the Islamic
schools of thought and the opinions of the Sahaba (ra) , they were confined to the general

Page 93
evidences which have been established by conclusive and decisive evidence. These are The
Book, the Sunnah, the General Consensus of the Sahaba and analogy (Qyyas).
3 – This constitution has the benefit of the legal design that contains general principles; thus it
could be considered as a jurisprudence reference in its topic, in addition to the benefit of being
5 accurate in applying the rules to their relevant circumstances.
4 – By proposing this constitution of the Khilafah State, which the Muslims are working towards
establishing, with the help of Allah (swt), we invite the Muslims in general, and the intellectuals,
the scholars and the prominent figures in particular to air their views and to take an active part in
debating the matter. We warmly welcome every correspondence sent to the us via this website
10 and every direct contact with members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the Islamic lands which represent the
party’s field of activity.”
– See more at: http://archive.hizb-australia.org/hizbut-tahrir/draft-

constitution#sthash.iO22ZZw0.dpuf
Article 1
15 The Islamic creed (’aqeedah) constitutes the foundation of the State. Nothing is permitted to
exist in the government’s structure, accountability, or any other aspect connected with the
government, that does not take the creed as its source. The creed is also the source for the
State’s constitution and shar’ai canons. Nothing connected to the constitution or canons, is
permitted to exist unless it emanates from the Islamic ’aqeedah.
20 Article 2
The domain of Islam (Dar al-Islam) is that entity which applies the rules of Islam in life’s affairs
and whose security is maintained by Muslims. The domain of disbelief (Dar al-Kufr) is that entity
which applies the rules of kufr and whose security is maintained by the kuffar.
Article 3
25 The Khaleefah is empowered to adopt divine rules (AHkam Shari’ah) enacted as consitution and
canons. Once the Khaleefah has adopted a divine rule, that rule, alone, becomes the divine rule
that must be enacted and then implemented. Every citizen must openly and secretly obey that
adopted rule.
Article 4
30 The Khaleefah does not adopt divine rules pertaining to worship, i.e. ‘ibadat, except in
connection with alms (zakah) and war (jihad). Also, he does not to adopt any of the thoughts
connected with the Islamic creed.
Article 5
All citizens of the Islamic State are entitled to enjoy the divine rights and duties.
35 Article 6
All citizens of the State shall be treated equally regardless of religion, race, colour or any other
matter. The State is forbidden to discriminate among its citizens in all matters, be it ruling or
judicial, or caring of affairs.

Page 94
Article 7
The State implements the divine law on all citizens who hold citizenship of the Islamic State,
whether Muslims or not, in the following manner:
1. The divine law is implemented in its entirety, without exception, on all Muslims;
5 2. Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.
3. Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according to
the rule of apostasy, provided they have themselves renounced Islam. If they are born
as non-Muslims, i.e., if they are the sons of apostates, then they are treated as non-
Muslims according to their status as being either polytheists (mushriks) or People of the
10 Book.
4. In matters of food and clothing the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions
within the limits allowed by Ahkam Shar’iah.
5. Marital affairs, including divorce, among non-Muslims are settled in accordance with
their religions, but between non-Muslims and Muslims they are settled according to the
15 divine law.
6. All the remaining Shara’iah matters and rules, such as: the application of transactions,
punishments and evidences (at court), the system of ruling and economics are
implemented by the State upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This includes
the people of treaties (mua’ahid), the protected subjects (ahlu zimmah) and all who
20 submit to the authority of Islam. The implementation on these people is the same as the
implementation on the subjects of the State. Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic
immunity.
Article 8
The Arabic is the language of Islam and the sole language of the State.
25 Article 9
Ijtihad (personal exertion to derive the Islamic rule) is fard kifayah (a collective duty). Every
Muslim has the right to exercise ijtihad if he has acquired the necessary conditions to perform it.
Article 10
There is no such thing as a clergy in Islam as all Muslims bear the responsibility for Islam. The
30 State will prevent anything that signifies the existence of a clergy among Muslims.
Article 11
The primary function of the State is the propagation of the invitation (da’wah) to Islam.
Article 12
The only evidences to be considered for the divine rules (Ahkam Shar’iah) are: the Qur’an, the
35 Sunnah, the consensus of the Companions (ijmaâ as-sahabah) and analogy (qiyas). Legislation
cannot be taken from any source other than these evidences.
Article 13
Every individual is innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be punished without a court
sentence. Torturing is absolutely forbidden and whoever inflicts torture on anyone shall be
40 punished.
Page 95
Article 14
All human actions are, in origin, restricted by the divine rules (Ahkam Shari’ah), and no action
shall be undertaken until its rule (hukm) is known. Every thing or object is permitted, i.e., halal,
unless there is an evidence of prohibition.
5 Article 15
Any means that most likely leads to a prohibition (haram) is itself haram. However if it is (only)
feared to lead (to a prohibition) it would not be haram.
THE RULING SYSTEM:
Article 16
10 The ruling system of the State is that of a unitary ruling system and not a federation.
Article 17
Ruling is centralised and administration is de-centralised.
Article 18
There are four positions of ruling in the State. They are: The Khaleefah , the delegated assistant
15 (moâawin), the governor (wali), the mayor (a’mil). All other officials of the State are employees
and not rulers.
Article 19
Nobody is permitted to take charge of ruling, or any action considered to be of the nature of
ruling, except a male who is free, i.e., not a slave, mature, sane, trustworthy (‘adl) , competent;
20 and he must not be save a muslim.
Article 20
Calling upon the rulers to account for their actions is both a right for the Muslims and a fard
kifayah (collective duty) upon them. Non-Muslim subjects have the right to make known their
complaints about the rulers injustice and misapplication of the Islamic rules upon them.
25 Article 21
Muslims are entitled to establish political parties to question the rulers and to access the
positions of ruling through the nation (Ummah) on condition that the parties are based on the
creed of Islam and their adopted rules are AHkam Shari’ah; the establishment of such a party
does not require a license by the State. Any party not established on the basis of Islam is
30 prohibited.
Article 22
The ruling system is founded upon four principles. They are:
1. Sovereignty belongs to the divine law (shar’a) and not to the people;

Page 96
2. Authority belongs to the people, i.e., the Ummah;3. The appointment of one Khaleefah
into office is an obligation upon all Muslims;4. Only the Khaleefah has the right to adopt
the AHkam Shari’ah and thus he passes the constitution and the various canons.
Article 23
5 The State system is made of eight institutions. They are:
1. The Khaleefah
2. The delegated assistant (mu’awin at-tafweed)
3. The executing assistants (mu’awin at-tanfeedh)
4. Amir of jihad
10 5. Governors (Wulah)
6. Judges
7. The state departments
8. The council of the Ummah (majlis al-Ummah)

15 constitution#sthash.iO22ZZw0.dpuf
THE KHALEEFA
Article 24
The Khaleefah is deputised by the Ummah with authority for the enactment of the divine law.
20 Article 25
Khilafah is a contract of nomination and acceptance. No-one is obliged to accept it and no-one
is obliged to nominate a particular person for it.
Article 26
Every mature male and female Muslim, who is sane, has the right to participate in the election of
25 the Khaleefah and in giving him the pledge (ba’iah). Non-Muslims have no right in this regard.
Article 27
Once the contract of the Khilafah has been concluded on a person through the ba’iah of those
by whom the ba’iah is legitimately concluded, the ba’iah of the remaining people is a ba’iah of
obedience and not contract. Consequently, those who might disobey or rebel are obliged to give
30 ba’iah.
Article 28
Nobody can become Khaleefah without being appointed by the Muslims. Nobody can hold the
power of the Khilafah unless it is convened to him legitimately, as is the case with any contract
in Islam.
35 Article 29

Page 97
Any country which wishes to give the Khaleefah the ba’iah of contract, her sultan (authority)
must be self-acting , that depends on muslims only and not on any kafir state. The security of
the Muslims in that country, both internally and externally, must be maintained by the security of
Islam and not kufr.
5 As for the ba’iah of obedience only it can be taken from any other country without such
conditions.
Article 30
The individual who is given the ba’iah for Khilafah need only to fulfill the contracting conditions,
even if he did not fulfill the preference conditions, because what is essential is the conditions of
10 contracting.
Article 31
There are seven conditions needed in the Khaleefah so as Khilafah be contracted to him. They
are to be a male, muslim, free, mature, sane, ‘adl (trustworthy) and competent (capable for the
post).
15 Article 32
If the post of the Khaleefah becomes vacant, due to death, resignation or dismissal of the
appointment of a new Khaleefah must take place within three days including their nights of the
date when it became vacant.
Article 33
20 The Khilafah is to be appointed in the following manner:
1. The Muslim members of the Majlis al-Ummah short-list the candidates for that post.
Their names are subsequently announced and the Muslims are asked to elect one
person from them.
2. The result of the election is announced and the person who has attained the majority of
25 the votes is to be announced to the Muslims.
3. The Muslims must hasten to give ba’iah to the one who has attained the majority of
votes as a Khaleefah for muslims , on the condition of following the Qur’an and the
Sunnah of Rasool Allah ..
4. Once the ba’iah has been accomplished, the name of the man who has become the
30 Khaleefah along with a statement that he is qualified with all the agreement conditions
necessary for holding the office of Khilafah is announced to the people so that the news
of his appointment reaches the entire Ummah.
Article 34
The Ummah is the authority to appoint the Khaleefah but she has no right to dismiss him after
35 he has legitimately attained the ba’iah of contracting.
Article 35
The Khaleefah is the State. He possesses all the powers/function of the state; so he possesses
the following powers:

Page 98
1. The Khaleefah puts the Ahkam Shar’iah, once he adopted them, into law, and as such
they become canons that must be obeyed and not violated.
2. The Khaleefah is responsible for both the internal and external policies of the State. He
takes charge of the leadership of the army and has the right to declare war, conclude
5 peace, armistice, and treaties.
3. The Khaleefah has the authority to accept and reject foreign ambassadors, and to
appoint and dismiss Muslim ambassadors.
4. The Khaleefah appoints and dismisses the assistants (mu’awin) and the governors
(wulah). The assistants and governors are responsible to the Khaleefah as well as to
10 Majlis al-Ummah.
5. The Khaleefah appoints and dismisses the chief judge, the directors of departments, the
heads of the armed forces and the generals; all of whom are responsible to the
Khaleefah and not to the Majlis al-Ummah.
6. The Khaleefah adopts the AHkam Shara’iah by which the State’s budget is set. The
15 Khaleefah decides its sections and the funds required for every field, whether they are
related to revenue or expenditure.
Article 36
The Khaleefah is restricted in what he adopts by the Ahkam Shar’iah. He is forbidden to adopt
any rule that is not soundly deduced from the divine texts. He is restricted to the rules he has
20 adopted and to the method for deduction that he has chosen. Accordingly, he is prevented from
adopting a rule deduced by a method that contradicts the method he has adopted, and he must
not enact any command that contradicts the rules he has adopted.
Article 37
The Khaleefah has the absolute right to conduct the citizens affairs according to his ijtihad, so
25 he has the right to adopt of the mubah matters anything he wants to run the State affairs and to
look after the affairs of the citizens. However, he is not allowed to disagree with a Hukm shara’i
under the name of interest. For example; he cannot prevent a family from having more than one
child under the pretext of the shortage in food-stuffs. Nor can he fix prices on the pretext of
preventing exploitation; or appoint a kafir or a woman as a wali on the pretext of caring for
30 affairs or the interest, nor anything that disagrees with shar’a rules. The Khaleefah must not
forbid any halal thing or allow any haram thing.
Article 38
There is no limitation on the Khaleefah’s period in office. So as long as he abides by the shar’a,
implements its rules and is able to manage the State’s affairs, he continues as a Khaleefah
35 unless his situation changes in such a way as to discharge him from the office of Khilafah. He is
to be dismissed immediately, once such situation occured.
Article 39
There are three matters by which the situation of the Khaleefah changes, and by such he is
discharged from the office of Khilafah. They are:
40 1. If one of the qualifying conditions of the Khilafah contract becomes void, such as
apostatising from Islam, insanity or manifest sinfulness (fisq) and the like. This is
because these are conditions for contracting the Khilafah and for its continuity.
2. His inability to undertake the responsibilities of the Khilafah post, for any reason.
3. In the event of sub-dual, whereby the Khaleefah is rendered unable to conduct the
45 affairs of the Muslims by his own opinion according to the shar’a. If the Khaleefah is
Page 99
subdued by any force to an extent that he is unable to manage the citizens affairs by his
own opinion alone according to the rules of shar’a, he is considered to be legitimately
incapable of undertaking the functions of the state, and thus he ceases to be a
Khaleefah. This situation may arise under two circumstances. They are:
5 First. When one, or more, of the Khaleefah’s entourage exerts control over the management of
affairs. If there is a chance that the Khaleefah could rid himself of their dominance he is
cautioned for a specified period of time, after which, if he fails to rid himself of their dominance,
he must be dismissed. If it appears that there is no chance of the Khaleefah freeing himself from
their dominance, he is to be dismissed immediately.
10 Second. Should the Khaleefah be captured by a subduing enemy, whether he is actually

captured or under its influence. In this case the situation is to be examined; if there is a chance
to rescue the Khaleefah, he is given a period of time until it appears that there is no hope to
rescue him, after which he is dismissed. Should it appear from the outset that there is no hope
of rescuing him, he is to be dismissed immediately.
15 Article 40
The responsibility of deciding whether or not the Khaleefah’s situation has altered in such a way
as to warrant his dismissal is the prerogative of the Court for the Acts of Injustice (mahkumat ul-
madhalim). It, alone, has the authority to admonish or dismiss the Khaleefah.
20 DESIGNATED ASSISTANT
Article 41
The Khaleefah appoints an assistant delegated with the authority to assist him in undertaking
the responsibility of ruling. He deputises to him to manage affairs with his own point of view and
ijtihad.
25 Article 42
The delegated assistant must be qualified with the same essential qualifications of the
Khaleefah, viz., male, free, Muslim mature, sane, and ‘adl (trustworthy). Additionally he must be
competent in the tasks for which he is deputised to undertake.
Article 43
30 The appointment of the delegated assistant must entail both deputation and a general
responsibility. Thus, in the appointment of the assistant, the Khaleefah must pronounce a
statement to the effect of “I appoint you on my behalf as my deputy” or any other statement that
confers both deputation and general responsibility. Unless the delegated assistant is appointed
in this manner he would not be a delegated assistant nor hold the authority of a delegated
35 assistant.
Article 44
The function of the delegated assistant, so as to distinguish between him and the Khaleefah in
his authority, is to inform the Khaleefah of the matters he has managed and the appointments
and delegated duties he has implemented. Therefore, the function of the delegated assistant is
40 to inform the Khaleefah of his analysis and, unless the Khaleefah prevents him, to carry it out.
Page 100
Article 45
The Khaleefah has to examine the actions and dispositions of the delegated assistant so as to
confirm what is sound and to adjust that which is wrong. This is because the management of
the ummah’s affairs is entrusted to the Khaleefah and subject to his own ijtihad.
5 Article 46
Once the delegated assistant has managed a matter with the agreement of the Khaleefah, he
has the right to carry it out – as acknowledged – without any alteration. If the Khaleefah revises
the matter and objects to what the delegated assistant has executed, the following
considerations apply: If the Khaleefah has objected to what the delegated assistant has carried
10 out in regard to a rule implemented soundly, or a fund spent justly, then the view of the
delegated assistant must be enacted. This is because it is originally the view of the Khaleefah
and the Khaleefah must not redress laws that he has implemented and funds that he has spent.
However if the delegated assistant has implemented something else, such as the appointment
of a wali or the equipping of the army, then the Khaleefah has the right to object and to overrule
15 the decision of the delegated assistant. This is because the Khaleefah has the right to redress
his own decisions in such cases and hence those of the delegated assistant.
Article 47
The delegated assistant has a general deputation and therefore he must not be assigned to
specific departments or specific types of action. He undertakes general supervision of the
20 administrative system but not undertakes administrative matters.
EXECUTION ASSISTANT
Article 48
The Khaleefah appoints an execution assistant whose function is administrative and not ruling.
25 His duty is to execute the instructions of the Khaleefah in both the internal and external affairs of
the State and to relay to the Khaleefah what is received from these areas. This administration
office is a medium between the Khaleefah and others, i.e. it executes instructions on his behalf
and hand over reports to him.
Article 49
30 The execution assistant must be a Muslim because he is one of the Khaleefah’s entourage.
Article 50
The execution assistant is always in direct contact with the Khaleefah the same way the
delegated assistant is. The execution assistant is considered an assistant but in execution
instead of ruling.
35
THE AMIR OF JIHAD
Article 51

Page 101
The directorate of the Amir of jihad consists of four departments, they are: External affairs, The
military, The internal security, and Industry. The Amir of jihad is the supervisor and director of
all four departments.
Article 52
5 The Department of External Affairs directs the foreign affairs connected with the relationship of
the state with foreign countries, whatever these affairs.
Article 53
The Military Department oversees all affairs connected with the military forces, such as: the
army, the police, equipment, tasks, armament supplies, etc. It also includes control of the
10 military academies, military missions, and everything deemed necessary from the Islamic
culture and the culture of the army and whatever is related to warfare and its preparation.
Article 54
The Department of Internal Security oversees everything connected with security . It undertakes
maintaining security in the country by means of the military forces, and uses the police as a
15 means to maintain security.
Article 55
The Department of Industry directs all affairs connected with industry, including heavy industry,
such as the production of motors, engines and car bodies; metallurgical industries, electronics
and light industry; and factories of private and public ownership connected with the military
20 industry. All factories of whatever type should be established on the basis of the military policy.
THE ARMY:
Article 56
Jihad is a compulsory duty (farD) on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus,
every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for
25 jihad. Conscription, however, is farD kifayah.
Article 57
The army is divided into two parts: the regulars, who are paid salaries from the State’s budget
as employees, and the reserves, who comprise all the Muslims capable of fighting.
Article 58
30 The military forces are one force which is the army from which certain divisions are selected and
organised in a particular way and provided with a certain culture, these are called police
(shurTah).
Article 59
The police are authorised to protect public order, supervise internal security and to perform all
35 execution duties.
Article 60
Page 102
The army possesses flags and banners; the Khaleefah gives the flag to whomever he appoints
as a leader of the army, the banners are introduced by the brigadiers.
Article 61
The Khaleefah is the leader of the army, he appoints the commander-in-chief, a general for
5 each brigade and a commander for each division. The Brigadiers and commanders appoint the
remaining ranks of the army. Members of the general staff are appointed according to their
military culture, and are appointed by the general chief of staff.
Article 62
The army comprises one army located in specific camps. Some of these camps must be located
10 in different provinces (wilayat) and strategic locations, and some must remain permanently
mobile fighting forces. The camps are organised in numerous groups, each one of which is
given a number as a name, such as the first army, the third army or can be named after a
province (wilayah) or district (imalah).
Article 63
15 It is necessary to provide the army with the highest possible level of military education and to
elevate its intellectual level as far as possible, and to provide every member in the army with the
Islamic culture that enables him to have a general awareness of Islam.
Article 64
Each camp should have a sufficient number of officers of the general staff who have attained
20 the highest level of military knowledge and experience in devising plans and directing battles.
The army, as a whole, should have as many officers of the general staff as possible.
Article 65
It is necessary to provide the army with all the required armaments, supplies and equipment so
as to fulfill its task as an Islamic army.
25
THE JUDICIARY QADAAA
Article 66
Judgeship is the pronouncement of the verdict in a binding way. It settles the disputes among
people, prevents that which harms the community’s rights and eliminates the disputes arising
30 between people and members of the ruling apparatus – rulers and employees – including the
Khaleefah and those of lesser rank.
Article 67
The Khaleefah is to appoint a chief judge authorised to appoint, discipline, and dismiss judges
within the administrative regulations. The chief judge must be a mature Muslim male who is
35 sane, just and a jurist. The remaining employees of the courts come under the domain of the
directorate that administers the court’s affairs.
Article 68
Page 103
There are three types of judges. They are:
1. The judge who settles the disputes among people in transactions and punishments;
2. The muhtasib who settles the violations of the community’s rights; and
3. The judge of the Court for the Unjust Acts (maHkamat ul-maDHalim) who settles disputes
5 between people and officials of the State.
Article 69
All judges must be qualified by being Muslim, mature, free, sane, ‘adl, and a jurist being aware
of how to apply rules to incidents. Judges of maHkamat ul-maDHalim must additionally be
qualified with being male and a mujtahid, i.e., a person capable of making ijtihad.
10 Article 70
The judge and the muhtasib may be given a general appointment to pronounce judgement on all
problems throughout the State, or alternatively they can be given an appointment to a particular
location and to give judgement on particular cases. On the other hand, the judge of the
maHkamat ul-maDHalim must be given a general appointment to pronounce judgement on all
15 problems, but in terms of location he may be appointed to a particular location or all over the
State.
Article 71
The courts should be comprised of only one judge who has the authority to pronounce verdict.
One or more judges are however permitted to accompany him with only the authority of advising
20 and assisting. They have no authority to pronounce verdict and their opinion is not binding on
the judge who has the sole authority to give judgement.
Article 72
The judge cannot pronounce verdict except in a court session. Evidence and oaths are not
considered except in a court session as well.
25 Article 73
It is permissible to vary the grades of courts in respect to the type of cases. Some judges may
thus be assigned to certain cases of particular grades, and other courts authorised to judge the
other cases.
Article 74
30 There are no courts of appeal or cassation, because all judgements are of equal standing. Thus,
once the judge has pronounced the verdict it becomes effective and no other judge’s decision
can overturn it, unless he judged with other than Islam , disagreed with a definite text in the
Qur’an, Sunnah or Ijma’a as-sahabah or it appeared that he judged in contradictory to a true
reality.
35 Article 75
The muhtasib is the judge who investigates all cases, in the absence of an individual litigation,
involving the rights of the public that are non-criminal and not involving the hudud (i.e., the
punishments.)

Page 104
Article 76
The muhtasib has the authority to judge upon violations, wherever is the location one he
acquired knowledge of these violations without the need to hold a court session. A number of
policemen are put at the muhtasib’s disposal to carry out his orders and to execute his verdicts
5 immediately.
Article 77
The muhtasib has the right to appoint deputies to himself, that possess the same qualifications
as the muhtasib, and to assign them to various locations where they exercise the same authority
as the muhtasib in the location and the cases assigned to them.
10 Article 78
The judge of the maHkamat ul-maDHalim is appointed to remove all unjust acts, committed by
the Khaleefah, governor(s), or any official of the State, that have been inflicted upon anyone –
whether that person is a citizen or not – living in the domain of the State.
Article 79
15 Judges in the maHkamat ul-maDhalim of Injustice are appointed by the Khaleefah or the chief
judge. As for their accounting , disciplining and dismissal, this is carried by the Khaleefah, the
maHkamat ul-maDHalim or the chief judge if authorised by the Khaleefah to do so. However, it
is not allowed to dismiss him during his investigation in an unjust act against the Khaleefah,
mua’win ut-tafweeDH or the chief judge.
20 Article 80
There is no limit on the number of judges that can be appointed for the Unjust Acts. The
Khaleefah can appoint as many as he may deem necessary to eradicate the unjust acts.
Although it is permitted for more than one judge to sit in a court session, only one judge has the
authority to pronounce a verdict. The other judges only assist and provide advice, and their
25 advice is not binding on the judge authorised to pronounce the verdict.
Article 81
The maHkamat ul-maDHalim has the authority to dismiss any ruler, governor and official of the
State, including the Khaleefah.
Article 82
30 The maHkamat ul-maDHalim has the authority to investigate any case of iniquity, whether it be
connected with officials of the State, the Khaleefah’s deviation from the divine rules,
interpretation of the legislative texts in the constitution, canons and divine rules within the
framework adopted by the Khaleefah or the imposition of a tax, etc.
Article 83
35 The judicature of the Unjust Acts is not restricted by a court session or the request of the
defendant or the presence of the plaintiff. It has the authority to look into any case of injustice
even if there is no plaintiff.
Article 84
Page 105
Everyone, both defendant and plaintiff, has the right to appoint a proxy, whether male or female,
Muslim or not, to act on his or her behalf. There is no distinction in this matter between the
mandator and the proxy. The proxy has the right to be appointed on a salary according to the
terms agreed upon between the mandator and his or her proxy.
5 Article 85
It is permitted for the one who holds office, such as the Khaleefah, wali, official, muhtasib and
judge of the Court for the Unjust Acts, or persons who have been vested with a specific
responsibility, like a custodian or guardian, to appoint a person to his position as a proxy –
within the bounds of his authority – for the purpose of appearing on his/her behalf as the plaintiff
10 or defendant, and for no other reason.
THE GOVERNORS OF THE PROVINCES (WULAH)
Article 86
The territories governed by the State are divided into units called provinces (wilayat). Each
wilayah is divided into units called districts (Imalat). The person who governs the wilayah is
15 called the wali or Amir, and the person who governs the ‘Imalah is called the ‘aamil.
Article 87
The walis and the ‘aamils are appointed by the Khaleefah. The wali can, if authorised, also
appoint the ‘aamils. The walis and ‘aamils must possess the same qualifications as the
Khaleefah, i.e., Muslim, male, free, mature, sane, ‘adl (trustworthy or competent) and
20 competent in their responsibilities. They have to be selected from the people of piety (taqwa)
and strength.
Article 88
The wali has the authority to govern and supervise the performance of the departments in his
province on behalf of the Khaleefah. He has the same authority in the province as the delegate
25 assistant has in the Khilafah State. He has command over the people of his province and control
over all affairs except finance, the judiciary and the army. He has command over the police in
respect of execution, but not in administration.
Article 89
The wali is not obliged to inform the Khaleefah of what he has carried out within his authorised
30 command, but if a new problem arises, he has to wait until he has informed the Khaleefah about
it, and then proceeds according to the instructions of the Khaleefah. If, as a result of waiting, the
problem would be exacerbated, he must act first and then inform the Khaleefah later on about
the reason for not informing him.
Article 90
35 Every province has an assembly elected from its people, and headed by the wali. The assembly
has the authority to participate in expressing opinions on administrative matters and not ruling;
their opinions are not binding.
Article 91

Page 106
The wali’s term of office in a particular province is not to be long. He must be discharged
whenever he becomes powerful in his province and/or the people become enchanted with him.
Article 92
The wali’s appointment is a general responsibility in a defined location. Consequently, the wali is
5 not moved from one province to another. He has to be discharged first and then reappointed.
Article 93
The wali can be discharged if the Khaleefah decides so, or if the majlis al-ummah expresses
dissatisfaction with him – whether justified or not – or if the majority of the people of the province
show displeasure with him. However, the wali can only be dismissed by the Khaleefah.
10 Article 94
The Khaleefah must exercise strict control over the walis and continually assess their
performance. He must deputise people to monitor them and enquire about them. He has to
periodically gather the walis , or some of them, and listen to the complaints of the ummah of
them.
15
THE STATE DEPARTMENTS
Article 95
The management of the government’s affairs and the interests of the people is performed by,
and the responsibility of, administrations, directorates and departments.
20 Article 96
The policy of the administrations, directorates and departments is built upon the efficiency of the
system, speed in carrying out the tasks and competence in those who are in charge of
administration.
Article 97
25 Any subject of the State, male or female, Muslim or not, who is suitably competent may be
appointed as head or official of any administration, directorate or department.
Article 98
Every administration must have a general manager and every directorate and department must
have a special director responsible for them. All directors are responsible before the general
30 manager of their administrations, directorates and departments. In respect to conforming to the
laws and public orders, they are responsible to the Khaleefah, wali and ‘aamil.
Article 99
The managers and directors of all the administrations, directorates and departments are to be
dismissed only for reasons connected with administrative regulations. It is permitted to move
35 them from one post to another and to suspend them. The general manager of each

Page 107
administration, directorate or department is responsible for the appointing, dismissing,
transferring, suspending and disciplining.
Article 100
Employees, other than the directors and the managers, are appointed, transferred, suspended,
5 questioned, disciplined or dismissed by the general manager of their administration, directorate
or department.


THE UMMAH ASSEMBLY
The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of
expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be
members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust
15 acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.
Article 102
The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are elected by the people.
Article 103
Every citizen of the State has the right to become a member of the Majlis al-Ummah, provided
20 he or she is both mature and sane. This applies to Muslim and non-Muslim. However,
membership to non-Muslims is confined to their voicing of complaints in respect to unjust acts
performed by the rulers or the misapplication of Islam upon them.
Article 104
Consultation (Shura) and the mashura are the seeking of views in absolute terms. These views
25 are not binding in legislation, definitions, intellectual matters such as discovering the facts and
the technical and scientific matters. However they are binding when the Khaleefah consults in
other practical matters and actions that do not scrutiny or research.
Article 105
All citizens, Muslim or not, may express their views, but shura is a right for the Muslims only.
30 Article 106
All issues that fall under the binding shura, when the Khaleefah seeks opinion, are decided on
the basis of the majority opinion, irrespective of whether it is considered to be correct or not. In
all other matters of shura, the correct opinion is sought, whether it is a majority or minority held
view.
35 Article 107
The Majlis al-Ummah is charged with five duties. They are:

Page 108
1a. To be consulted by the Khaleefah or to advice him on the practical matters and actions
which do not need scrutiny or research, such as: affairs of ruling, education, health, and the
economy, industry, farming and the like; and its opinion in that is binding.
5 1b. However in the matters which require scrutiny and research and the technical matters, the
financial, the millitary and the foreign policy, the Khaleefah has the right to refer to the majlis for
consultation and seeking an opinion; however the opinion of majlis in such matters is not
binding.
2.The Majlis has the right to account the Khaleefah regarding all the actions that the state has
10 actually executed , whether they were of the domestic or foreign matters , or the finance or the
army and the like . The view of the Majlis is binding wherever the majority opinion is binding and
not binding wherever the majority opinion is not.
3. The Majlis has the right to express dissatisfaction with the assistants, governors, and mayors;
and in this matter the view of the Majlis is binding and the Khaleefah must discharge them at
15 once.
4. The Khaleefah may refer to the Majlis the rules, the constitution and canons, that he intends
to adopt. Muslimmembers of the Majlis have the right to discuss them and express their views
about them , but their opinion is not binding.
20
5. To select the list of candidates standing for the position of Khaleefah; no candidate excluded
from this list may stand and the decision of the Majlis is binding. Only Muslim members of the
majlis may participate in drawing up this list.

THE SOCIAL SYSTEM
Article 108
The primary role of a woman is that of a mother and wife. She is an honor that must be
30 protected.
Article 109
Men and women are basically to be segregated from each other, and they should not meet
together except for a need that the shar’a allows it and allows the meeting for its sake, such as
trading and pilgrimage (Hajj).
35 Article 110
Women have the same rights and obligations as men, except for those specified by the shar’ai
evidences to be for him or her. Thus, she has the right to practice in trading, farming, and
industry; to partake in contracts and transactions; to possess all form of property; to invest her
funds by herself (or by others); and to conduct all of life’s affairs by herself.
Page 109
Article 111
A woman can participate in the election and giving of the bai’ah to the Khaleefah, and elect, and
also be a member of the Majlis al-Ummah, and can be appointed as an official of the State in a
non-ruling position.
5 Article 112
Women are not allowed to take charge of ruling, thus women cannot hold the positions of
Khaleefah mu’awin, wali, ‘aamil, nor to practice any of the actions of ruling. She is not allowed to
be a chief judge, a judge in mahkamat ul-MuDHalim nor amir of Jihad.
Article 113
10 Women live within a public and private life. Within their public life, they are allowed to live with
other women, maharam males [males forbidden to them in marriage] and foreign men (whom
they can marry) on condition that nothing of the women’s body is revealed, apart from her face
and hands, and that the clothing is not revealing nor her charms displayed. Within the private life
she is not allowed to live except with women or her mahram males;and she is not allowed to live
15 together with the foreign men. In both cases she has to restrict herself with the rules of shar’a.
Article 114
Women are forbidden to be in private (khulwah) with any men they can marry, they are also
forbidden to display their charms or to reveal their body in front of foreign men.
Article 115
20 Men and women must not practice any work that poses danger to the morals or causes
corruption in society.
Article 116
Marital life is one of tranquility and companionship. The responsibility of the husband on behalf
of his wife (quwamah) is one of taking care, and not ruling. She is obliged to obey her husband
25 and he is obliged to meet the costs of her livelihood according to the seemly standard of living.
Article 117
The married couple must fully assist each other in performing the household duties, with the
husband performing all the actions normally undertaken outside of the house, and the woman
performing those actions normally undertaken inside the house as best as she can. The
30 husband should provide home-help as required to assist with the household tasks she cannot
manage herself.
Article 118
The custody of children is both a right and duty of the mother, whether Muslim or not, so long as
the child is in need of this care. When children, girls or boys, are no longer in need of care, they
35 are to choose which parent they wish to live with, whether the child is male or female. If only one
of the parents is Muslim, there is no choice for the child is to join the Muslim parent.

Page 110
ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Article 119
management ofe economics is the view of what the society ought to be when addressing the
satisfaction of (human) needs, so what the society ought to be is taken as the basis for
5 satisfying the needs.
Article 120
The fundamental economic problem is how to distribute funds and benefits/ services to all
subjects of the State, and to facilitate all the subjects to utilise these funds and benefits/ services
by enabling them to strive and possess them.
10 Article 121
Every individual must have all his basic needs provided for completely by the State, and he/she
must be guaranteed to satisfy his luxuries (non-basic needs) to the highest possible level.
Article 122
Allah is alone the owner of property and He has made human beings heirs in it. By this general
15 entrust mankind has acquired the right to possess property. As a consequence of Allah’s .
permission for the individual to possess property, man has the actual possession.
Article 123
There are three types of property, they are: private property, public property, and State property.
Article 124
20 Private property is a divine rule determined by the property itself or the benefit from it. As a
result of this possession, the person who possesses it obtains a benefit from it or receives a
return for it.
Article 125
Public property is the shar’a permission for the community to participate in obtaining benefit
25 from the property itself.
Article 126
State property comprises all property whose expenditure is determined solely by the view of the
Khaleefah and his ijtihad, such as: the funds of taxes, land tax (kharaj) and head tax (jizya).
Article 127
30 Private property consisting of liquid and fixed assets is restricted by the following divine means
(asbab):
a. Work.
b. Inheritance.

Page 111
c. Acquisition of property to survive.
d. A donation from State funds to a citizen.
e. Funds obtained by individuals neither by effort nor through purchase.
Article 128
5 The disposal of property is restricted by the permission of the Legislator, i.e., Allah, whether it is
spending or investing of property. Squandering, extravagance and miserliness are forbidden.
Also forbidden are the capitalist companies, co-operatives, all other illegal transactions, usury
(riba), fraud, monopolies, gambling and the like.
Article 129
10 Tithed land (al ushriah) constitutes land within the Arabian peninsula and land whose owners
had embraced Islam whilst possessing the land, (i.e. before the Islamic State encountered them
by jihad ). Tax land (al kharajiah) is all land, other than the Arabian peninsula, which was
opened by jihad, i.e. war or peace. Al ushriah land, together with its benefits, is owned by
individuals. Al kharajiah land is owned by the State, and individuals own its benefits. Everyone
15 has the right to exchange, through shar’a contracts, tithed land and the benefits from tax land.
All people can inherit these, the same as with other properties.
Article 130
Uncultivated (muwat) land is acquired by giving life to the land, i.e. irrigating it, or by protecting
it, i.e. erecting fencing. Cultivated land can only be acquired by way of shar’a means, such as:
20 inheritance, purchasing or through a donation from the State.
Article 131
Leasing land, whether al ushriah land or al kharajiah land, for agriculture is forbidden.
Sharecropping of land planted with trees is permitted, and sharecropping on all other land is
forbidden.
25 Article 132
Every landlord is obliged to use his land; those who are needy are to be given a loan from the
treasury (bayt ul-mal) to facilitate this. Anyone who leaves his land fallow, i.e., does not use the
land, for three years will have it taken from him to be given to another.
Article 133
30 The following three categories constitute public property:
1. Public utilities, such as the town parks.

2. Vast mineral resources, like oil fields.
3. Things which, by their nature, preclude ownership by individuals, such as rivers.
Article 134
35 Factories by their nature are private property. However, they follow the rule of the product
manufactured within them. If the product is private property, the factory is considered to be

Page 112
private property, like a textile mill. If the product is a public property, like iron ore, then the
factory is considered to be a public property.
Article 135
The State has no right to change private property into public property, because public property
5 is determined by its nature and not by the view of the State.
Article 136
Everybody in the State has the right to utilise public property, and the State has no right to allow
any individual to singularly possess, own or utilise public property.
Article 137
10 The State is allowed to protect parts of the uncultivated land or public property on behalf of any
of the citizens’ interests.
Article 138
Hoarding funds, even if zakah is paid on it, is forbidden.
Article 139
15 Zakah is collected from Muslims on their properties that are specified by shar’a, i.e. money,
trading goods, cattle and grain. It is not taken from anything not specified by the shar’a. Zakah is
taken from every owner whether legally responsible (mukallaf), i.e. mature and sane, or not, i.e.
immature and insane. It is recorded in a specific account of the bayt ul-mal and is not to be
spent except for one or more of the eight categories of people mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an.
20 Article 140
Jizyah (head-tax) is collected from the non-Muslims (dhimmis). It is to be taken from the mature
men if they are financially capable of paying it. It is not taken from women or children.
Article 141
Kharaj (land-tax) is collected on al-kharajiah land according to its potential production. However,
25 in respect of al ushriah land zakah is payable on it, on the basis of its actual production.
Article 142
The Muslims only pay the tax that shar’a has permitted to cover the expenditure of bayt ul-mal,
on condition that it is levied on that which is surplus to the individual’s needs. The tax must be
sufficient to cover the demands of the State.
30 Article 143
The State has the right to collect tax from the ummah when the funds of bayt ul-mal are
inadequate to cover the expenditure required to undertake all the functions the shar’a has
obliged the Muslims to perform. The State is not allowed to impose a tax on the people for a
function the shar’a has not obliged the Muslims to undertake. Thus, the State is not allowed to
35 collect fees for the courts or departments or administrations, or for accomplishing any interest.

Page 113
The budget of the State has permanent sources decided by the Ahkam Shari’ah.The budget is
further divided into sections. The funds assigned to each section and the matters for which the
funds are allocated are all decided by the view of the Khaleefah and his ijtihad.
Article 145
5 The permanent sources of income for bayt ul-mal are: spoils (faya), jizyah, kharaj, a fifth of the
buried treasure (rikaz) and zakah. All these funds are collected, whether there is a need for
them or not, on a perpetual basis.
Article 146
If the revenues derived from the permanent sources of income for bayt ul-mal are insufficient to
10 cover the expenditure of the State, it is permitted to collect taxes from the Muslims to cover the
expenditure obliged on bayt ul-mal. The obligations are the following:
1. The needs of the poor, the needy, the wayfarers, and to perform the obligation of jihad.
2. Remuneration of the salaries of the employees, the rulers and the provisions for the
soldiers.
15 3. Providing benefits and public utilities due on bayt ul-mal., such as constructing roads,
extracting water, erecting mosques, schools and hospitals. Unify bayt ul-mal.
4. Meeting emergencies, like natural disasters, famine, floods and earthquakes.
Article 147
Income derived from public and State property, people dying without heirs properties of the
20 apostates and customs levied at the state’s borders (thoghoor), are all recorded in bayt ul-mal.
Article 148
The expenditure of bayt ul-mal is distributed among the following six categories of people as
follows:
1. The eight categories of people entitled to partake of the zakah funds. If there are no
25 funds in this chapter they are not given any money.
2. The poor, the needy, the wayfarers, the debtors and jihad are funded from the
permanent sources of revenues whenever there are insufficient funds in the zakah
account. When there are inadequate funds from the permanent revenues, the debtors
are not to receive assistance. The poor, the needy, the wayfarers and jihad must be
30 funded from the taxes collected for this purpose; and if required – to prevent them from
falling into corruption – they are to be funded from loans raised by the State for this
purpose.
3. Bayt ul-mal must fund those people who perform certain duties or services for the State,
such as employees, rulers and soldiers. If there are insufficient funds for this purpose,
35 taxes must be collected immediately to meet their expenses, and loans should be raised
if it is feared that corruption might ensue.
4. Bayt ul-mal shall fund the essential services and utilities such as the roads, mosques,
hospitals and schools. If there are insufficient funds, taxes must be collected to cover
their cost.
40 5. Non-essential services and utilities are funded by bayt ul-mal, but when there are
insufficient funds available they are not financed and accordingly delayed.
6. Disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, must be financed by bayt ul-mal; if there are
insufficient funds available, loans are to be raised immediately, and will be repaid later
from taxes.
Page 114
Article 149
The State should provide employment for all subjects holding citizenship of the State.
Article 150
Company employees and the self-employed have the same rights and duties as employees of
5 the State. Everyone who works for a wage, irrespective of the nature of the work, is considered
an employee. In matters of dispute, between employer and employee over salary levels, the
salary level is to be assessed on the basis of the market. If they disagree over something else,
the employment contract is to be assessed according to the rules of the shar’a.
Article 151
10 The salary is to be determined according to the benefit of the work, or the benefit of the
employee, and not according to the knowledge and/or qualifications of the employee. There are
to be no annual increments for employees. Instead, they are to be given the full value of the
salary they deserve for the work they do.
Article 152
15 The State is to guarantee the living expenses of the one who has no money, no work and no
relatives responsible for his financial maintenance. The State is responsible for housing and
maintaining the disabled and handicapped people.
Article 153
The State must endeavour to circulate wealth among all the subjects and forbids the circulation
20 of wealth among only a sector of society.
Article 154
The State tackles the task of enabling every subject to satisfy his luxuries (non-basic needs,)
and to achieve equality in society in accordance with the funds available to her, in the following
way:
25 a. The State grants all its citizens liquid and fixed assets from those owned by bayt ul- mal, and
from the war booties, etc.
b. The State donates from its cultivated land to those who have insufficient or no land. Those
who possess land but do not use it are not given land. Those who are unable to use their land
are given financial assistance to enable them to use their land.
30 c. Those who are unable to settle their debts are given funds from zakah, and the war booty,
etc.
Article 155
The State supervises agricultural affairs and their products in accordance with the needs of the
agricultural policy, so as to achieve the potential of the land to its greatest level of production.
35 Article 156
The State supervises the whole affairs of industry. It directly undertakes those industries
included in the public property.
Page 115
Article 157
Foreign trade is assessed on the basis of the citizenship of the trader and not the origin of the
goods. Merchants from countries in a state of war with the State are prevented from trading in
the State, unless given a special permission for the merchant or the goods. Merchants from
5 countries that have treaties with the State are treated according to the terms of the treaties.
Merchants who are subjects of the State are prevented from exporting any goods that the
enemies could benefit of militarily, industrially or economically. However, they are not prevented
from importing any property they own. Any country that we have real war between us and its
citizens (such as Israel) is excluded from these rules. The rules applicable to the actual land of
10 war apply to such country in all the relations with it whether trade or otherwise.
Article 158
All individual subjects of the State have the right to establish research and development
laboratories connected with all life’s affairs. The State should also establish such laboratories.
Article 159
15 Individuals are prevented from possessing laboratories producing materials that could harm the
ummah or the state.
Article 160
The State provides free health care for all, but it does not prevent using private medical care nor
the sale of medicine.
20 Article 161
The use of foreign capital and its investment within the State is forbidden. It is also prohibited to
grant franchises to foreigners.
Article 162
The State issues its own currency, which is independent of all foreign currencies.
25 Article 163
The currency of the State is to be restricted to gold and silver, whether minted or not. No other
form of currency for the State is permitted. The State can issue coinage not of gold or silver
provided that the treasury of the State (bayt ul-mal) has the equivalent amount of gold and silver
to cover the issued coinage. Thus, the State may issue coinage in its name from brass, bronze
30 or paper notes etc. as long as it is covered completely by gold and silver.
Article 164
It is permissible to have exchange between the State currency and the currency of other states
like the exchange between the state’s own coinage. It is permissible for the exchange rate
between two currencies to differ provided the currencies are different from each other. However,
35 such transactions must be undertaken in a hand-to-hand manner and constitute a direct
transaction with no delay involved. The exchange rate can change/fluctuate without any
restrictions as long as it is between two different currencies . All citizens can buy whatever
currency they require from within or outside the State, and they can purchase the required
currency without obtaining prior permission or the like.
Page 116
EDUCATION POLICY
5 Article 165
The Islamic creed constitutes the basis upon which the education policy is built. The syllabi and
methods of teaching are designed to prevent a departure from this basis.
Article 166
The purpose of education is to form the Islamic personality in thought and behaviour. Therefore,
10 all subjects in the curriculum must be chosen on this basis.
Article 167
The goal of education is to produce the Islamic personality and to provide people with the
knowledge connected with life’s affairs. Teaching methods are established to achieve this goal;
any method that leads to other than this goal is prevented.
15 Article 168
A distinction should be drawn between the empirical sciences such as mathematics, on the one
hand, and the cultural sciences, on the other. The empirical sciences, and all that is related to
them, are taught according to the need and are not restricted to any stage of education. As for
the cultural sciences, they are taught at the primary and secondary levels according to a specific
20 policy which does not contradict Islamic thoughts and rules. In higher education, these cultural
sciences are studied like other sciences provided they do not lead to a departure from the stated
policy and goal of the education.
Article 169
The Islamic culture must be taught at all levels of education. In higher education, departments
25 should be assigned to the various Islamic disciplines as will be done with medicine, engineering,
physics etc.
Article 170
Arts and crafts may be related to science, such as commerce, navigation and agriculture. In
such cases, they are studied without restriction or conditions. Sometimes, however, arts and
30 crafts are connected to culture and influenced by a particular viewpoint of life, such as painting
and sculpting. If this viewpoint of life contradicts the Islamic viewpoint of life, these arts and
crafts are not taken.
Article 172
The state’s curriculum is only one, and no curriculum other than that of the state is allowed to be
35 taught. Private schools, provided they are not foreign, are allowed as long as they adopt the
state’s curriculum and establish themselves on the State’s educational policy and accomplish
the goal of education set by the State. Teaching in such schools should not be mixed between

Page 117
males and females, whether the students or the teachers; and they should not be specific for
certain deen, madhab, race or colour.
Article 173
It is an obligation upon the State to teach every individual, male or female, those things which
5 are necessary for the mainstream of life. This should be obligatory and provided freely in the
primary and secondary levels of education. The State should, to the best of its ability, provide
the opportunity for everyone to continue higher education free of charge.
Article 174
The State ought to provide the means of developing knowledge, such as libraries and
10 laboratories, in addition to schools and universities, to enable those who want to continue their
research in the various fields of knowledge, like fiqh, Hadith and tafseer of Qur’an, thought,
medicine, engineering and chemistry, inventions and discoveries etc. This is done to create an
abundance of mujtahideen, outstanding scientists and inventors.
Article 175
15 The exploitation of writing for educational purposes, such as copyrighting, at whatever level is
strictly forbidden. Once a book has been printed and published, nobody has the right to reserve
the publishing and printing rights, including the author. However, if the book has not been
printed and published, and thus is still an idea, the owner has the right to take payment for
transferring these ideas to the public, the same way he can take payment for teaching them.
20
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Article 176
Politics is taking care of the nation’s affairs inside and outside the State. It is performed by the
State and the nation. The State practices it and the nation questions that practice.
25 Article 177
It is absolutely forbidden for any individual, party, group or association to have relations with a
foreign state. Relations with foreign countries are restricted only to the State, because the State
has the sole right to practice taking care of the ummah affairs. The ummah is to question the
State in connection with this task of caring.
30 Article 178
Ends do not justify the means, because the method is integral to the thought. Thus, the duty
(wajib) and the permitted (mubah) cannot be attained by performing a forbidden action (haram).
Political means must not contradict the political methods.
Article 179
35 Political maneuvres please check spelling are necessary in foreign policy, and the effectiveness
of these maneuvers is dependent on concealing (your) aims and disclosing (your) acts.
Article 180
Page 118
Some of the most important political means are disclosing the crimes of other states,
demonstrating the danger of erroneous politics, exposing harmful conspiracies and destroying
misleading personalities.
Article 181
5 One of the most important political methods is the manifestation of the greatness of the Islamic
thoughts in taking care of the affairs of individuals, nations and states.
Article 182
The political cause of the Ummah is Islam, in the might of the State, the improvement of the
implementation of its rules, and continuity in its call (da’wah) to mankind.
10 Article 183
Conveying the Islamic da’wah is the core around which the foreign policy revolves, and upon
which relations between the State and other states are built.
Article 184
The state’s relations with other states are built upon four considerations. These are:
15 1. States in the current Islamic world are considered to belong to one state and, therefore,
they are not included within the sphere of foreign affairs. Relations with these countries
are not considered to be in the realm of foreign policy and every effort should be
expended to unify all these countries into one state.
2. States who have economic, commercial, friendly or cultural treaties with our State are to
20 be treated according to the terms of the treaties. If the treaty states so, their subjects
have the right to enter the State with an identity card without the need for a passport
provided our subjects are treated in a like manner. The economic and commercial
relations with such states must be restricted to specific items and specific characters
which are deemed necessary and which, at the same time, do not lead to the
25 strengthening of these states.
3. States with whom we do not have treaties, the actual imperialist states, like Britain,
America and France and those states that have designs on the State, like Russia are
considered to be potentially belligerent states. All precautions must be taken towards
them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them. Their subjects
30 may enter the Islamic State only with a passport and a visa specific to every individual
and for every visit, unless it became a real belligerent country
4. With states that are actually belligerent states, like Israel, a state of war must be taken
as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war
existed between us – whether an armistice exists or not – and all their subjects are
35 prevented from entering the State.
Article 185
All military treaties and pacts, of whatever source, are absolutely forbidden. This includes
political treaties and agreements covering the leasing of military bases and airfields. It is
permitted to conclude good-neighbouring, economic, commercial, financial, cultural and
40 armistice treaties.
Article 186

Page 119
The State is forbidden to belong to any organisation which is based on something other than
Islam or which applies non-Islamic rules. This includes international organisations like the
United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank, and regional organisations like the Arab League.
5 – See more at: http://archive.hizb-australia.org/hizbut-tahrir/draft-

The state’s curriculum is only one, and no curriculum other than that of the state is allowed to be
taught. Private schools, provided they are not foreign, are allowed as long as they adopt the
state’s curriculum and establish themselves on the State’s educational policy and accomplish
10 the goal of education set by the State. Teaching in such schools should not be mixed between
males and females, whether the students or the teachers; and they should not be specific for
certain deen, madhab, race or colour.
Article 173
It is an obligation upon the State to teach every individual, male or female, those things which
15 are necessary for the mainstream of life. This should be obligatory and provided freely in the
primary and secondary levels of education. The State should, to the best of its ability, provide
the opportunity for everyone to continue higher education free of charge.
Article 174
The State ought to provide the means of developing knowledge, such as libraries and
20 laboratories, in addition to schools and universities, to enable those who want to continue their
research in the various fields of knowledge, like fiqh, Hadith and tafseer of Qur’an, thought,
medicine, engineering and chemistry, inventions and discoveries etc. This is done to create an
abundance of mujtahideen, outstanding scientists and inventors.
Article 175
25 The exploitation of writing for educational purposes, such as copyrighting, at whatever level is
strictly forbidden. Once a book has been printed and published, nobody has the right to reserve
the publishing and printing rights, including the author. However, if the book has not been
printed and published, and thus is still an idea, the owner has the right to take payment for
transferring these ideas to the public, the same way he can take payment for teaching them.
30 – See more at: http://archive.hizb-australia.org/hizbut-tahrir/draft-

——————————————————–
Resources

Page 120
Find Non Halal Products Quickly! Going shopping? Refer to Non Halal Lists first
........................................
Real Facts Media: A comprehensive source for information about islam:
http://realfactsmedia.com/resources/
........................................
Concit: An Australian blog filled with facts and information about islam: http://concit.org/
........................................
CIR Now: if we are going to solve our political problems: http://cirnow.com.au/
........................................
Privacy
Copyright (c) 2016 Islam4Infidels - All rights reserved
· © 2017 Islam4Infidels
http://www.islam4infidels.com/islamic-constitution/
5 END QUOTE 17-2-2017 EMAIL
If indeed this is an alternative Sharia constitution then the Authorities should clamp down on this
as it violates the constitutional principle of an elected Government according to the legal
provisions (embedded and/or otherwise) in the constitution
10
In my view anyone who follows this kind of religious doctrine cannot be deemed fit to serve in a
defense force, this in particular where friendship can make the difference between losing once
life or not in time of battle. Also it undermines moral!
15 QUOTE
How do you solve a problem like sharia?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The Australian
20 February 18, 2017
Yassmin Abdel-Magied, left, has a spirited debate with Tasmanian senator Jacqui
Lambie on the ABC.

Page 121
Yassmin Abdel-Magied, an Islamic activist, has been paid by the Australian government to
visit countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Qatar, it is said, “to promote Australia”. Far
from offering criticism of the misogynistic sharia laws on the books in those countries,
Abdel-Magied recently stated that Islam is “the most feminist” of all religions. Confronted
5 with the abuses that are committed against women in the countries she visited, Abdel-
Magied replied: “I’m not going to deny, some countries run by Muslims are violent and
sexist, but that’s not down to sharia. That’s down to the culture and the patriarchy and the
politics of those … countries.”
That is absurd. Abdel-Magied fits into a familiar pattern, where the government of a free
10 society such as Australia invests a considerable sum in an individual or a group in the hope
that the person is a “moderate” Muslim and will advance the assimilation of their Muslim
minority through constructive engagement. Then the supposed moderate the government
has invested in is exposed as a closet Islamist, in this case sympathetic to sharia law. The
government is left red-faced. Others simply see red.
15 In a televised exchange on ABC, Australian senator Jacqui Lambie challenged Abdel-

Magied’s views, holding that those who support sharia law should be deported from
Australia. Remarkably, the televised debate was followed by a demand for an apology by
the ABC from a collective of 49 Muslim scholars, lawyers and self-appointed individuals who
claim to speak for all Australian Muslims. The petition alleged “Islamophobia” and criticised
20 ABC host Tony Jones for not upholding the “values of respect and fairness” and for failing to
provide a “safe environment” for Abdel-Magied.
Yet what set of principles is less safe for women than sharia? As a moral and legal code,
sharia law is among the most dehumanising, demeaning and degrading for women ever
devised by man:
25 • Under sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s testimony in court (Koran
2:282).
• Under sharia law, men are the “guardians” of women; women are to be obedient to men,
and husbands may beat their wives for disobedience (Koran 4:34).
 More: Sisterhood’s veiled promise

30  More: My Muslim house was a jail
 More: Words at odds with Islam claims
• Under sharia law, a woman may not refuse sexual access to her husband unless she is
medically incapable or menstruating, a teaching based partly on Allah himself saying in the
Koran, “Your women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish” (Koran
35 2:223)
• Under sharia law, a woman inherits less than a man, generally half as much, again based
on holy writ: “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: the male shall have the equal of
the portion of two females” (Koran 4.11, 4.12).
• Under sharia law, men and women who commit fornication are to be flogged. As to the
40 punishment for fornicators, the Koran says: “Let not compassion move you in their case, in
a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the
Believers witness their punishment” (Koran 24:2).
• Under sharia law, a man may unilaterally divorce his wife through talaq, whereas women
are limited to divorce either under specific circumstances, such as the husband’s impotence,
45 or with the husband’s consent and payment of a certain amount of money (khul).

Page 122
• Sharia law permits fathers to contract binding marriages for their children so long as they
are minors; and although a boy married against his wishes may exercise his power to
divorce his wife unilaterally once he matures, a girl’s exit from such an unwanted marriage
is much more difficult.
5 • Under sharia law, the custody of children is generally granted to fathers, and mothers lose
custody if they remarry because their attention is supposed to go to their new husbands.
• Although majority-Muslim countries have in practice abolished slavery (Saudi Arabia did so
mainly as a result of foreign pressure in 1962), slavery still has not been abolished in sharia
law. Sexual slavery was common in Islamic history and is accepted by sharia law.
10 Defenders of sharia note that in some respects, Islamic law improved the position of women
in 7th century tribal Arabia, for instance by categorically banning female infanticide. Yet
surely, in the 21st century, we can set the bar higher than that?
Contrary to the claims of Abdel-Magied, the problematic tenets of sharia are not some relic
left over from the cultural practices of the 7th century. Today, sharia law is applied in many
15 countries as a matter of reality, and it is also enforced in many Muslim communities in
matters such as marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance proceedings.
Indeed, the countries Abdel-Magied visited are proud to call their legal code sharia law.
Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law states: “The regime derives its power from the Holy Koran and the
Prophet’s Sunnah, which rule over this and all other State Laws”, all “within the framework
20 of the sharia”. Likewise, Kuwait’s constitution declares that “Islamic law shall be a main
source of legislation”.
Sudan’s interim 2005 constitution states: “Nationally enacted legislation having effect only
in respect of the Northern states of the Sudan shall have as its sources of legislation Islamic
sharia and the consensus of the people.”
25 Qatar’s constitution requires the ruler to “swear by God, the Great, to respect the Islamic
law”. Egypt’s 2014 constitution holds: “The principles of Islamic sharia are the principle
source of legislation.”
In Iran, the marriage of girls at a young age is permitted, based on Mohammed’s

consummation of his marriage to Aisha when she was nine. Was marriage at such a young
30 age uncommon, given the cultural norms of the 7th century? No. Should such a historical
precedent be emulated today? No.
It is therefore plainly false to say, as Abdel-Magied does, that the subjection of women in
these countries is “not down to sharia (but) down to the culture and the patriarchy and the
politics of those … countries”.
35 However, an important distinction can be made between “sharia lite” and “sharia forte”.
Sharia forte is applied in the legal system of theocracies such as Saudi Arabia (which Abdel-
Magied visited) and Iran, and by organisations such as Islamic State and Boko Haram. It
does not apply in the West for obvious reasons.
But sharia lite is informally enforced within Muslim communities in Western countries,
40 including Australia. In Australia, Islamists rely on sharia law to arbitrate divorces and
inheritance disagreements. In 2015, a journalist writing in this newspaper observed that
“given the undercover application of sharia law, often within mosques, there is little scrutiny
of the process and the fairness of the adjudications”.

Page 123
There is another problem: the general mindset of some Islamic “leaders” in Australia. In
2006, Australians were shocked to find the country’s most senior Islamic cleric, Taj el-Din
Hilaly, refer to unveiled rape victims as “uncovered meat” that was left out in public. When
a cat comes to eat the meat, the sheik reasoned, “the uncovered meat is the problem”
5 because “if she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have
occurred”.
The ensuing public controversy led to Hilaly’s retirement, but his views were not out of line
with Islamic law.
Sharia manuals such as Reliance of the Traveller hold that a husband may forbid his wife to
10 leave the house and the wife must obey, and that a woman may not draw attention to
herself in public.
In the Islamist mindset, Muslim women in Western countries should not enjoy the legal
protections of the societies they live in. Two recent studies conducted by Elham Manea and
Machteld Zee into British sharia “arbitration councils” offer clear evidence of this.
15 Abdel-Magied and the Islamist collective that is demanding an apology from ABC are not
interested in this kind of inconvenient truth. They want to deflect attention away from the
problems inherent in sharia law.
In my view, the Australian government should stop funding people such as Abdel-Magied,
and the other partners they have, and instead find progressive, reform-minded Muslims who
20 will help with the vital task of assimilating Muslims into Australian society.
The only way to resolve the fundamental challenge to women’s rights posed by sharia law is
to criticise its problematic aspects openly.
The successful assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Australia is an achievable goal, but not
on the basis of the hypocrisy and phony indignation in which the likes of Abdel-Magied
25 specialise.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and the founder of
the AHA Foundation, which exists to protect women and girls from abuses of the sort
described in this article. She will visit Australia in early April to discuss reforming Islam.
Source:
30 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-
sharia/news-story/9e6efee3160373ccf9cf4dda8c6daf33
END QUOTE
In my view the funding of any person for religious purposes violates s116 of the constitution.
35
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the
40 greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE

Page 124
QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-
If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what
further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in
ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is
5 necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of
Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews,
Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable
only to Christians.
END QUOTE
10 What ought to be clear is that this is not so much as a dispute of a God/Almighty but rather who
are the prophets and how religious doctrines are applied/implemented. And somehow the
difference can mean life of death pending who pursues his/her kind of religious doctrines.
The above stated (regarding races) ought to make clear that homosexuals and other minority
groups were never intended to be part of any description of race. It would be inappropriate to
15 claim s51(xxvi) as a race provision would be to include them. Without conceding that this
section can be used for homosexuals and other minority groups, even if somehow this was held
by the courts then it (the legislative powers) could be used against them and not against the
general community.
Often it is overlooked that while genders are generally separated in the armed forces such as
20 when showering that would also avoid a pervert to watch someone of opposite gender, where
however there is a homosexual serving then this compromise the individuality of the others who
may be heterosexual but have a possible pervert in their midst watching them and their body.
I view it is also appropriate to quote the following:
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
25 QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of
everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
30 No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936)
A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of
35 justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the
ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat
of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err
therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to
those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of
40 criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they
are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and
respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
END QUOTE
.
45 The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING
NEWS” (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE

Page 125
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be
disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions
as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public
opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no
5 immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
10 (b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31
.
15 HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LEWIS v. JUDGE OGDEN [1984] HCA 28; (1984) 153 CLR 682
Contempt of Court (Vict.)

QUOTE
11. However, mere discourtesy falls well short of insulting conduct, let alone wilfully insulting
20 conduct which is the hallmark of contempt
END QUOTE
As such, if one can frankly criticise the conduct of a court then I view one likewise should be
entitled to criticise the armed forces.
In my view participation of any armed forces in programs like Mardi Grass whereas not doing so
25 with equal other opposite programs does cause a perception the armed forces are promoting
homosexuality. Considering transvestites/homosexuals reportedly endingup10 times more likely
to die by suicide then heterosexuals, one could wonder if then they could sue the armed forces
for promoting non-heterosexual conduct!
QUOTE 8-2-2017 email
30 According to Research conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health

and Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University in 2003, has shown that of the
20, 000 people surveyed, about 1.2% of adults identify as (LGBTI).
In 2011,
35 Summary of facts
• 1.2% of Australians identify as gay or lesbian
• 1.6% of men in Australia identify as gay,…. 0.9% identify as bisexual

Page 126
• 0.8% of women identify as lesbian,….. 1.4% identify as bisexual
Now if there is this low percentage who are this way inclined then why is
our schools pushing it be taught in our schools when kids are just wanting
5 to get through school, they are finding out who they are and wondering
what their life ahead is going to being them job wise etc.. it is no wonder
that homosexuals target this age group they are so vulnerable.. Gaye
Carman… 32697675
Homosexual Fact Sheet

10 (Warning! Contains Adult information not suitable for young children)
**PLEASE NOTE!
**PLEASE ALSO NOTE!
This fact sheet has been prepared because, throughout the nation, in the churches, and in
my own denomination, there is an increasing acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and
15 acceptable way of life.
Here is information to read and share with others. Make copies and distribute them. You have
loved ones who need to be warned.
A number of in-depth studies have, for decades, been carried out—direct medical studies,
analysis of obituaries in homosexual magazines (which list the age at death and cause), and
20 questionnaires distributed in a number of U.S. cities. From this, extensive data has been
collected. You will not read about it in the public press because, frankly, the media today favors
homosexuality.
Here are these facts:
A GAY LIFESTYLE LEADS TO AN EARLY DEATH
25 Stay away from homosexuality, if you do not want to have a miserable, disease-ridden life
and an early death—avoid it as the plague.
Whenever you see photos of men and women who admit they are gays or videos of them
marching in Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, or elsewhere—you only see
young ones. Most are in their twenties, and a few are in their thirties. The older ones are
30 generally dead or in such bad shape they can no longer take part in such marches. Many of the
younger ones are also sick with various diseases or dying in hospitals, and not in attendance.
Everyone knows that smoking, alcohol, and fast driving will kill you. But sodomy will kill you
quicker.

Page 127
The median (average middle number) age of death for gays is about the same nationwide: Less
than 2% survive until old age. The average American now lives to be about 70. For male gays
who die of AIDS, the median age is 39. For male gays who die of something else, the median age
at death is 42. The median age at death of lesbians is 44.
5 WHY GAYS DO NOT LIVE VERY LONG
Surely, inner-city violence ought to kill people off quicker than homosexuality, yet the average
person living in a crime-ridden district of New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles will live longer
than a practicing homosexual. Why is this?
Gays engage in very strange activities, which produce infections and diseases of various types—
10 and they are indulging in those dangerous activities about as much now as before AIDS entered
the picture.
Dr. William Haseltine, of the Harvard Medical School, concluded his 1993 study by noting that
gays are just as intensively involved in their activities as ever; the increase of AIDS and other
diseases has not stopped them a bit (AIDS prognosis, Washington Times, Feb 13, 1993).
15 The average homosexual has 50 to 70 different “partners” every year, year in and year out. You
can see why the average 20-year-old who begins the gay lifestyle—will have AIDS, another very
serious disease, or be dead by the time he is 30.
Gay activists often argue that what consenting adults do in private is nobody else’s business. Yet
they have sex with so many different partners (P. Gebhard & A. Johnson, Kinsey Data, 6; K. Jay
20 & A. Young, Gay Report, 7; P. Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1989, 64:1167-1179) that they increase
their risk of getting, or giving sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) to husbands, wives, children,
etc. Researchers have found that homosexuals have more STDs than non-homosexuals (P.
Cameron, Nebr. Med. J., 1985, 70:292-299).
Studies reveal that gays do these things all over the world; that is why gays in one country are as
25 sick as those in another country.
We would rather not even mention their activities (they are all so horrible), but it is difficult to
explain why gays have so many terrible diseases, even though briefly mentioning the causes.
There are several main types of homosexual activities:
1 - Oral sex—This is the primary method used, and it involves swallowing sperm. Because
30 semen contains many of the germs found in blood, eating it is essentially the same as drinking
someone else’s raw blood. This is a very unhealthful, dangerous practice. The penis is often
infected, and has often been placed in another person’s rectum. As a result, oral sex leads rather
quickly to hepatitis A, gonorrhea, HIV, and/or hepatitis B.
Because they have sex with so many different people (over 70% admit that, with over half their
35 partners, they have had sex only once [A. Bell & M. Weinberg, Homosexualities, p. 18], the risk
of infection is quite high. Gays average between 10 and 110 partners per year).
2 - Rectal sex—About 90% of gays have done this (New Engl J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48). About
two-thirds do it regularly. The rectal lining is only one cell thick, and semen readily penetrates it,
transmitting AIDS and other diseases. It is quite common for the rectal wall to be torn, which
Page 128
causes direct rectal infections, plus transmitting hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and other
diseases.
“Fisting” (the insertion of the fist, bottles, carrots, and live gerbils [C. Adams, The Reader, Mar
28, 1986] is also done). This not only increases contamination, but can result in a person’s
5 having to wear a colostomy bag and diapers for the rest of his life. By 1977, over a third of gays
admitted to having done it.
3 - Fecal sex— Fecal sex involves licking the anus and/or ingesting fecal matter. In a diary
study, 70% of gays had engaged in this (and half regularly) in the previous 6 months (New Engl.
J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48).
10 The result is hepatitis A, a dangerous liver infection. In addition, certain enteric parasites enter
the body (the medical term for the infection is “gay bowel syndrome”).
Ingesting feces can also result in typhoid fever, herpes, and cancer. One study found that 10% of
the gays with some of these infections (including amoeba, giardia, and shigella) “were employed
as food handlers in public establishments” (New Engl J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48).
15 A January-June 1991 CDC report found that 66% of the hepatitis A cases in New York were
gays. Rates for other U.S. cities were comparable (CDC Report, MMWR 1992, 41:155-64). A
1982 study noted that gays are spreading hepatitis A to the general population.
4 - Urine sex—The largest gay survey to date found that 23% drank, or splashed one another
with, urine. This adds to the rate of infection from various diseases. Their “pleasures” are utterly
20 weird.
A San Francisco study of 655 gays summarized the above practices: 5% drank urine, 7% did
“fisting,” 33% ingested feces, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their
rectums—during the previous month alone (Amer. J. Public Health, 1985, 75:493-496).
The Seattle sexual diary study reported that, in one year, a gay fellated 108, swallowed semen
25 from 48, exchanged saliva with 96, penetrated 68 anuses, and swallowed fecal matter from 19
others (New Engl J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48).
Now you can understand why homosexuals get sick and die far more quickly than nearly any
other group of people in the nation! The fear of AIDS has hardly reduced the amount of gay
activities or varied contacts.
30 Surveys reveal that between a third to a half of gays do it in public restrooms; 45-90% in gay
bathhouses, and 45-90% also use illegal drugs (K. Jay & A. Young, The Gay Report; P. Gebhard
& A. Johnson, The Kinsey Data, p. 17).
The public health bill for treating people who invite such infection is enormous. Guess who pays
it?
35 (We will not discuss the political ramifications of the Gay Rights Movement, but they are
demanding fuller medical coverage and more legal rights to have sex in the military and with
underage children.)

Page 129
Health care workers are at greater risk in caring for such people. As of 1992, over 100 had been
infected with AIDS by gays in medical settings (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance, Feb 1993).
Tuberculosis and new strains of other diseases are also moving into the general population from
gays (S.W. Dooley, J. Amer. Med. Assn. 1992. 264:2632-35). Those housed with gays in homes,
5 hospitals, etc., are also at risk (Ibid).
“Aids has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics . . If AIDS is not eliminated, other
new lethal microbes will merge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them”
(Dr. Max Essex, chairman of Harvard AIDS Institute, Testimony before House subcommittee,
Feb. 24, 1992).
10 As if to add to this massive public health problem, gays frequently work in restaurants; and,
every year, a quarter, or more, of homosexuals visit another country; there to infect still more
people—and bring back new ones to America (J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1984, 251:1444-46;
Genitourin Med., 1994, 70:12-14).
Most of the Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood transfusions (6,349 by 1992
15 alone) received it from gays. It is known that gays like to sell blood.
VIOLENCE IN THE GAY LIFESTYLE
Another strange aspect of this is that a person who enters the ranks of homosexuals—enters, at
the same time, a world of remarkable violence. This aggression takes several forms:
One is sadomasochism. A large minority of gays engage in torture “for fun.” Studies on this
20 reveal that 25% of adult white gays admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger (A. Bell and M.
Weinberg, Homosexualities, p. 18). One study, covering 9 states, found that 33% of the 181
male, and 22% of the 18 female, teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (S.
Rubin, Sex education: Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students, Psychology Congress, Aug.
1988). Compare that with the fact that, in the general population, less than 3% of men and 2% of
25 women are homosexual.
In a national survey of random samples of homosexuals and heterosexuals, 32% of those males
calling themselves homosexual or bisexual vs. 5% of heterosexual males reported having
engaged in sadomasochism; 17% of lesbians vs. 4% of heterosexual women also admitted it (P.
Cameron, Psychol. Rpts., 1989, 64:1167-79).
30 The 1980 CBS-TV documentary, Gay Power, Gay Politics, reported that about 10% of the
accidental deaths among young men in San Francisco resulted from sadomasochistic sex.
In one study, 27.5% of gays said they liked to place people in bondage, and then mistreat them in
various ways (P. Cameron, Psychol. Rpts., 1989, 64:1167-79).
Evidence indicates that, compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals are more likely to deliberately
35 harm their sexual partners with beatings or infecting them with disease (P. Gebhard & A.
Johnson, Kinsey Data, 6; P. Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1985, 57:1227-36). Examples of gays
who were deliberate spreaders of AIDS have been documented (History of AIDS, Princeton
Press, 1990, 19.)
By 1993, over 100,000 U.S. gays had died of AIDS and tens of thousands had died of hepatitis
40 B. Many were deliberately infected by other homosexuals.
Page 130
Then there are the murders of homosexuals by other homosexuals. (Murders of non-gays by
homosexuals will be mentioned later.) A study of 6,714 obituaries in gay newspapers throughout
America (P. Cameron, The Homosexual Lifespan, Eastern Psych. Assn., Apr. 17, 1993) revealed
that (1) 1.4% of gays and 7% of lesbians were murdered; this is over a hundred times the rate for
5 non-homosexuals. (2) 0.6% of gays and 5.7% of lesbians committed suicide, about 50 times that
of non-homosexuals. (3) 0.6% of gays and 4.3% of lesbians died in motor vehicle accidents, 18
times more than non-homosexuals.
It is for such reasons as these, along with all their diseases, that the median age of death for male
homosexuals is 40 and 45 for female homosexuals.
10 Compare those mortality statistics with married non-homosexuals: 75 for men and 79 for women.
CHILD MOLESTATION AND OTHER VIOLENCE
Many studies of child molestation have been carried out, and the results are both consistent and
startling. Between 15-40% of statutory rape (child molestation) involves homosexuality (P.
Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1985, 57:1227-36). A survey of white gays found that 25% admitted
15 to having sex with boys 16 or younger, when they were 21 or older (A.P. Bell, Sexual Preference,
1981, 19).
Entire studies have been written on the large number of child molestation cases, done by
homosexuals. In their magazines, gays admit that one of their objectives in doing this is to
increase the number of homosexuals.
20 Some of these studies were about homosexual school teachers. It is known that they prey on the
children.
Aside from passion, there are two special reasons why gays do this: (1) By sodomizing
children, they increase the number who will grow up to be homosexuals. (2) Children have
less diseases to transmit. NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) has, as
25 its goal, the removing of laws prohibiting gays from having sex with minors. In 1990, the
age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland was lowered to 12!
The National Crime Survey reported that about 7% of rapes are homosexual. They have
dramatically increased with the rise of the gay rights movement. This crime is twice as common
in urban areas where gays congregate (C.W. Harlow, U.S. Dept. Justice, 1991, NCJ-126826).
30 A study of 518 mass murders in the U.S., from 1966 to 1983, revealed that 350 (68%) of the
victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality (P. Cameron, Midwestern Psych.
Assn., 1983)
WHAT ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES?
“Living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the
35 freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive
encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual
relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or
not” (M.S. Weinberg & C.J. Williams, Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations,
1975).

Page 131
Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relations, and generally live alone by preference.
A 1970 San Francisco study found that about 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone
(A.P. Bell & M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities, 1979). The 1977 Spada Report found that only
8% of gays had just one live-in partner. The same year, only 40% of lesbians said they had only
5 one lover (J. Spada, The Spada Report, 1979).
A gay newspaper survey, of nearly 8,000, found that gay couples lasted 3.5 years at the most, and
lesbian couples lasted 2.2 years (P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples, 1983). Although
half of lesbians may be in a one-to-one basis, these partnerships only last two or three years, then
break up.
10 Most homosexuals, whether male or female, prefer variety.
Even if homosexual marriages could last, which they do not, both partners would be dead within
a couple decades.
Oddly enough, the practices of those in “monogamous relationships” were found to be more
unhealthful than the rest of the homosexuals. They drank urine and had grotesque sex even more
15 frequently. In a London sample of gays, those infected with HIV were more likely to have
regular partners than those not so infected (A.J. Hunt, Genitourinary Med. 1990, 66:423-427).
An Italian study showed similar results (S. Franceschi, Lancet, 1989). Disease among gays is
rampant, regardless of how many partners they have. The problem is an entire way of life.
Then there is the violence that occurs by homosexual lovers toward one another. Homosexual
20 marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence! And this is especially true among lesbians.
Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center,
said this:
“Domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community
today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse . . in terms of sheer numbers and
25 lethality” (S. Holt, Gay and Lesbian Times, Sept. 26, 1996).
In 1988, a nationwide survey of 6,779 married couples by the federal government (J. Sorenson,
Amer. J. Public Health, 1996, 86:35-40) established that, in traditional, heterosexual marriages,
the average rate of domestic violence is less than 5% a year (2% of husbands and 3.2% of wives
said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them). But homosexuals cohabiting with
30 one another reported far higher rates of violence: 20% to 25% per year (D. Ellis, Violence and
Victims, 1989, 4:235-255).
Applying the same standards to homosexual couples that are applied to the usual marriage
violence, 48% of 43 lesbian and 39% of male couples reported domestic violence (R. Gardner,
U. Georgia, 1988).
35 Another found 43% of the relationships of 284 lesbians “in a committed, cohabiting, lesbian
relationship” during the previous 6 months were violent (L. Lockhart, Interpersonal Violence,
1994. 9:469-492).
A 1990 Los Angeles study found that nearly half of 90 lesbian couples reported domestic
violence yearly (V. Coleman, Ca. Violence in Lesbian Couples, Sch. Prof. Psych, 1990). That

Page 132
study also revealed that the violence was just as intense when children were, or were not, in the
home.
Homosexual partnering actually increased the dangers associated with being a gay.
In marked contrast, research into “gay bashing,” found that homosexuals claim to be persecuted
5 by non-gays far more than they actually are. Most of it amounts to name calling, and little more;
violence rarely occurred unless the homosexual tried to seduce someone.
HOMOSEXUAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
Many studies have been conducted on this; but we will briefly note that, in the largest study, only
one-half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more
10 likely to (1) be sexually molested, (2) report having had sex with a parent, (3) experience
homosexuality as their first sexual experience, (4) become homosexual or bisexual, and (5)
report dissatisfaction with their childhood (P. & K. Cameron, Homosexual parents, Adolescence,
1996, 31:757-776).
The various studies reveal that children of gays are more than 3 times as likely to become
15 homosexual than children in traditional homes (P. & K. Cameron, J. Psychology, 1997, 131:1-
20). Dozens of court cases show that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually
molested by a parent (Ibid.).
HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY
The evidence solidly supports the fact that people choose to be homosexuals; they were not born
20 that way.
No researcher has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals and
homosexuals, that were not caused by their behavior. Studies show that parents recognize that the
orientation of their children was learned. In research after research, from the 1930s until the early
1970s (when a “politically correct” answer emerged), only about 10% of homosexuals claimed
25 they were “born that way.”
Most gays become that way, because an older person initiates them into it—and they decide they
like it. Most admit that their first partner was an older gay (I. Bieber, et. al., Homosexuality: A
Psychoanalytic Study, 1962).
Frequently, a key factor was whether it was the person’s first sexual experience. Parents, guard
30 your children!
Religious convictions are a factor. Those raised in non-religious homes are more likely to
become gay.
Many gays and lesbians change their sexual preference, back and forth. Many leave sodomy
forever, never to return.
35 Other factors, predisposing to homosexuality, include: gay teachers and authority figures, severe
problems in the home, exposure to pornography, and rape. Many studies have been done on this.
HOW TO ESCAPE FROM HOMOSEXUALITY

Page 133
It is obviously a miserable way of life. How can one escape from it?
1 - Recognize that it is a choice, and that you can have the power to control your choices.
Determine that you want to change, and are going to change.
2 - Go to God and ask Him for help! Cry and plead with Him alone in your room. Read the Bible
5 and claim its promises. God promises you enabling strength to resist temptation and overcome
sin, through the empowering grace of His Son, Jesus Christ. The change can be made; you can do
it—as you continue, moment by moment, to rely on God for strength. You will not give up; you
will keep crying for help and taking hold of His strength.
3 - Keep praying. Keep your thoughts on the right things; and, if they begin to stray, bring them
10 back to good subjects. Sing a hymn. Send up a prayer. Read a Bible promise you marked or
recite one you have memorized. Reach for a pocket Bible or New Testament and begin reading it
and praying. As you continue doing this, the old way of life will gradually fade away. We all
have temptations to resist; gays are not unique! Everyone can be helped equally by the God of
heaven.
15 4 - In 1980, a friend told me that her brother was a homosexual, and that he really wanted to
escape it. I told her the strange things homosexuals did revealed it was devil-possession, and to
tell her son to plead with God and tell the demon to leave.
She went home and phoned her brother. Alone, in a distant city, he got down on his knees and
pled with God for help, meant it,—and then commanded the devil to leave.
20 He said that he felt something coming out through the top of his head, and as it was departing,
said in a deep man’s voice, “My name is Queer!”
The young man was perfectly freed from that bondage.
Unfortunately, he did not maintain that close walk with God, and several years later chose to
return to it. He died in 1992 with AIDS. (Read Matthew 12:43-45.)
25 My friend, whoever you are, whatever your problem—there is deliverance in Jesus Christ! Go to
Him just now, cling to Him day by day, study and obey His Word.
PLEASE NOTE!
We are constantly told that our information is inaccurate, and/or out of date and so we
present this letter we received from a Medical Doctor in 2007 for your further information.
30 Comments
Dear Mr. Farrel,
I am a board-certified Physician, and I would like to say that your synopsis on

homosexuality was quite possibly the best documented, and most enlightening
35 presentation I have ever read on the subject. I trained at San Francisco General
Hospital and I can verify 1st hand that what you say about the rampant, suicide,
homocide, domestic violence and disease among the gay community is 100% true. In
the cases of homosexuals (both men and women) that I had the great honor and
privilege of caring for day after day, I saw the greatest cry of human suffering
Page 134
imaginable. I want to personally thank you for your ministry and helping me as I
help my patients to reclaim their health, both physical and spiritual.
Sincerely yours,
5 T.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE!
We keep getting letters from folks who get all up in a heap over the material in this article-- they
respond as if we are somehow just making stuff up to try and make nice people feel bad. They
tell us they know some homosexual who is an absolute angel and such a nice person and so on--
10 well so what? None of us can tell just by meeting people on a casual basis what their lifestyle
really is-- some of the worst serial killers for example were paragons of virtue in their
communities.
Also what makes you think that we have said that ALL homosexuals do ALL of the practices
named in this medical report.- IF you look again you will see that the information we have there
15 is from MEDICAL STUDIES reported in an OFFICIAL MEDICAL JOURNAL and show
percentages of those who ADMIT they have been involved in these acts. These are statistics- not
fantasies. We did not make this stuff up-this is a report of a legitimate medical survey.
These sexual perversions are not healthy-they are against nature - and statistics don't lie. Our
intention is to warn people away from the unnatural and tell them that God Has Help and Power
20 available to give the victory over this habit through the name of Jesus Christ just as much as He
has Help and Power available through Jesus Christ to give the Victory over alcohol, tobacco,
drugs and any other perversion or sin. Denying the problem will never bring victory.
We don't want to see people trapped in any harmful lifestyle or habit. If people involved in these
things are 'nice people' well that means that we want even more to see them free from harmful
25 practices. Before anyone can get Victory, he needs to admit the problem-like the alcoholic-and
then through the name of Jesus Christ, taking hold of His Power and His Grace and making a
positive, determined choice to break free--he can have complete Victory through the Power of
our Living Saviour!
John 8:36 "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
30 END QUOTE 8-2-2017 email
In my view the armed forces as an employer has a responsibility towards all staff not to promote
or deem to be promoting a conduct of life that may be harmful to such staff member and/or other
staff members.
The irony is the Federal Government is so much about people smoking an ordinary cigarette and
35 tax them like anything all because of alleged health concerns and yet when it comes to
homosexuality it takes an opposing view.
The following underlines how the Framers of the Constitution considered what a modern family
existed of.
HANSARD Constitutional Convention 9 March 1891 [page 151]

40 QUOTE
Page 135
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I think that in a matter of this kind we should proceed as far as possible
by familiar analogy, and, though perhaps the suggestion of the analogy may, in the minds
of some hon. members, be thought entirely inappropriate to an assemblage of this kind-
though the suggestion or the expression of the analogy may in some quarters create a smile-
5 yet it appears to me that in order to have a perfect system of federal government, we ought,
as far as possible, to preserve an analogy to that form of Government which prevails in a
model family. Now, in the case of a model family we know that the husband represents
the entire household.
An HON. MEMBER: In providing for the expenditure!
10 An HON. MEMBER: There is no federation there!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: The husband is supposed, in the natural order of things, to be the
representative of the entire household but, though he is a representative of the entire
household, we know that the wife also plays a very important part in the government of
that household. The wife comes very near to all those smaller constituent elements of the
15 family circle, which may, perhaps, by analogy be likened to the great family of states which
will exist in connection with this great federal constitution.
Colonel SMITH: She is the home ruler!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: It is the wife that knows all about the particular interests which affect
all the members of the family group: they come to her with their particular ideas, and they
20 look to her for the expression of their ideas and for the enforcement of their particular
claims.
Mr. MUNRO: Not for finding the income!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: With regard to that interjection, I say that he is a wise man who,
being the head of a household, puts all his financial projects into the crucible of the
25 sagacious mind of his wife, far more enlightened, far more discriminating than his own.
Colonel SMITH: With the power of veto!
Mr. RUTLEDGE: I say yes, with the power of veto. In this community many a man
owes a great deal to the advice of his wife and the veto which she has put upon his
proposals. We know that those strong headed men who think that all wisdom is embodied
30 in themselves, who do not take their wives into their confidence, who do not consult their
wives as to some particular speculation on which they desire to embark, are the men who
very frequently come to grief. But the men who do take, their wives into their confidence in
this way, and who do permit them to have a considerable voice in the management of
family affairs, even to putting a veto upon their own impulsive tendencies in regard to
35 financial proposals, are the men who go on very safe lines. No analogy is perfect; every
analogy will break down when you come to some particular modes of applying it; but I do
regard a great family of states, governed by a house of representatives and a senate, as
bearing a very considerable analogy to the constitution of a family; and I say the same rule
which prevails in the one ought to prevail in the other.
40 Sir THOMAS McILWRAITH: The wife initiates most of the money bills there!

Page 136
Mr. RUTLEDGE: The wives do initiate a great many of the money bills, and I appeal to
the experience of a great many hon. gentlemen to know whether they have not been
saved very frequently from financial mistakes by consulting their wives in regard to
important steps which they proposed to take in the very serious affairs. of life.
5 END QUOTE
(Writers note; See also 9 March 1891 Page 151 & 152)
It would be prosperous to hold that ’wife’ somehow was meaning another husband or husband to
mean another ‘wife’ as is in homosexual relationship.
10 QUOTE 4-2-2017 EMAIL

Re: This will make you cry .Afraid.and thoughtfull SSM
People
 Bev Pattenden <lbpattenden@bordernet.com.au>


15  Today at 8:45
To
 George Gault
 hawkeye@westnet.com.au
Hide
20 Photos
 image001.jpg
 image002.png
 image003.jpg
Download All
25 Message body
Yes I agree with you George on this and I would imagine that anyone over the age of 60 thinks
30 the same.
This all began in the 1970’s when the Socialist/Communist government took over in Australia,
Fabian members, haters of God
and Queen and did everything according to the Communist Manifesto, including the loss of all
parental rights, under
35 treaties with the United Nations. We now have 2 generations of brainwashed young people
who have been manipulated
by the education system and society itself that anything that feels good is okay. An amoral or
immoral society.
Anyone who speaks out is ridiculed as being out of touch., but we have to continue to do so
40 because we are responsible for
teaching the different between right and wrong, until the day we die.

Page 137
Cheers,
Bev.
From: George Gault

5 Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 1:48 PM
To: hawkeye@westnet.com.au
Subject: RE: This will maske you cry .Afraid.and thoughtfull SSM
As far as I am concerned you are near spot on, which is borne out by the fact
10 that Tel Aviv Israel is the world’s top spot for LGBTs. Mind you the Jews are
smart money makers and to make Tel Aviv a meeting place for LGBTs must earn
them a fortune. If I had my way I would give all LGBTs a free ticket to Tel Aviv
then build a Donald Trump wall around them all, including some Jews and some
Islamic’s and a couple of Australians I know, then throw away the key. There is
15 so much wrong things to put right in this world Yet all you hear about is Jews
and LGBTs. If two LGBTs wish to live together that’s fine but leave the Christin
conception of marriage alone and stop trying to influence our young folk who’s
brains dangle between their legs alone and further to that, stop trying to
influence the general perceptive of Man Women and their family into thinking
20 that a cesspool of sexually sick people and their supporters are family. George
A youthful, modern metropolis with a diverse population, Tel Aviv dates back to
only 1909. Clubs, bars, a thriving arts community, gay life and beaches attract
artists, musicians and young professionals to Tel Aviv's more secular scene. Its
25 UNESCO-designated Bauhaus architecture has won the city the moniker "The
White City". Walk, drive or take cabs between the cultural exhibition pavilions of
Haaretz Museum, historic Independence Hall Museum, bustling Carmel Market
and Old Jaffa's boardwalk.
Read more
30 Shop Hotels
35

Page 138
From: hawkeye@westnet.com.au [mailto:hawkeye@westnet.com.au]

Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017 11:21 PM
Subject: This will maske you cry .Afraid.and thoughtfull SSM
There is so much wrong about Gay Marriage and this article exposes one of such
reasons without exception.
It is all about the demonic zionist brain washing that is a part of "Agender 21” to
10 create an excepting society that will turn a blind eye to their perverted pedophilic
and homsexual activities if it is excepted as the norm - it also has the effect of not
only 'concur through chaos', but mainly to bring down our societal structure by
destroying morals and stuff up our kids, that go on to recreate a far greater sick
society - but also to prevent the adamite races from any chance of receiving
15 Yahweh’s promise of entering His Kingdom, by not living by his laws….
Homosexuality is guaranteed NO enterance - so the the more the satanic zionists
can keep us out of Yahweh’s kingdom, the more powerful they become and what a
devastating loss for us. This is what it is really all about - definitely nothing to do
with “equal rights” BS.
20
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex

Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
Speak Up for Marriage > Latest News
25 A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

Page 139
admin July 7, 2015 Latest News, marriage Debate, Same Sex Marriage
5 Americans/Australians need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights

movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment
freedoms.
I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with
the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to
10 keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be
raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage
was federally mandated in 2005.
I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in

15 my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult
children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share
my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with
our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household
environments growing up.(Schools )
20 We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and
gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public
with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.
I want to warn America ?Australia to expect severe erosion of First Amendment

freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The
25 consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly
Orwellian in nature and scope.
Canada’s Lessons

Page 140
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered
greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is
taking place in the United States could not legally marriage), you could face
discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the exist in Canada
5 today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything
considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-
sex government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech”
when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander,
10 defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-
like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create
unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal
protection than other groups.
15 Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-
track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to
understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over
every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of
expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become
20 commodified.
Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural
parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households
will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling
25 pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households.
However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death,
divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful
void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex
partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological
30 parent.
The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood

Page 141
Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the
designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was

immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision
5 to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-
neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as
defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state
ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and
be raised by their own biological parents.
10
Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children.
Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the
healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of
incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature
15 secure identity, instil direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking
adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture
children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture
children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.
20 It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically,
biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically
different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to
children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out
different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female
25 role model in the home.
In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to
natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of
biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.
30
Hate Tribunals Are Coming

Page 142
In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man
and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her
biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so;
you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and
5 forced to take sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a
complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these
organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in
10 opposition to particular sexual behaviours or protected groups identified under
“sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought
before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal
fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all
items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
15
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the
government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he
cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the
person(s) who brought forth the complaint.
20
If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk
losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no
further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who
had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began
25 leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution
for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for
religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families
remain in Chatham.
Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting,
30 and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to
supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like
what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from
your home.

Page 143
Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors,
publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time.
They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a
bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired
5 for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language

became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume
a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-
10 gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and
especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A
special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use
proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender
terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and
15 Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.
Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?
Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for

theAmerican Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost
20 you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to
ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were
supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2)
25 freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the
press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed
with the legalization of same-sex marriage.
30 Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers,
and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored,
and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding
industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her
conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in
Page 144
line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and
gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state
basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.
5 Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and
sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically
correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted
by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC),
which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory,
10 broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines
and restrict future airings.
An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada

involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014
15 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not
you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned
gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also confiscated at the Canadian
border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”
20 Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if

the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means
that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your
speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your
conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the
25 LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First
Amendment freedoms.
Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a

member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights
30 Institute. Her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is
available athttp://www.dawnstefanowicz.org. Dawn, a full-time licensed
accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.

Page 145
PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND PASS THIS ON
Luke 12:2…There is nothing
Concealed that will not be disclosed,
5 Or hidden that will not be made known.
END QUOTE 4-2-2017 EMAIL
Much debate goes on about the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 18C in particular and
as a bloodline Jew I am deeply concerned as to the abuse and misuse of parliaments (including
countries about Holecaust denials) that prevent honest debate. Most people hear about the jokes
10 about blond women portraying them as dumb. This hardly makes every blond woman to be
dumb. Likewise I read numerous writings about the evil of Jews, etc, to me this hardly makes
every Jew evil. The same about homosexuals, because some are acting inappropriate doesn’t
mean they all are. Stiffel honest communication and criticism in my view is to undermine the
political and religious freedom the Framers of the Constitution provided for and so embedded as
15 a legal principle in our constitution.
Too often however we have Members of Parliament who are more interested in making deals for
whatever they can get out of it than to consider the harm inflicted upon society at large.
Currently (22-3-2017) Member of Parliament Senator Penny Wong complains about being
forced without being enabled to properly to consider proposed legislation in a hurry. This is not
20 all together unfamiliar and I view was perfectly explained by the Framers of the Constitution:
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am taking
25 now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his surmise is
quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practised, or on
whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and
wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely necessary to put some provision
in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have
30 been frittering away the first principles of the Federal Constitution long enough.
END QUOTE
As such we have Members of Parliament pursuing not to accept bullying and terrorism while
themselves practicing this in Parliament. And it eventuates at both political sides of the
Parliament.
35 QUOTE
ISSUE: 20161231 - Re 6 million Jews claims, etc & the constitution

constitution.
40
I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution specifically inserted Subsect ion 51(xxvi) as
to races to ensure the commonwealth court racial discriminate against a particular race. I also am
Page 146
well aware that there is a considerable nonsense by parliamentarians as well as the judiciary that
the concurrent legislative powers regarding s51 remains always applicable.
QUOTE
5 Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

10 QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
15 remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

20 QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age
pensions if it be practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away
from the states. The sub-section would not interfere with the right of any state to act in
25 END QUOTE
I was born in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, my maternal family is Jewish, and very proud of this.
During World War II I understand about96 of our family members ended up being killed. Having
stated so my father who in fact with his brothers rescued my maternal grandmother (with her
30 Yellow star) from moving wagons but never claimed any gas chambers to have been used. I for
more than a year lived in 1966 and 1967 in Germany and did my own kind of fact finding, for so
far possible. Former German soldiers would talk a lot when drinking beer. Some of their tales
were horrific to what they did to others but some also was horrific to what was done onto them,
etc.
35 However gas chambers never were part of their gruesome stories either.
Considering that the Commonwealth legislated within ss51(xxvi) constitutional provisions then I
view the states have no legal powers to legislate as to racial vilification acts as they purport to
do.
40 I am very open minded and receive a lot of emails from certain areas that are so to say
vehemently against Jews. I never get upset about it as I find it in fact very interesting to read and
learn the views of others, regardless if I may or may not agree with their stated views/claims.
One such email contained a link (https://volkischpaganism.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/the-

45 holohoax-and-the-phony-six-million/) that appears to contain a lot of details that the 6million
Jews propaganda of having been killed in gas chambers is a mere elaborate hoax.
(Those who do not desire to click on a link can copy and paste it in a search engine.)
As a Jew I view the truth should never be assumed but must be proven and anyone who
challenge the truth should be entitled to do so. There can be no vilification if one seeks to expose
Page 147
the truth. Vilification in my view can only exist if a person with deliberate intent seeks to so to
say twist the truth and falsify details.
Convention)
5 QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member
of a state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a
sentry. As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a
10 sentry, and the whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
So, let all politicians stand up and deplore the States using unconstitutionally racial vilifications
laws to suppress the truth. To me it is offensive that there are Jews who are using or better to
15 state misusing the real facts to make a bogus claim for the sake of benefitting from it and by this
using the dead of many of my family members for ulterior purposes.
I for one pursue that any parliamentarian/judicial officer, etc who claims that there were 6
million Jews exterminated in gas chambers prove this with facts. Not the fraudulent claim that is
20 being passed on and on. It is I view an insult to my dead relatives that their deaths have been
used/misused for financial and other inappropriate gains rather than the real causes of death
having been established by records. Prove there were 6 million Jews exterminated as was
claimed! Failing this the politicians and the judiciary should hang their heads in shame to pursue
a rot they reasonably may know is a fabricated claim.
25
Well we can see how many members of politicians/judiciary will be capable to prove their
version of claims!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE
QUOTE
35 Committee Secretary 1-2-2017
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
PO Box 6100,
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
40
Phone: 02 6277 3823
Fax: 02 6277 5767
18Cinquiry@aph.gov.au
SUBMISSION-supplement 1
45 Sir/Madam,
Further to my 2-12-2016 submission (you didn’t publish on the submission website)
regarding s18C I now provide you with the following supplement details;
Many have made claims against the claimed Holocaust and risk being subjected to a s18C
50 litigation case. As a Jew (bloodline) and having family members killed during WWII I do view
the truth should be explored.

Page 148
As I understand it from my late father, Hitler was on radio announcing not to attack the
Netherlands, while at the same time German planes were bombarding Rotterdam in the early
morning of 10 May. The Dutch had refused to join France and England against Germany as it
wanted to maintain its neutrality. Samuel David Milhado (42) (maternal family) died at
5 Auschwitz 28-2-1943. His wife (41) died there also on 15-10-1942, as did on that day their
children Clara Cato (7), David Joshua (5) and Cato Rachel (2) (all also on 15-10-1942. They are
but a few of a long list of Jewish family members who died in various concentration camps.
However, so far I never came across any evidence that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz
and I am aware that raving illnesses existed that people died from. The issue of a peaceful
10 surrender is not changing the fact that German troops/air force attacked The Netherlands when
negotiations were ongoing. Perhaps the best I can describe it is that if I offer you as a neighbour
to deal with a fence and then while you are considering it I simply do my own thing and invade
your property and destroy say your shed or house would you really then accept that merely
because I offered you a deal but then unilaterally decided the matter I was justified to destroy
15 your property?
The truth should be known why those family members died and not on glorified gas chamber
stories and the killing of 6 million Jews that was already circulating before the Commonwealth
of Australia even existed.
20 QUOTE Booker T. Washington –Republican (of Negro descent)
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the
hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of
their trouble, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they
want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his
25 grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
END QUOTE Booker T. Washington –Republican (of Negro descent)
The same with many Jews, they pursue this story line (and the media to boost circulation) for the
financial benefits rather than top deal with the real facts.
18C clearly would prevent a non-Jew to challenge the validity of the Holocaust regardless that
30 this Jewish Holocaust was as show in in USAA media (library files) perpetrated from before the
turn of the century, as such it was already an issue more than 40 years before World War II even
commenced
As I understand it from my late father, Hitler was on radio announcing not to attack the
35 Netherlands, while at the same time German planes were bombarding Rotterdam in the early
morning of 10 May. The Dutch had refused to join France and England against Germany as it
wanted to maintain its neutrality. Samuel David Milhado (42) (maternal family) died at
Auschwitz 28-2-1943. His wife (41) died there also on 15-10-1942, as did on that day their
children Clara Cato (7), David Joshua (5) and Cato Rachel (2) (all also on 15-10-1942. They are
40 but a few of a long list of Jewish family members who died in various concentration camps.
However, so far I never came across any evidence that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz
and I am aware that raving illnesses existed that people died from. The issue of a peaceful
surrender is not changing the fact that German troops/air force attacked The Netherlands when
negotiations were ongoing. Perhaps the best I can describe it is that if I offer you as a neighbour
45 to deal with a fence and then while you are considering it I simply do my own thing and invade
your property and destroy say your shed or house would you really then accept that merely
because I offered you a deal but then unilaterally decided the matter I was justified to destroy
your property?

Page 149
The issue however is; Where is the evidence that people were killed in gas chambers?
I lived amongst the Germans as a young adult and spoke to former WWII soldiers, etc, and
nothing ever came up about the gas chambers.
5 In my view Section 18C is used to prevent the truth to be known as anyone not of Jewish descent
who seeks to challenge the holocaust story then can end up in courts.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
10
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
(Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE
15 As stated above the Parliamentarian inquiry didn’t publish my submission to it and I suspect
because it just can’t handle the truth. I am proud on my Jewish heritage but do not accept that
people who may criticise Jews in good intent may be pursued through the courts for this. Again if
the administration of justice is not a cloister then neither should be the so to say ‘school of life’.
20 QUOTE
Sir/Madam,
Further to my 2-12-2016 submission (you didn’t publish on the submission website)
regarding s18C I now provide you with the following supplement details;
END QUOTE
25
See also:
http://therealistreport.com/greedy-shameless-jews-clash-over-holocaust-restitution-funds/#comments
Getting back to the armed forces the command and indeed the Parliament likewise should
30 understand that as set out at the beginning the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I was
born and raised in The Netherlands that all people regardless of race were equal but as a
constitutionalist on the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) I cannot
interfere with the true meaning and application of the constitution merely because it may offend
my upbringing. Regardless of my personal views I can only express the views as intended by the
35 Framers of the Constitution when it comes to interpret their intentions regarding racial issues and
other issues.
Regretfully most politicians regardless of any legal background they may have do not
understand/comprehend the true meaning and application of the constitution and to hastily push
through legislation is what exacerbate it all. One can even less accept the command of armed
40 forces to better understand constitutional constraint because it in its own view is seeking to
harmonise the armed services even so actually dividing members of the armed forces in the
process.
About 50 years ago I proudly served at the then Iron Curtain in Germany as part of the Dutch
armed forces in NATO. However, I view I was physically in a safer place having East German
45 soldiers pointing weapons at me and my fellow soldiers and we knew they would fire if they
became suspicious about our conduct (under cover scouting) then if I had to serve in today’s
condition in the Australian armed services where for all I know a fellow soldier could have the
idealistic views that he should kill me because of not sharing his religious views.
50 Let me give a clear reminded!
Will the coroner burry certain details to protect the government’s incompetence, I wonder?
Page 150
The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/339180230/20170213-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-Re-
SUBMISSION-to-Coroner-Sara-Hinchey-J
5
On 15 July 2016 I specifically referred to that Bourke Street Mall was in my view being targeted
for mass murder and that I recommended buffers (bollards, etc) to be placed there and in area’s
where there is a large gathering of members of the public. It was what I warned about for some
2decades. Well, nothing was done about it, despite further repeats of the warning and on 20
10 January 2017 the Bourke Street Mall carnage became world news with 6 deaths and many
injured. Now a few weeks ago Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (one of the politicians who was
provided with this PRESS RELEASE made known that the Government has a duty to protect its
citizens and because of Nice and Berlin it should install bollards, etc. Moment that was what I
advised more than half a year earlier to him!
15
QUOTE 15-7-2016 PRESS RELEASE
ISSUE: 20160715 - Re THE FAILURE IN NATIONAL SECURITY, etc & the constitution

20 constitution.
Seeing the pictures beamed from Nice, France about the carnage one obviously wonder
how on earth could this have happened. Why were there no road blocks in place to prevent
this? I understood some decades ago a person making known how easy it would be to drive
a gas tanker into Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne, and blow it up, causing huge casualties.
25 It was not a person who had any terrorist connections. What we have done is politicians
like John Howard, Tony Abbott, Julie bishop Senator George Brandis, and heaps others
including the then General Peter Cosgrove defying constitutional limitations/prohibitions
as I view it, going out bigtime onto mass murder, crimes against humanity, terrorism, war
crimes, etc in Iraq and well nothing was done to hold them legally accountable. Little
30 wonder that there are elements who then hold it they will pursue their reign of terror in
response. Politicians will tell people to go on normally, while they DON’T because they
are hiding behind a curtain of security so that they are safe and let the innocent citizen
suffer the horrors inflicted upon them. Politicians are the “cowards” who claimed to make
the world a safer place” while in fact making it far worse.
35 Nice clearly lacked proper security as to prevent a truck to enter where people had their
festivities. Then one has to look upon any major city and wonder is the same possible in
Australia, and regretfully this is possible. Take Bourke Street, Melbourne, where it is a
pedestrian mall but the trams are going through it and so delivery vans/trucks. Instead of
warmongering politicians hiding behind a security curtain the monies of this security
40 curtain would be better spend such as road buffers to be fitted into the ground. For
example to prevent a truck to enter a mall using the tram tracks a heavy duty buffer is
coming up after a tram has passed through preventing any vehicle to enter using the tram
tack. This steel buffer can be raised and lowered into the ground as to allow safe passage
for trams and emergency vehicles but not for other vehicles unless someone with security
45 clearance were to manually let the buffer to sink into the ground for any delivery vehicle to
enter. It means that in times of public celebrations those buffers can be raised above ground
and so become a security for those celeb rating in the area. Such kind of devices could be
fitted on any road where at times it requires to be closed of regarding sporting events,
parades, etc. A proper system would facilitate such buffers to prevent motorist to use tram
50 tracks while the tram can engage the buffer to be lowered when it comes nearby so the tram
can pass through. This is the kind of security system that should exist at the very least. To
expect a police officer facing a truck coming towards him to stop it is lunacy. There must
Page 151
be a system of buffer that can be sufficient to stop a heavy truck in its tracks and prevent
what eventuated in Nice to eventuate in Australia. Instead of having bollard or other
material transported to and from the area, by building buffers that can drop down into the
ground when not needed or obstructing otherwise a tram from passing, this would be a far
5 better manner. I understand that in some countries they use massive kind of buffers to
redirect the sea flow to avoid flooding’s. The shape is like that of a sliced of an orange
hinging at the thinner edge. Also, we had this media report that some person allegedly
heavily involve in preaching jihad or at least promoting issue to it nevertheless continue
to do so. I view that any person doing so should be deemed to place national security of
10 citizens at risk and by this should be charged accordingly.
END QUOTE 15-7-2016 PRESS RELEASE
With the Halal certification the armed forces using halal certification food and other supplies is
15 by this violating s116! This as it is paying by this a so called tax. Prior to this Halal Certification
gimmick Muslims used to eat food and use items they for themselves held for religious doctrine
to be acceptable. Afghan Muslims had their Mosque in Marree, South Australia before federation
but I understand they used it no more but for religious practices. However, in today’s society
Mosque are used for governance (as an alternative governing body opposite any elected
20 government, weapon training, financial matters, etc, and generally woman are excluded from
entering there let alone pray there. As such this sexual discrimination against women violates our
legal principles embedded in the constitution where woman’s rights for federation purposes was
equal as that of a man. Hence, Section 41 refers to adult person so that any female who had
obtained the right to vote in a State and was of age of being an ‘adult person’ by Commonwealth
25 legislation then would be unrestricted be entitled to vote in federal elections and also if elected
become a Member of the Federal Parliament. As such the religious doctrine of Islam that women
are not equal cannot be accepted within Australia’s western society orientation. Let alone to be
part of a platform of the defence forces.
30 Society is well aware that there are people who cannot rehabilitate even after having served time
in prison for having committed serious crimes, to then expect that a person who has been
subjected to ideology of it being all right to kill another person on basis of having a different
faith (religion) or not following Islam surely is utter and sheer nonsense, and shows a lack of
common sense.
35
In law to maintain a view that committing further crimes can be acceptable be sufficient to
pursue further incarceration yet somehow following a doctrine that you can kill a person for not
following the same religion is not a danger to society?
40 Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for killing 13 ...
https://www.theguardian.com › US News › US military
Aug 28, 2013 - A military court on Wednesday sentenced Major Nidal Hasan to
death for the 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, giving the army
psychiatrist ...
45 At Fort Hood, Wrestling With Label of Terrorism - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/.../at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-
terrorism.html
Apr 8, 2014 - Army officials have never called the first Fort Hood mass shooting,
50 ... 5, 2009, Major Hasan shot and killed 12 soldiers and one civilian while
Page 152
wounding ... A version of this article appears in print on April 9, 2014, on Page A11
of ...
Iraq Veteran at Fort Hood Kills 3 and Himself in Rampage - The New ...
5 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/gunshots-reported-at-fort-hood.html
Apr 2, 2014 - Updates on the Fort Hood Shooting APRIL 2, 2014 ... Major
Hasan, a military psychiatrist and a Muslim, shot and killed 12 unarmed
soldiers ...
Fort Hood Shooting by Army Doctor Nidal Malik Hasan Leaves 12 ...
10 abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-shooting-army-doctor-leaves-12-dead/story?id...
Nov 5, 2009 - Twelve soldiers killed in massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, and
suspected is identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.
This was a mass murder by a Major who was a military psychiatrist but also a Muslim!
15
Sweden: ‘Refugee’ mob tried to rape woman and kill her son for
living without a husband, in violation of Sharia law.
Source:
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/sweden-refugee-mob-tried-to-rape-
20 woman-and-kill-her-son-for-being-without-a-husband-in-violation-of-sharia/
QUOTE 30-8-2016 article and comment

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-animals/
25 SPLC chief Richard Cohen named in bar association complaint
Ethics case against Chief Justice Roy Moore going to trial
3 bishops rip Biden for officiating 'same-sex marriage'
Traditional marriage 'hero' Roy Moore headed to governor's mansion?
Same-sex 'marriage' fight in Kentucky ends
30 Man who wants to marry computer sues Kim Davis
War over 'same-sex marriage' case still on
Federal judge strikes down Mississippi religious freedom law
Lawyer: Drop heterosexual adultery charge since 'gays' exempt
'Gay marriage' ruling 'like a shot of heroin in the leftist vein'
35 Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore fights back
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-

animals/#XQd471hqrbDfBrgv.99

Page 153
WND EXCLUSIVE
COURT TOLD: HUMANS COULD MARRY ANIMALS
'This is not just a slippery slope ... it is a bottomless pit'
Published: 11/10/2014 at 7:47 PM
5
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/11/sea-lion-kissing-woman-600.jpg
(picture not included)
Just days after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right of states to define marriage as one
man and one woman, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court is being urged to affirm the decision, because if it doesn’t,
10 states might not even be able to regulate the “species” of marriage partners.
“If ‘marriage’ means fulfilling one’s personal choices regarding intimacy, as the appellants insist, it is
difficult to see how states could regulate marriage on any basis,” said a friend-of-the-court brief filed in a
Louisiana case. “If personal autonomy is the essence of marriage, then not only gender, but also number,
familial relationship, and even species are insupportable limits on that principal and they all will fall.
15 “This is not just a slippery slope on which the appellants wish to set us, it is a bottomless pit into which
they desire to throw us. It is clearly within a state’s right to define marriage between and man and a
woman when that licensing restriction passes rational basis review.”
The warning isn’t new.
It was in 2008 when the nation was in the midst of a series of more than 30 state elections in which voters
20 chose to affirm traditional marriage that the California Supreme Court, on its own initiative, created “same-
sex marriage” in the state.
In a dissent from that opinion, State Supreme Court justice Marvin Baxter said: “The bans on incestuous
and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are
supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the
25 notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted
assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its
own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded
definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
30 His warning?
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to
conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting
polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
The newest warning comes in a brief filed in the Louisiana case by the Thomas More Law Center.
35 The case developed when voters in Louisiana, by a 78 percent to 22 percent margin, defined marriage as
the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual activists sued, but the law was affirmed at the district
court level by Judge Martin C. Feldman, who said the state was under no constitutional obligation to
recognize same-sex marriage.
The brief explains: “If ‘marriage’ means whatever a political activist, a cherry-picked plaintiff, or an
40 appointed judge wants it to mean, it means nothing. If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a
judge’s will. It is used as a subterfuge for judicial legislation. And as Montesquieu observed: ‘There is no
greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.'”

Page 154
The filing represents tens of thousands of churches and ministries including more than 3 million members
in the United States.
“Same-sex attracted individuals have never lawfully been forced to attend different schools, walk on
separate public sidewalks, sit at the back of the bus, drink out of separate drinking fountains, denied their
5 right to assemble, or denied their voting rights. The legal history of these disparate classifications, i.e.,
immutable racial discrimination and same-sex attraction, is incongruent. Yet, courts continue to
mistakenly draw upon this incongruence as the basis for what they now deem ‘marriage equality,'” the
brief says.
“The appellants wish to replace the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition on which our country was
10 founded with the trendy, relativist morality of political correctness.”
Another brief, from the Alliance Defending Freedom, outlines the benefits to society of the traditional
family of a married mother and father and their children.
Video: Davis' attorney: Marriage licenses to remain in "legal limbo"
“Man-woman-marriage laws substantially further the state’s interest in linking children to both of their
15 biological parents. Therefore, those laws easily satisfy the deferential rational-basis standard that applies
here,” the brief says.
“The people of Louisiana – and every state – should continue to have the freedom to affirm marriage as
the union of a man and a woman in their laws,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “The district
court in this case was right to conclude, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in its Windsor decision last year,
20 that marriage law is the business of the states. States that choose to affirm marriage as a man and a
woman have vital reasons for doing so.”
Headed for Supreme Court?
WND reported last week a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the rights of
voters in four states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – to define marriage as the union of one
25 man and one woman.
The decision followed a long list of federal court decision that have adopted the premise that “equality” of
marriage means there is no difference between the sexes.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently had refused to take on any same-sex marriage cases, allowing the
movement to expand into about 30 states, but the 6th Circuit decision may change that, according to
30 analysts.
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought on behalf of traditional marriage, said, “With a
divide in the appeals court rulings, the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue.”
Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is necessarily defined as
the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and
35 survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is
deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress.”
Staver said marriage “is not merely a creation of any one civilization or its statutes, but is an institution
older than the Constitution and, indeed, older than any laws of any nation.”
40 The 6th Circuit said no federal judges should be making such a decision.
“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this
panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial
commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us –
Page 155
just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the
four states of the Sixth Circuit.”
The pro-homosexual Marriage Equality organization called the ruling “out of step with the decisions of 40
other courts.”
5 The organization said states as diverse as “Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Utah” recently have
“embrace[d] marriage equality.”
But the organization did not note that a vast majority of the states that have “embraced” same-sex
marriage have done so largely by judicial decree, after voters in many of those states specifically chose to
define in their laws or even constitution marriage as one man and one woman.
10 Before federal judges stepped in, the wave of state affirmations of traditional marriage was virtually
unstoppable, with victories in 31 of 31 elections.
The 6th Circuit said: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a
view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our
ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states. … One starts from the premise that
15 governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage,
not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-
female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that
might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse:
children.”
20 Traditional marriage logical
And the judges wrote: “Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a
need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well
appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to
regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. … People may not
25 need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s
encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to
create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for
that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other
biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under
30 the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues.”
There is a logic behind traditional marriage, they said.
“What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing
privileges and deductions), the states created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay
together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the states of irrationality, only of
35 awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as
couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring.
That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the states to retain authority.”
Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, described by USA Today as one of the Republican Party’s most esteemed
legal thinkers and writers, issued the 42-page decision. Deborah Cook concurred.
40 Sutton noted a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972 also “upheld the right of the people of a
state to define marriage as they see it.”
The result of the “gay marriage” campaign already is being felt across America, where business owners
are being ordered by courts to violate their religious faith regarding the Bible’s characterization of
marriage, or be fined for not doing so.
45 One prominent case that made headlines recently was the case against Cynthia and Robert Gifford,
owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York.
Page 156
They were fined $13,000 and ordered to start serving same-sex clients by the courts in New York after a
lesbian couple wanted to use the Giffords’ farm for their “wedding,” and were refused.
“We have decided not to hold wedding ceremonies at all and we are not going to hold them on the farm
until we are allowed to choose who we contract with,” Cynthia Gifford told WND. The couple, who are
5 devout Christians, hired an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, which specializes in religious
liberty cases.
Their lawyer, James Trainor, said the state of New York is stomping all over the First Amendment rights of
Christian business owners.
“The end result of it, if a state agency is compelling them to host these ceremonies, it’s a form of
10 compelled speech where the state is saying ‘you must do this’ and a casual observer (of the ceremony)
would think ‘oh they must believe in this’ when in fact they don’t,” he said.
Bull’s-eye
They are not the only Christians in the bull’s-eye.
Jack Phillips owns and operates Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and has been in
15 business since 1993. He pours his creative spirit into each cake, which he considers a form of artistic
expression.
Two local men approached him in 2012 and asked for a wedding cake, which Phillips said was against his
conscience. He told them he had no problem making them birthday cakes, cookies, brownies, shower
cakes – anything but a wedding cake, which he believes should be only for a man and a woman.
20 “The most important thing I think about when I wake up and go to work is I want to know that what I’m
doing is pleasing to Him,” Phillips told CBN News in a recent interview. “I want to honor Him because
that’s the most important thing.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Division ordered him to reverse his policy, educate his employees on how to
serve all clients equally and submit quarterly compliance reports to make sure he has fully removed his
25 religious views from his business decisions.
Here’s a list of recent cases in which people of faith have been targeted by homosexual activists:
 New Mexico Christian photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin were sued by two lesbians under
the state’s “sexual orientation” law after declining to photograph the lesbians’ “commitment
ceremony.”
30  The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, was convicted of “discrimination”
after two lesbians, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, decided to hold their commitment
ceremony on the Methodist-run association’s popular family friendly boardwalk. After that, Ocean
Grove quit the wedding-hosting business.
 The Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Hawaii, a Christian business, was forced to “accommodate” two
35 Southern California lesbians after a judge ruled the B&B violated state law when the owner told
Taeko Bufford and Diane Cervelli she wasn’t comfortable having them stay together in her home
due to her religious beliefs. Aloha has since been ordered by the state “to provide a room to any
same-sex couple that wishes to stay there.”
 In Illinois, Christian B&B owners Jim and Beth Walder are being sued by homosexual activist
40 Todd Wathen, who demands monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and “an order directing [the
Walders] to cease and desist from any violation” of the state’s Human Rights Act.

Page 157
 Vermont’s Wildflower Inn paid a settlement and shut down its wedding reception business after
the ACLU won a $10,000 civil penalty for two lesbians. The settlement also requires the inn’s
owners to place $20,000 in a charitable trust for the lesbians.
 Oregon’s “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” bakery shut down after declining to bake for a “gay wedding.”
5  The owners of Indiana’s “Just Cookies” were charged with “discrimination” under the city’s “sexual
orientation” law for refusing to fill a special order for “rainbow cookies” for an LGBT group.
 Iowa’s “Victoria’s Cake Cottage,” whose owner Victoria Childress refused to provide a wedding
cake for a homosexual couple out of “convictions for their lifestyle.”
 Oregon’s “Fleur Cakes,” joined “Sweet Cakes” in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex
10 couple and is being boycotted by homosexual activist groups.
 Washington state’s “Arlene’s Flowers,” whose owner Barronelle Stutzman declined to provide
flowers for the wedding of a same-sex couple who had long frequented her shop, faces two
lawsuits after refusing to fill an order because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ.”
 Texas’ “All Occasion Party Place,” a Fort Worth venue, refuses, on religious grounds, to rent out a
15 banquet hall for same-sex wedding receptions.
 A Christian T-shirt maker in Kentucky was targeted by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Human Rights Commission for refusing to print “gay pride” designs for a local homosexual group.
 Chris Penner, owner of the Twilight Room Annex bar in Portland, was fined $400,000 under the
Oregon Equality Act for excluding transsexual men who, dressed as women, had been alienating
20 other customers by using the women’s restroom. According to the Seattle Times, 11 people –
calling themselves the “T-girls” – “will get the money, with awards ranging from $20,000 to
50,000.”
 The Catholic Church was forced to shut down successful adoption agencies in several states
because it opposes adoption by homosexual couples.
25  Christians have been kicked out of college counseling programs because they oppose
homosexuality and therapists are prohibited by law from helping young people overcome
unwanted same-sex attractions.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-

30 animals/#XQd471hqrbDfBrgv.99
(picture not included)

Join the discussion…
35 Post as G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka • 7.00pm 30-8-2016
Quite frankly what is this nonsense about equality of marriage? After all any person of marriage age
can marry someone of opposite gender. As such there is no inequality. When 2 homosexuals desire to
marry they are trying to achieve rights and status belonging to what is ordinary held to be between a
40 man and a woman. I spend an awful lot of time with my computer so why shouldn't I have the same
rights to marry my computer, and then if the computer dies I can obtain a widower pension. Well you
may argue that this is a thing, but to me it never does berate me, is a perfect entertainer and on and on
Page 158
it goes whereas my lawfully married wife is generally the opposite. And if it is all about love, then
why should I be restricted to be married to just one woman if in other countries you can marry more
than one woman. I get it, you will say that are different countries but as I got it in
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/c... The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55
5 (12 December 2013) The High Court of Australia then argued the Constitution as to what might be
applicable in other countries. And if it is about equality, then why should a part time employee not
get the same benefits as a full time employee? You might argue that is different as they do not hold
the same duties and obligations as well as a different relationship, but that is the same with
homosexual who cannot between them produce a child that ordinary (other than medical issues) can
10 produce a child. Where is the equality that I am to be married when others simply live in a De Facto
relationship and can have the
same rights as if lawfully married?
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/cou...
QUOTE In a dissent from that opinion, State Supreme Court justice Marvin Baxter said: “The bans
15 on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests,
they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such
relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. END
QUOTE
 What about inequalities where as a senior citizen I am working hard about constitutional
20 issues but not getting paid for it, while politicians who are wrecking our society with their nonsense
are highly paid. What kind of equality is that I wonder? You see forget about trying to argue equality
if you are not up to being equal in a marriage relationship as that of a man and a woman. Forget
about the “love” bit as if it is about love, ample of senior citizens and indeed many younger ones love
their animals and should be entitled to marry them if all this equality of marriage is applicable. Forget
25 about animals or things not being able to sign any marriage certificate because they do appoint an
Attorney for people unable to do it themselves and so an animal or thing can have an attorney
appointed who then on its behalf sign a marriage certificate.
QUOTE His warning? “Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on
30 the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that
the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
END QUOTE
QUOTE The brief explains: “If ‘marriage’ means whatever a political activist, a cherry-picked
35 plaintiff, or an appointed judge wants it to mean, it means nothing. If it has
no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a judge’s will. It is used as a
subterfuge for judicial legislation. And as Montesquieu observed: ‘There is no
greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in
the name of justice.'” END QUOTE

40 http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/cou...

Page 159
QUOTE Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is
necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is
“fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the
maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family
5 and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” END QUOTE
QUOTE Traditional marriage logical And the judges wrote: “Once one accepts a need to establish
such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and
unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a
10 reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the
unique procreative possibilities of them. … People may not need the government’s encouragement to
have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they
may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within
which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but
15 nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy
imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing
how they tackle such issues.” END QUOTE
I for one accepts that a person can be in a marriage of “convenience” and be married lawfully to one
person while in a De Facto relationship as a marriage like relationship with one or more others,
20 provided it are with those of opposite sex. This, as the Government considers those not lawfully
married but living together as a matrimonial relationship despite the Marriage Act (Australia) still
holding between one man and one woman.
What we have however is that the Courts (USA & Australia) are modernizing the constitution to
what their personal contemporary views might be rather than as to what is legally applicable. By this
25 they venture out to try to make constitutionally valid something that never was. Pedophilia, bestiality,
and whatever will all become the norm and the judiciary will be eager to justify it in any way they
can, perhaps just to make lawful to what they themselves are unlawfully practicing?
If it is all about love and equality then check out http://www.oddee.com/item_9877... and they might
just argue the same. Just that if you ask me about some airliner to seat a wife who is a donkey (of the
30 animal sort) I doubt they will agree to that. And if you arrive in Australia your donkey (animal) wife
could be put into quarantine. You could argue discrimination as many women are donkeys, just not
of the animal type, and they do not have to go through quarantine. Well, good luck on that.
35
END QUOTE 30-8-2016 article and comment
The Koran was written a long time ago and perceptions of people were then to accept religion for
what it was as a doctrine. In today’s society however one reasonably could question as to how
40 anyone could accept that a terrorist or other person killing an innocent person could be rewarded
with ‘72 Virgins’. Regardless if a person beliefs in an afterlife one should be well aware that ‘72
Virgins’ has the connotation of being able to have sex with females who are virgins. Considering
that many of the religious zealots/fanatics blow themselves up in suicide terrorism then forget
Page 160
about having a human body to perform any sex act in an Afterlife. Indeed, even if one dies with
the body intact it is something that becomes buried or cremated and as such not something to be
there in some kind of Afterlife. As such it would in my limited opinion a sheer physical
impossibility for anyone to due and then somehow perform sexual acts with ‘72 Virgins’. If this
5 is not what is intended then why stipulate ‘virgins’? If there are/were ‘72 Virgins’ in the
Afterlife then surely they will always remain to be so because they cannot lose their virginity in
such Afterlife!
In any event to follow this kind of reasoning that you can be rewarded with ‘72 Virgins’, it also
indicates that women who remain virgins are somehow slaves for sexual pleasures which violates
10 the very equality of the genders as embedded in our federal constitution.
.
Our constitution is generally not properly understood what it really stands for and this also
because we have lawyers calling themselves ‘constitutional lawyers’ (an oxymoron like a
‘firebug fireman’) where lawyers are expressing their personal views based upon any legal
15 training they had rather than of the point of view of the unlettered person who had to vote for the
draft constitution and at times for amendments of the constitution by referendums.
In my view the High Court of Australia was in error in Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen,
[2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012 this political liberty was not depending upon
the Albert Langer case at all but was enshrined by the legal principles embedded by the Framers
20 of the Constitution in the constitution.
As we have discovered (see above quotations) people are denied their religious practices by
being forced to bake cakes for homosexual marriages. The U.S.A has the very religious
exclusion as we so to say copied of its constitution. It means that to accept homosexual marriages
25 would interfere with the rights of those people who for religious doctrines or otherwise may not
desire to do so.
In my view it would be unconstitutional to force anyone contrary to their religious views or
otherwise (such as non-religious views) to have to serve homosexuals in a manner it offend them
personally.
30 .
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-
It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first
volume of his work:-
35 The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal
discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to
cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex,
or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision
shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If
40 a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this
as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly
express it.
END QUOTE
45 The very purpose of Ss51(xxvi) was to enable racial discrimination that otherwise may not
acceptable under international law.
As such any talk about Human Rights Declaration, etc, and the purported membership of the
Commonwealth of Australia to the United Nations have absolutely no bearings upon our
constitution.

Page 161
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was voted upon by referendums to
serve the Australian electors/community and not aliens. Hence, the rights of aliens can never
supersede those of Australians.
When I migrated to Australia from The Netherlands I never since in about 46 years, argued
5 provisions of the Dutch, because I am too well aware that moving to another country it
constitution is the principle law. Those who desire to have legal provisions of any other country
are free to move to those countries but cannot enforce foreign countries legal/religious provisions
upon Australia.
.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
15 Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
20 to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
25 determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE

30 QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people
and the states on terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE
35 It clearly was not that foreign nationals residing in some other country (legal jurisdiction) could
claim any constitutional rights!
Koon Wing Lau v Calwell [1949] HCA 65; (1949) 80 CLR 533 (21 December 1949 )
40 QUOTE
32. If the action set out in s. 4 of the 1949 Act and in s. 4 (4) of the principal Act as amended is
taken, then any permission to remain in Australia, whether express or implied from inaction, is
withdrawn. The continuance of any such permission is entirely a matter for Parliament to
determine. Entry into Australia and settlement there cannot limit the power of Parliament, by
45 prospective or retrospective laws, to determine what immigrants shall be allowed to become or to
remain members of the Australian community. Even if one Parliament expressly enacted that
certain immigrants should be allowed to remain in Australia permanently, a subsequent
Parliament could, if it thought fit, repeal that law, withdrawing the permission to remain and
providing for deportation. One Parliament cannot, in my opinion, limit the constitutional
50 power of a subsequent Parliament. (at p562)
END QUOTE
R v Kidman [1915] HCA 58; (1915) 20 CLR 425 (16 September 1915)
QUOTE

Page 162
I am therefore of opinion that a law which operates merely as an ex post facto law is not
within the power conferred by pl. XXXIX.
There is another class of laws which have, in a sense, a retrospective operation, and of
which Statutes commonly called Acts of Indemnity and Acts which impose duties of
5 Customs as from the date on which they are proposed in Parliament afford familiar
instances. Entirely different considerations are applicable to such laws, and nothing that I
have said with regard to ex post facto laws is intended to apply to them.
I am disposed to think also that laws validating retrospectively acts of the Executive
Government which at the time when they were done were not authorized by law but were
10 necessary under the rule Salus populi suprema lex would be within the power. In both those
cases the authority rests upon necessity, which cannot be called in aid of an ex post facto
law.
END QUOTE
15
QUOTE
Isaacs J.
(1) I am of opinion that the retrospective provisions of the Act No. 6 of 1915 are within the
20 competence of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
The question depends entirely on the meaning of sub-sec. XXXIX. of sec. 51 of the
Constitution. The construction will probably be aided by first considering what is included
in the words "any power vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
Commonwealth." Whenever any such power is given, there is given with it by implication
25 every ancillary power that is necessary to the existence of the Government, and the proper
exercise of the direct power it is intended to execute. Such ancillary powers must, in my
opinion, be truly "incident" to the main powers, in other words they must be impliedly
included in the grant. That is how I understand the maxim Quando lex aliquid concedit,
concedere videtur et illud, sine quo res ipsa esse non potest.
30 In Barton v. Taylor[5] Lord Selborne, speaking for the Judicial Committee, and referring to
the powers incident to or inherent in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly (without
express grant), said that whatever, in a reasonable sense, was necessary for the purposes of
its existence and the proper exercise of its functions was impliedly granted by its mere
creation. "But," said his Lordship, "for these purposes, protective and self-defensive
35 powers only, and not punitive, are necessary." Further on he observed:—"The principle on
which the implied power is given confines it within the limits of what is required by the
assumed necessity."
It will, therefore, be clearly observed that where an executive body is created, and has
among other functions, that of safe-guarding the revenue and making contracts under
40 which that revenue is to be paid, it has an inherent right of self-protection, and of defending
from invasion by direct interference the revenue and the actual making of its contracts. A
man attempting to steal Commonwealth treasure may be resisted to death; a man

Page 163
obstructing any Commonwealth officer in the performance of his duty may be thrust aside
with all the force necessary to enable the officer to perform his duty.
All this is implied executive power, but punishment, whether regarded as retribution or as a
deterrent, is beyond the scope of the executive power. That is, it is not incidental to it, or to
5 its execution, in the sense which would include it by implication in the grant of power. The
Executive cannot change or add to the law; it can only execute it; and any change of or
addition to law is not incidental when we are speaking of a non-legislative power. But it
cannot be maintained that the same considerations apply to the Legislature under sub-sec.
XXXIX. If we were to say that nothing is within the range of its power under that sub-
10 section but what is incidental to the power exercised by the Executive, the power would
mean nothing. The legislative power must extent further than the limits of mere incidents
implied by law. It must have, and by concession it has, power to attach punishment to
conduct not already punishable. It may say that any attempted invasion by force on the
field of Commonwealth executive powers may not only be resisted and prevented, but also
15 punished. Punishment connotes, from what has already been said, something quite
unnecessary to the existence or exercise of the executive functions. But it is nevertheless
for legislative purposes within the term "matters incidental to the execution" of the
executive power. Punishment is an ordinary means employed by Legislatures to guard and
assist the executive power. For the future execution of the power, it is admitted to be
20 appropriate, and within the power granted by sub-sec. XXXIX. But why within that power?
Simply because, as Lord Selborne says in Barton v. Taylor[6], "express powers given by
the Constitution Act are not limited by the principles of common law applicable to those
inherent powers which must be implied (without express grant) from mere necessity,
according to the maxim Quando lex aliquid concedit, concedere videtur et illud, sine quo
25 res ipsa esse non potest." That is, it becomes a mere matter of interpretation of the actual
words used, and in that sense the power is an independent power of legislation as high as
any of the preceding thirty-eight in sec. 51. I, therefore, do not agree that it adds nothing to
the Parliamentary power which would not be implied if it were omitted.
But if it includes the power to punish future acts which are calculated to obstruct, hinder or
30 embarrass the Executive, why not past acts also of the same nature? I think the Legislature
may punish past interference or attempted interference with the Executive. Once there is in
active operation some Commonwealth power, any interference or attempted interference is
per se unlawful. It is contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth, the
execution of which is vested in the Crown by sec. 61 of the Constitution. The Executive
35 may have repelled it, but after difficulty; and no State can deal with the matter, nor could
the Commonwealth be supposed to be dependent on the State for the vindication of an
insult or impediment to the Commonwealth; and it is not the habit of the Imperial
Parliament to intervene in such a case. Must the outrage go unpunished? In my view, at the
moment it occurs, the Commonwealth being entitled to freedom from molestation, the
40 matter is one incidental to the execution of the Commonwealth power; it does not cease to
have that character when completed and past. And being of that character, it would in my
opinion be cognizable by the Parliament under sub-sec. XXXIX. No doubt such a law
would be an ex post facto law, in the sense that certain punishment was attached to the act.
But it would not be ex post facto converting a lawful act into an unlawful act, even if that
45 circumstance is material. No act that is a breach of the law at the time it is done, is
innocent. It may be that the law has not then affixed penal consequences to it; but that does
not affect the quality of the act itself. Consequently, such a law as is supposed, though ex
post facto in relation to the public treatment of the man who has already offended, is not

Page 164
necessarily unjust, and is certainly confined to a "matter incidental to the execution" of a
power.
Such a Statute is the English Trading with the Enemy Act 1914, followed by the
Commonwealth Act on the same subject, but utterly unsustainable retrospectively unless
5 the Parliament has power to pass ex post facto laws with reference to the limited subject
matters under its control, where it thinks the occasion so grave as to demand such
measures. There is no prohibition in the Australian Constitution against passing ex post
facto laws, as there is in the American Constitution, both as to the States and the United
States. The prohibition to the United States apparently assumes that Congress would
10 otherwise have had the power. Therefore, in my opinion, no distinction can be validly
drawn between ex post facto laws—regarding them as criminal only—and any other kind
of retroactive laws. A retroactive law, that is, a retrospective law in the true sense, is one
which "provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was
not" (per Buckley L.J. in West v. Gwynne[7]). That does not include an Act which only
15 alters existing rights as from the date of the Act.
It is obvious that if an ex post facto Act is invalid because it is ex post facto, it is not
because criminal consequences are attached but because it is retrospective, and the same
fate must, under the Australian Constitution, attend an Act which attaches civil
20 consequences. Nor can any distinction be founded on the mere difference between making
a past lawful act unlawful, and a past unlawful act lawful. (See Young v. Adams[8].) The
question cannot, therefore, turn on whether a Statute is ex post facto or not, but whether the
subject dealt with—either retrospectively or prospectively—is a subject within the
description contained in sub-sec. XXXIX.
25
END QUOTE
QUOTE
30 The first question is as to the competence of the Australian Parliament to make the
provisions of the Crimes Act 1915 (No. 6 of 1915) retrospective. By sec. 2 it is enacted (by
way of amendment of the Crimes Act 1914) that any person who conspires with any other
person "to defraud the Commonwealth" shall be guilty of an indictable offence; the penalty
attached being imprisonment for three years or less. By sec. 3 it is enacted "This Act shall be
35 deemed to have been in force from the date of the commencement of the Crimes Act 1914"
(29th October 1914). There is, therefore, no doubt as to the intention of the Parliament to
make a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth between 29th October 1914 and 7th May
1915 (the date of the commencement of the Crimes Act 1915) an indictable offence. There is
no doubt that the Act of 1915 was meant to be retrospective; and therefore the numerous
40 cases which lay down the principle of construction against retrospective or retroactive
operation are inapplicable. If the Act were an Act of the British Parliament with its plenary
powers, the principle of construction must yield to the clearly expressed intention of the
Legislature. But the question as to the power of the Federal Parliament—a Parliament which
has no power to legislate except as to specified subjects—to legislate retrospectively,
45 remains. For the purpose of the question I may assume—without in any way deciding the

Page 165
point—that, apart from the Act No. 6, a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth does not
constitute a criminal offence within the State law or otherwise.
END QUOTE
5
QUOTE
It is clear that pl. XXXIX. of sec. 51 was not meant to limit, it was meant to increase, the
powers of Parliament to make laws; and there is not one word, from first to last, to indicate
10 an intention to withhold from the Federal Parliament the same absolute discretion as the
British Parliament itself has, with regard to past events as well as present and future—
provided that the Federal Parliament confine itself to the specified subjects and matters
incidental to the execution of the legislative executive and judicial powers. It is admitted
that the Parliament has power to make retroactive laws as to specified subjects of legislation,
15 such, e.g., as "naturalization"; and it would need a violent straining of the wide words of the
power to make laws for incidental matters if we were to read into them a prohibition of
retroactive laws designed for the enforcement of the substantive laws. If we did so, we
should be adding to the Constitution, without express words, the prohibition of ex post facto
laws which is expressly contained in the American Constitution, and omitted from ours.
20 END QUOTE
QUOTE
In the case referred to during the argument, Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v.
25 Colonial Sugar Refining Co.[23], the Judicial Committee did state that "none of them" (pl. I.
to pl. XXXVIII. inclusive) "relate to that general control over the liberty of the subject
which must be shown to be transferred if it is to be regarded as vested in the
Commonwealth." I do not, however, find in that judgment anything to indicate that the
Judicial Committee had any doubt about the control of the Commonwealth Parliament over
30 the liberty of the subject, so far as it had power to legislate with respect to the thirty-eight
subject matters set out in sec. 51, or with respect to the matters set out in pl. XXXIX., above
referred to; nor do I find anything in that judgment inconsistent with the judgment of the
Judicial Committee in Hodge v. The Queen[24], where Sir Barnes Peacock, in delivering the
judgment of the Privy Council, said:—"It appears to their Lordships, however, that the
35 objection thus raised by the appellants is founded on an entire misconception of the true
character and position of the provincial Legislatures. They are in no sense delegates of or
acting under any mandate from the Imperial Parliament. When the British North America
Act enacted that there should be a Legislature for Ontario, and that its Legislative Assembly
should have exclusive authority to make laws for the Province and for provincial purposes in
40 relation to the matters enumerated in sec. 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be
exercised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, but authority as
plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by sec. 92 as the Imperial Parliament in
the plenitude of its power possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of subjects and
area the local Legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the Imperial Parliament
45 ..."

Page 166
Those remarks referred to a Constitution with limited specified powers. The same remarks
apply to our Constitution. It may, I think, therefore be taken for granted that there is full
plenary power in the Commonwealth Parliament to pass legislation with respect to the
matters referred to in sec. 51, and that the Parliament has control over the liberty of the
5 subject so far as is necessary to efficiently carry out any of the powers vested in it, or so far
as is incidental to the execution of any power vested in it by the Constitution, or vested in
the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or
officer of the Commonwealth (pl. XXXIX.), and so far as to prevent any interference
with the exercise of any of the powers vested in the Government, &c.
10 END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sec. 51 gives power to the Commonwealth Parliament (inter alia) "to make laws for the
15 peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the naval and
military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the
forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth." The war at present raging
has, I think, proved beyond question that it was necessary for the defence of the Empire to
pass ex post facto laws, and the British Parliament passed such laws. The war has also
20 proved, I think, that it was necessary, for the proper defence of the Commonwealth during
the present war, and during any future war—apart from pl. XXXIX.—that Parliament
should have the power to pass ex post facto laws to prevent assistance being given to the
enemy.
I do not find anything in the Constitution—an instrument of government—to lead me to

25 hold that the Commonwealth Parliament, entrusted with the defence of the Commonwealth,
is so impotent a body that aliens, neutrals or Australian subjects may defy His Majesty's
Imperial Proclamation, and the Governor-General's Proclamation, upon the declaration of
war, and openly commit breaches of a "Trading with the Enemy Proclamation," without
any possibility of punishment by a Commonwealth Statute; and that only those breaches
30 which are committed after a Commonwealth Act has been assented to are punishable in
Australia, especially as Parliament may not be sitting at the time war is declared.
I personally think it is not only incidental to the defence of the Commonwealth, but also
absolutely necessary for the proper defence of the Commonwealth, that the Commonwealth
should have the power to punish by ex post facto laws any persons who, in Australia, defy
35 His Majesty's Proclamation or the Governor-General's Proclamation, even if the
Proclamation forbids acts that are not, at the time the Proclamation is published, acts
punishable by common law or State laws, if the acts interfere with the exercise of any
power vested in Parliament or in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that can only
be done by the people knowing that the Commonwealth Parliament has power to pass ex
40 post facto laws.
The power appears to me to have been exercised in England solely as incidental to the
execution of the power to defend the Realm and for the purpose of defence. See the
Imperial Proclamations and the Imperial Acts.
If the Commonwealth Parliament has power in time of war to pass ex post facto laws to
45 prevent interference with the efficient defence of the Commonwealth, it has power to do so
Page 167
at any time. What laws it passes (if passed with respect to a matter as to which the
Commonwealth has power to make laws) it is for Parliament, not this Court, to say. If it has
power to pass ex post facto laws for the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth, it
has power to pass ex post facto laws incidental to the execution of any power vested by the
5 Constitution in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in any department or officer of
the Commonwealth.
It is undoubted that power has been vested in the Government of the Commonwealth to
obtain and protect its public funds, so necessary for the execution of all the powers vested
in it. The law in question—No. 6 of 1915—remains in force only during the war.
10 Parliament has evidently thought it necessary to pass ex post facto legislation to prevent
those frauds upon the public revenue which, unfortunately, are frequently committed
against Governments in time of war.
The particular fraud charged in this case is in connection with goods supplied to His
Majesty's armed forces in Australia during the war.
15 END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Commonwealth Parliament, I hold, has power to pass ex post facto laws when it makes
20 a law with respect to any of the thirty-eight subjects referred to in sec. 51 or with respect to
the "matters incidental" previously referred to in pl. XXXIX., provided the laws are
necessary for the efficient control of the subject matter or are incidental to the execution of
the vested powers.
The power to pass ex post facto laws may be based on two grounds:—(1) That the power is
25 necessary as a deterrent to prevent injury to the Commonwealth in the future for want of
legislation in times of emergency or danger. The ex post facto laws for defence are a fitting
example of this power. (2) That the plenary power to legislate on any subject matter within
the power of Parliament, or to prevent interference, exists from the time the power is
exercised.
30 END QUOTE
Hansard 19-4--1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891 Bill,
35 there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their order. The
Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask hon. members to
give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to transpose some of the clauses.
With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a better form than that suggested
by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find in Maxwell on "Interpretation of
40 Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:
It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,
that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,
or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be
45 presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus

Page 168
the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any
agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to
apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the
same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8
5 & 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or
maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the
matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing
10 which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary.
Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.
END QUOTE

15 QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty.
END QUOTE
20 While one may not appreciate any Parliament making something punishable by law where it
wasn’t at the time of the incident, it is a total different issue where a soldier (member of the
armed forces) can be dismissed for merely exercising his/her constitutional rights.
.
BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) -- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law
25 helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the
Constitution."
People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL,
30 C.A. No. 09-10303, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT (Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United States District
Court For The Eastern District of California "A statutory privilege cannot override a
defendant's constitutional right."
35 People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208
Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to
insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would
be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield."
40 Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police
officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
As like a police officers those in command of the armed forces likewise must obey the legal
principles embedded in the constitution and not act despite of them.
45
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of
common right and common reason are null and void”. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to
the point --that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the
people? Other cases are even more straight forward: “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably
50 made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.”

Page 169
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
5 crime.”
Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the
Constitution itself answers our question � Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American
people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: Miranda v. Arizona,
10 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule
making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no
15 office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
20 Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”
25
Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a
crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
30 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or
35 judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
40 Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law
under which he presumes to act."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)

"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms
45 and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what
shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States
generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and
practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states
50 "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of
citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or
equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

55 Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter
jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme
Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he
comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or

Page 170
representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)

5 "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the
surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights due to ignorance.”
Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in
10 consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance,
and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual' , not his official capacity..."
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of
Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and
15 judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good
faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead
ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned
officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of
rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits
20 are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their
official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers)
and lose the shield of immunity."
Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr,
25 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
"It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform
every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions."
Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879

30 a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is
foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States
35 Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his
Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way.
"His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes
no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and
40 property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long
antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of
law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights."
45 https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf
BENNETT V. BOGGS.
QUOTE
We cannot declare legislative act void because it conflicts with our opinions of policy, expediency or
justice. We are not the guardians of the rights of the people of a state unless they are secured by some
50 constitutional provision which comes within our judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or
oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the
representatives of the people. If this fails, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but
courts cannot assume their rights.
END QUOTE
55
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0003.f.cas/0003.f.cas.0221.pdf
BENNETT V. BOGGS.
QUOTE
Page 171
13. If a right is not founded in a contract, or secured by the constitution, it may be taken away by a
state law, however long it may lave been exercised.
14. This court can inquire only into the constitutional power of the legislature; not on the policy,
justice, or wisdom of their acts.
5 [See Fuentes v. Gaines, Case No. 5,145.]
Case No. 1,319.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL CASES
1
END QUOTE
10
In my view any policy that violates legal principles embedded in the constitution remains within
the ambit of judicial powers of the administration of justice.
One may question if the opposition against the Armed forces in events such as Mardi Grass, etc,
15 would have been an issue say 40 years or so ago? Unlikely and as such it is the change of
perceptions by those in command of the Armed forces that really seems to be to deny a member
of the Armed Forces to make something, even as a private individual offensive.
QUOTE Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz

20 71
Additional Comments
Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz
Introduction
1.1 Marriage has been the bedrock institution of our society for millennia. As
25 such, any redefinition of marriage would have far reaching effects throughout our
legal system, and society at large and therefore must be approached with caution,
restraint and rationality, things that have been sadly missing from the public
arguments proposing change.
1.2 Marriage, as defined in law, is not about religion or love. The only reason that
30 marriage is enshrined in law is to promote the best practice model for the raising of
children. The Minister’s Second Reading Speech of the Marriage Legislation
Amendment Bill 2004 (which was passed unanimously through the Parliament as
noncontroversial legislation) makes this clear:
The government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of
35 the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental
institution.
It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment
for the raising of children. The government has decided to take steps to
reinforce the basis of this fundamental institution. 1
40 1.3 Labor through its spokesman, Ms Nicola Roxon MP, said:
Despite these changing trends in marriage and divorce rates, marriage has
remained a robust institution in Australia. In our country marriage has
always been a heterosexual institution and has always been recognised as
such by our common law. To very many Australians marriage is a vital
45 social and religious institution and has particular significance for its
structural role in the raising of a family. It must be acknowledged that these
strong views in our community are an important reason for retaining
marriage as it is.2
And similarly, in the words of Dr David van Gend;
50 If we redefine marriage, we redefine parenting and we redefine family. It is
no small matter to revoke the definition of “family” in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights – “The natural and fundamental group unit of

Page 172
society”3 – and replace it with a genderless fiction.4
1 The Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard,
27 May 2004, p. 29356.
2 Ms Nicola Roxon, House of Representatives Hansard, 16 June 2004, p. 30507.
5 3 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights,http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pd
f (accessed 14 February 2017).
72
10 1.4 The concept of Marriage, as being between a man and a woman, for the
purpose of founding a family is recognized across human history. It spans multiple
cultures, including those which have had no contact with each other. This
understanding of marriage has been acknowledged by the Aboriginal community. In
2015 a bark petition was delivered in Canberra, with 46 signatures from Aboriginal
15 representatives from all over Australia pleading for the Government to “reject any
attempt to redefine the institution of marriage, and in doing so, Honour the sanctity of
both the tradition of marriage and the spiritual implication of this sacred union.”5
1.5 The Australian Law Reform Commission further reinforces the central role
that marriage plays in the socialisation of indigenous children when it notes;
20 Marriage was a central feature of traditional Aboriginal societies. The need
to maintain populations and thereby to ensure that there was always
someone to attend sites and keep up traditions was matched by the desire to
ensure that children were produced according to the right family groups and
the correct affiliations. For these purposes freedom of marriage was
25 restricted by the prohibitions against the marriage of certain close relatives
and by the rule of exogamy, that is, marrying outside one’s group. An
important factor in determining the parties to a marriage was the balancing
of kinship obligations, including reciprocal obligations between individuals,
families or larger groups. 6
30 Rights of the Child
1.6 It is universally accepted that the best environment for a child to be raised is
with their biological parents living under one roof in a marriage relationship. The
institution of marriage, at law, enshrines this in order to promote the best practice
model for raising children.7
35 1.7 While there are of course examples where that ideal is not and cannot be
achieved, it is nonetheless important that the best practice model is the one promoted
by society.
1.8 In all the submissions proposing that the amendments redefining marriage as
from being between “a man and a woman” to “two people”, not once is there mention
40 of the effects such a change could have on the children of same-sex couples.
1.9 Effects on children such as Katy Faust who has said;
I'm so happy that my parents got divorced so I could get to know all you
wonderful women”. I quaffed the praise and savoured the accolades. The
4 David van Gend, Stealing From a Child, Connor Court Publishing, Brisbane, 2016, p. 9.
45 5 Uluru Bark Petition, Uluru Bark Petition, http://ulurubarkpetition.com/ (accessed
14 February 2017).
6 Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (Australian Law Reform Commission
Report 31),
Aboriginal Marriages and Family Structures,12 June 1986, p. 134,
50 http://www.alrc.gov.au/publ

Page 173
ications/12.%20Aboriginal%20Marriages%20and%20Family%20Structures/marriagetradit
ional-
aboriginal-societie (accessed 14 February 2017).
7 Australian Marriage Forum, Submission 73.
5 73
women in my mother’s circle swooned at my maturity, my worldliness. I
said it over and over, and with every refrain my performance improved. It
was what all the adults in my life wanted to hear. I could have been the
public service announcement for gay parenting. I cringe when I think of it
10 now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic
event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner
and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and
dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to
anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all
15 seem to have over our eyes. Kids want their mother and father to love them,
and to love each other.8
1.10 Or Millie Fontana-Fox who told a forum in Parliament House:
The truth is that growing up with two mothers forced me to be confused
about who I was and where I fit in the scheme of the world. And it became
20 increasingly obvious as soon as I hit school. You would see every other
child embracing who they are on mother’s and father’s day… and there I
was sitting back wondering what is wrong with me, and why I don’t have
that connection with my father? Was he such a bad person that that could
not be facilitated for me? When I was age 11 I was finally able to meet my
25 father, and it was one of the happiest days of my life. I felt stable and at
peace for what was probably the first time in my childhood. I saw my
future, I saw my heritage, I saw my other family. And that was something
that I am so grateful to have been given at such a critical time in my
development. And I cannot believe that LGBT is trying to push an agenda
30 that says that my feelings were not important. Somebody’s relationship
should always be respected, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual; but
when it comes to marriage and how closely intertwined marriage is with
child reproduction we cannot say yes to homosexual marriage without
invalidating a child’s right to both genders.9 (Emphasis Added)
35 1.11 These anecdotal examples of the experiences by children living under samesex
households, support the multiple, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate,
empirically, the negative outcomes for children that grow up in same-sex households
as compared to households where children are raised by their biological parents. One
such study was published in the British Journal of Education, Science and Behavioural
40 Science:
Almost all scholarly and policy consideration of same-sex marriage has
assumed that marriage between partners of the same sex would result in
improved outcomes for children, just as marriage generally does for
children with opposite-sex parents. This presumption is so widespread and
45 so strong that the prospect of improved child well-being has been cited as
one of the primary justifications for regularizing same-sex marriage.
8 Kate Faust, Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay
Parent,
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/ (accessed 14 February 2017).
50 9 Millie Fontana-Fox, Child of Gays Millie Fontana speaks at Parliament House,
Canberra,
Page 174
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g4vphO1SkE (accessed 14 February 2017).
74
The evidence presented in Table 4 calls that presumption sharply into
question. On every measure, well-being for children with same-sex parents
5 is lower if those parents are married than if they are not. Figs. 1-6 illustrate
the effect, showing findings from Table 4. Residing with married rather
than unmarried parents of the same sex is associated with substantially
increased depressive symptoms, anxiety and daily distress, and lower
educational achievement and school connectedness. The extremely high
10 lack of positive affect-lack of hopefulness, happiness, a positive affirmation
of life- among children with married, same-sex parents, but low lack of
positive effect among children with unmarried same-sex parents, is
particularly notable.10
1.12 In circumstances where there is clear evidence pointing to the continued view
15 that the best environment to raise children is with their biological parents under the
same roof, we owe it to our children not to change the law.
International Law
1.13 Whilst flawed submissions such as those from Castan Centre for Human
Rights Law11 wrongfully assert that the Australian Government is obligated to
20 redefine marriage according to Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights(ICCPR)12, they wilfully overlook the very precise and deliberate
wording in Article 23(2) of that Covenant, which reads;
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found
a family shall be recognized.
25 1.14 Not only is the language in this article unique in that it is the only one in the
covenant to use gender specific terms, it does so deliberately, with the General
Comments No. 18 stating in regards to Article 23;
Finally, the Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment
will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are
30 reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
legitimate under the Covenant.13
10 Paul Sullins, 'The Unexpected Harm of Same-Sex Marriage: A Critical Appraisal,
Replication
and Re-analysis of Wainright and Patterson’s Studies of Adolescents with Same-sex
35 Parents',British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, vol.11, no. 2, 2015,
pp.
1-22, http://www.sciencedomain.org/download/MTA0NDNAQHBm.pdf (accessed 14
February 2017).
11 Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Submission 63, p.
40 12 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil
and
Political Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf (accessed
14 February 2017).
13 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comment No. 18:
45 Nondiscrimination,
http://ccprcentre.org/doc/ICCPR/General%20Comments/HRI.GEN.1.Rev.9(Vo
l.I)_(GC18)_en.pdf (accessed 14 February 2017).
75
1.15 As Mark Fowler notes in his submission:
50 The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the concept of
‘marriage’ is a definitional construct, and by the terms of Article 23(2) of
Page 175
the ICCPR, included only persons of opposite sex. Importantly, the
Committee held that the right to equality under Articles 2 or 26 of the
ICCPR was not then violated. That is to say, there is no inequality because
the definitional boundary did not enfold persons of the same sex. Such
5 people are equal in all respects and defining marriage as being between
persons of the opposite sex was not to render other people as unequal.14
1.16 This fact has even been commented on by members of the Labor Party (before
Labor recently bought into the identity politics of the rainbow movement) in a
Dissenting Report regarding the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. Labor
10 Senators in that report said:
It is our view that the issue is one of definition, not discrimination. The
Federal Parliament removed all inequalities in law and provided appropriate
protections regarding property issues for all relationships in 2008 when
more than eighty pieces of legislation were amended, with bi-partisan
15 support.15
1.17 Some submissions incorrectly assert that the Government has contravened
Article 26 of the ICCPR, which states
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law”16
20 1.18 The legitimacy of the specificity of Article 23 was tested in Joslin v New
Zealand in 1999, where a lesbian woman took New Zealand to court for allegedly
violating her rights according to the ICCPR by not allowing her the right to marry her
partner. The UN Human Rights Committee ruled;
Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to
25 marriage, any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in
the light of this provision. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the
only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using
the term “men and women”, rather than “every human being”, “everyone”
and “all persons”. Use of the term “men and women”, rather than the
30 general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been
consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty
14 Mark Fowler, Submission 57, p. 3.
15 Senator Mark Furner, Senator Ursula Stephens, Senator Helen Polley, Senator Alex
Gallacher,
35 Senator Catryna Bilyk, Senator Mark Bishop, Senator Glenn Sterle , Dissenting Report By
Individual Labor Senators,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate
/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-
13/marriageequality2012/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/complete
40 d_inquiries/2010-13/marriage_equality_2012/report/d03.ashx (accessed 14 February
2017).
16 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf
(accessed 14 February 2017).
45 76
obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the
Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a
woman wishing to marry each other.
In light of the scope of the right to marry under article 23, paragraph 2, of
50 the Covenant, the Committee cannot find that by mere refusal to provide for
marriage between homosexual couples, the State party has violated the
Page 176
rights of the authors under articles 16, 17, 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, or 26 of
the Covenant.17
1.19 The AHRC submission bizarrely argues that, because Joslin v New Zealand
was in 1999, and some countries since that time have chosen to redefine marriage, that
5 the ruling should be considered largely irrelevant in 2017. 18
1.20 This submission inexplicably avoids the fact that the 1999 ruling by the UN
Human Rights Commission has been reflected multiple times, in 2010, 2014, 2015,
and June 2016 by its European Counterpart, the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR), such as in Hämäläinen v. Finland in July 2014, where the ECHR ruling
10 stated;
In the context of Article 8, the Court referred to its case-law according to
which there is no obligation to grant same-sex couples access to marriage
(see paragraph 71 of the judgment). Indeed, the Court has repeatedly said
that, in view of the absence of clear practice in Europe and the ongoing
15 debate in many European societies, it cannot interpret Article 8 as imposing
such an obligation.19
1.21 While Australia is not subject to the decisions of the ECHR, such rulings
indicate that the similar findings by the UN Human Rights Committee are definitely
not obsolete. Therefore according to the ICCPR, which Australia ratified, the
20 government has absolutely no obligation to redefine marriage to allow for same-sex
marriage, and is therefore not, according to international law, discriminating against
same-sex couples by preserving the institution of marriage.
1.22 The AHRC also argues that the UN Human Rights Committee’s findings in
Joslin v New Zealand narrowly interpreted Article 23 of the ICCPR without
25 considering its compatibility with Articles 2 and 26. However, the UN Human Rights
Committee specifically considered this issue:
The State party contends that the author’s attempt to interpret the principle
of non-discrimination so as to redefine the institution of marriage seeks not
non-discrimination but identical treatment, which goes well beyond the
30 scope of article 26. The Covenant’s travaux pre’paratoires also recognize
17 Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. v. New Zealand, Communication No. 902/1999, U.N. Doc.
A/57/40 at 214 (2002).
18 Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission to the Select Committee on the
Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill,
35 http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d0a12a9a-5c3f-42eb-9519-
2372396e2166&subId=462693 (accessed 14 February 2017).
19 Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC] - 37359/09 Judgment 16.7.2014 [GC]
77
that the right to non-discrimination does not require identical treatment.
40 This institution of marriage is a clear example where the substance of the
law necessarily creates a difference between couples of opposite sexes and
other groups or individuals, and therefore the nature of the institution
cannot constitute discrimination contrary to article 26.20
1.23 The UN Human Rights Committee subsequently found that;
45 In light of the scope of the right to marry under article 23, paragraph 2, of
the Covenant, the Committee cannot find that by mere refusal to provide for
marriage between homosexual couples, the State party has violated the
rights of the authors under articles 16, 17, 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, or 26 of
the Covenant.21
50 1.24 For the AHRC to fail to acknowledge such explicit and clear language in the
findings of Joslin v New Zealand in order to develop its flawed argument, is
Page 177
unbecoming of an institution funded by the taxpayer. It has an obligation to “tell it as
it is”.
1.25 The argument in some submissions that international law evolves according to
state practice is both unsustainable and concerning. State practices in many areas
5 grievously offend basic human rights. As Professor Parkinson states:
The argument that there is a human right to marry a person of the same sex
is based upon broad notions of equality and non-discrimination and the idea
that human rights can ‘evolve’ from changing State practices, rendering
unauthoritative the previous authoritative decisions.3 That is, because a
10 number of jurisdictions now permit same- sex marriage, the ICCPR should
be interpreted to require it. The illogicality of this position is obvious. If
State practices are to be the guide to the interpretation of international
human rights law, then there must be a human right to marry
polygamously.22
15 Freedom of Speech
1.26 In September 2016, a conference on marriage scheduled to be hosted by the
Sydney Anglicans, Sydney Catholics, the Marriage Alliance
and the Australian
Christian Lobby, was cancelled amid abuse and threats of violence from those who
20 support a redefinition of marriage.23
A/57/40 at
214 (2002).
25 A/57/40 at
214 (2002).
22 Professor Patrick Parkinson, Submission 76, p. 6.
23 David Crowe, 'Same-sex marriage event off: threats to hotel staff', The Australian, 17
September 2016, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/samesex-marriage-event-
30 offthreats-to-hotel-staff/news-story/d45bd0f9e9a774fc3e3d0741f176da13 (accessed 14
February 2017).
78
1.27 In 2015, Archbishop Julian Porteous was alleged by Martine Delaney, a
Greens candidate for the 2016 election, to have breached Anti-Discrimination laws by
35 distributing a pamphlet amongst Catholic schools stating the long held teaching of the
church about the importance of marriage, and arguing for the law to be retained. The
case was subsequently dropped as it held no merit.24 That a person can even be taken
to a tribunal for supporting the preservation of a constitutionally sound law represents
a gross perversion of the justice system for the purposes of silencing those with
40 differing views. Such abuses of process make the process a punishment and intimidate
others from giving voice to their views.
1.28 These are merely two examples out of many that demonstrate the extreme
lengths that some proponents of same-sex marriage will go to, to silence opposition,
and to avoid debating the merits. A proposed change in any law should receive
45 scrutiny and rigorous debate. This is especially so if the law relates to society’s
foundational institution.
Freedom of Religion
1.29 Contrary to the views of some submitters, freedom to exercise religion is an
inviolable right set out in the ICCPR25 and Article 116 of the Australian
50 Constitution, which states;
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or
Page 178
for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise
of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for
any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.26
1.30 As such, it is concerning to see that the guarantee to freedom of religion is
5 being disregarded. Rather than people being able to enjoy their right to religious
freedoms, the narrative of some has become that people should not enjoy the right to
religious freedom except for the odd select occasion.
24 Dennis Shanahan, 'Catholic bishops called to answer in anti-discrimination test case',
The
10 Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/catholic-
bishopscalled-to-answer-in-antidiscrimination-test-case/newsstory/
b98439693f2f4aa17aca9b46c7bda776 (accessed 14 February 2017).
15 (accessed14 February 2017).
26 Parliament of Australia, The Australian Constitution Chapter 5. The States,
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitut
ion/chapter5 (accessed 14 February 2017).
79
20 1.31 Beyond affirming the right of people to practice their religion as an inviolable
right, as set out by Article 116 of the Australian Constitution27 and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)28, the Parliament should not be
entertaining the idea of negotiating away the fundamental religious freedoms of
Australians.
25 1.32 The language of the Exposure Draft fails to provide proper protections for the
fundamental rights of people to freely express and manifest their religious beliefs.
This is demonstrated by the manner in which the Exposure Draft regards such a right
as an “exemption”, failing to properly recognise its status as a fundamental and
inviolable right as stated in Article 18 of the ICCPR.29 This failure effectively
30 constitutes discrimination against people of faith, and marginalizes their fundamental
human rights as laid out in the ICCPR. As Dr Sharon Rodrick noted:
Discrimination cuts both ways. Just as there is a right not to be
discriminated against because of your sex or sexual orientation, so there is
an equivalent right not to be discriminated against because of your
35 religion.30
1.33 In any case, any such exemptions “granted” to people of faith will only be
short lived. As stated in Professor Augusto Zimmerman’s submission:
Such exceptions and exemptions are likely to be merely temporary for the
following reasons;
40 1. The 2012 ALP dissenting Senate report on a Same-Sex
marriage bill warned that such assurances are hollow and tactical in
nature rather than a matter of substance. They pointed out how
Denmark has passed legislation to compel churches to officiate at
Same-Sex Ceremonies.31
45 27 Parliament of Australia, The Australian Constitution Chapter 5. The States,
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitut
ion/chapter5 (accessed 14 February 2017).
50 (accessed14 February 2017).

Page 179
and
Political Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf (accessed
14 February 2017).
5 30 Dr Sharon Rodrick, Research Analyst, Institute for Civil Society Committee Hansard,
23 January 2017, p. 27.
31 Senator Mark Furner, Senator Ursula Stephens, Senator Helen Polley, Senator Alex
Gallacher, Senator Catryna Bilyk, Senator Mark Bishop, Senator Glenn Sterle , Dissenting
Report By Individual Labor Senators,
10 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate
/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-
13/marriageequality2012/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/complete
d_inquiries/2010-13/marriage_equality_2012/report/d03.ashx (accessed 14 February
2017).
15 80
2. The Greens have called for an end to the exemption of
religious bodies from the operation of anti-discrimination laws.32
3. Thirty GLBTI, human rights and legal lobby groups to the
2012 inquiry into Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti-
20 Discrimination Laws argued that they wanted no exemptions or
narrow or temporary exemptions only for faith-based organizations,
let alone businesses and other groups.33
1.34 The need for protections for religious bodies, organizations and individuals in
the Bill are an important recognition of the need for rights of people of faith, and are
25 necessary to prevent the proposed amendments from contravening Article 18 of the
ICCPR28. But they need to go further. The concept of a no detriment provision has
substantial merit. People of conscience without a faith are also deserving of
protection. Some submissions have suggested removing this provision, argued that
religious bodies should not be permitted to refuse the provision of goods and services
30 to a ceremony which conflicts with their beliefs. This is akin to forcing a Quaker’s
hall to be provided for Military Recruitment, an act which would run contrary to their
fundamental beliefs.
1.35 It should be re-affirmed that the freedom to practice and manifest ones
religious beliefs, both in private and in public are an inviolable right, enshrined in
35 Article 116 of the Australian Constitution, as well as the ICCPR. It should also be
noted that this right applies, not only to ministers of religion, but all people of faith,
religious leaders, civil celebrants, business owners or individuals taking part in day to
day life. As such, any propositions to place limitations on an individual’s ability to
express their religious beliefs, or to refuse to take part in a ceremony that conflicts
40 with their beliefs is an infringement on their human rights.
Conclusion
1.36 Both Australian and International law agree that maintaining the longstanding
definition of marriage does not discriminate by its specificity.
1.37 After considering all the available evidence, the case has not been made to
45 change the definition of marriage. Marriage is and has been a fundamental cornerstone
of society. Its pre-existence of the nation state, international treaties, and supreme
courts places it in a unique and important social position. It reflects, and upholds the
biological and sociological realities of the family unit, and as such is the best and most
effective system of raising, protecting and socializing our next generation. For that it
50 deserves to be treated by society with the utmost respect, and should continue to
enjoy, as it has, the protection of law.
Page 180
32 Greg Sheridan,'Christian churches drifting too far from the marketplace of ideas', The
Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-
sheridan/christianchurches-drifting-too-far-from-the-marketplace-of-ideas/newsstory/
e641fab1f62b1a63b08cc1ec75634af5 (accessed 15 February 2017).
5 33 Dr Augusto Zimmerman, Submission 54, p. 9.
81
1.38 The Committee report helps highlight the consequences of change and
exposes the shallowness and glibness of the campaign to change the definition of
marriage. It would be no small matter. Even the Attorney General’s Department was
10 unable to say with any accuracy how many other Commonwealth Acts would need to be
consequently amended. The Australian people are entitled to be told the full extent of the
consequences of any proposed change.
Senator the Hon Eric Abetz
Liberal Party of Australia, TAS
15 END QUOTE Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz
I may add that as I understand it the then Prime Minister Paul Keating was a homosexuals well as
a heterosexual (bi-sexual) and at the time Cabinet overrode (from now declassified Cabinet
papers) the then Minister of Defence to allow homosexuals to join the armed force.
20
While the issue to allow homosexuals/heterosexuals/transgender persons to serve in the Armed
forces is a policy matter that rest with the government, so the command of the armed forces.
However, it is well within the right of any person to express his/her concerns exercising political
and religious liberties guaranteed in our constitution. This in particular where when it comes to
25 people of certain religious background promote the killing of others which I view undermines not
only the moral amongst soldiers but may place their safety in jeopardy uncalled for. With the
Armed Forces dictating certain prescribed food certified by some religion upon payment then it
may cause certain defence personnel being forced to consume food/items that are contrary to
their own religious/non-religious views but also is an inappropriate conduct to finance a religious
30 doctrine at cost of taxpayers by paying for a certification of food, etc, as a form of
unconstitutional taxation.
There is obviously a lot more that can be stated about matters but I view you and other persons
with some common sense understand the gist of my writings and that is that whatever a person
35 does in private as adults might be their personal business but when it comes to affecting others
against their desire and in a way becomes forced upon them then it is once constitutional right to
express once objections without fear of adverse conduct by the command of the armed services.
If anything, the past concealment within the armed forces of sexual abuse/bullying, etc may
underline there is a need for anyone to be able to speak up and not be silenced out of fear.
40
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all
issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

45
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
(Our name is our motto!)


20170322-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bernard Gaynor, and To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170322-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bernard Gaynor, and To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20170322-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To MR Bernard Gaynor, and To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Mr Bernard Gaynor & TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 22-3-2017

Page 2 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Page 3 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

42. In Queensland v. The Commonwealth, I would declare that ss. 9 and 12 of

Page 4 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20 And as the Framers of our Constitution made clear:

And then there is this proviso:

Let’s look at how Federal parliament can get it so wrong:

However, limitations in the Australian Constitution meant that the Commonwealth

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3

Therefore, where I successfully challenged for example religious exemptions as being

Page 9 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization

Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation

11:40pm March 12, 2017

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 1

Page 10 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA

ADDRESS TO THE COURT, Part 3

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Page 12 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

15 Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

5 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

We also might consider:

Page 14 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

103 Because freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Page 15 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

Page 17 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Hence, s128 referendum power was provided for.

35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?

45 Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

35 Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-

Page 19 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?

Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-

[start page 1687]

Mr. GORDON.-I am not speaking of Imperial legislation.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-No.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Do I understand him to refer merely to private property?

Sir JOHN FORREST.-Not the same respect as I have.

Page 22 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:-

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?

Page 23 22-3-2017 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?