SUBMISSION QLD Human Rights Bill 2018
Compare
this to what was censored https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/LACSC/2018/HumanRights2018/submissions/109.pdf
(NOTE: 23/10/19 The Electoral Commission of Qld has fucked over all my
links to donations returns in my articles. They have changed all links. To make
it easier to view these broken links go to my page with the new links in a new
browser and scroll down to the relevant return in the article. Page link here: https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/10/changed-ecq-donor-returns-links-page.html
)
Committee Secretary
Legal
Affairs and Community Safety Committee
Parliament
House
George
Street
Brisbane
Qld 4000
SUBMISSION QLD Human Rights Bill 2018
THE
HISTORY OF YOUR FAILURES TO ENACT A POSITIVE BILL OF RIGHTS AND STOP THE
INFLUENCE OF BIG MONEY IS INDICATIVE OF YOUR INTENT WHEN IT COMES TO RIGHTS
PROTECTIONS.
In the 1998 former LCARC Report No. 12 “Should Qld
adopt a Bill of Rights” appendix was a full copy of the 1993 EARC Bill of
Rights which included Environmental protection. Report - No.
12, The preservation and enhancement of individuals' rights and freedoms in
Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a Bill of rights?
I refer you to the 2nd senate inquiry into an Australian Republic . There I drafted an environmental rights provision based on the EARC Bill and The South African Constitutional Provisions at p108 of my submission which was written as a law student. How hard could it have been for you to do something like that and make it free standing, enforceable by the citizen in court, with civil and criminal liability attached ? (Well...I suppose ask you factional warriors , donors and donor lobbyists hey??)
https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002_04/republic03/submissions/sub727_pdf.ashx
Environment
18.
(1) Everyone has the right -
(a) to
an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
(b) to
have the environment protected by the federal government, for the benefit of
present
and future generations, and reasonably conserved for its own intrinsic value,
through
legislative and other measures that -
(c)
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation and loss of biodiversity;
(ii)promote
conservation
(iii)
promote justifiable economic and social development. consistent with this
section.
(2)
Any person has the right to object if the right in this section is not observed
and
the
right to expect that government will accept and act on a reasonable objection.
(3)
The actions or decisions of -
(i)
government; or
(ii)
the agents or bodies of government; or
(iii)
any court, tribunal or forum in republic , must be done or made in accordance
with
the precautionary principle.
(4)
The precautionary principle is that lack of full scientific certainty should
not be
used
as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment
where
there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental or ecological
damage.
You lot came up with every lame excuse against it
because it costs government money when people are oppressed. You said it was
gonna be a “lawyers picnic”.
You said constantly that it would limit the Ancient
English Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy . Parliamentary Supremacy is stated
by ancient cases referred to in the High Court of Australia as ‘..absolute
despotic power which in all places must reside somewhere..’. Kartinyeri
v The CTH at par[12]-[13] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/22.html
Qld doesn’t have an Upper House of Review and like a
BOR you give lame excuses as to why not.
You are going to do what you are going to do. And
nothing I say in this submission is gonna change that .
You have refused to
have a BOR before and in the 20 years since this state has lurched from one corruption
scandal to another . And now you wish to create the illusion with the help of
your cronies and QLD political and business mates mafia collaborators and
whiney little labor greasy pole climbers – that are protecting human rights
when you are reducing the limited protections and REPRISAL mechanisms
we have now.
What is it you are hiding from?
You had massive majorities under the previous
Beattie and Bligh governments. Yet you didn’t have it in your hearts to
legalise abortion then. Some feminists! And what is it you labor feminist
ladies say about making excuses about bad men , and if you are in a violent
situation get out of it. LEAVE! I have identified the structures of oppression
and its BLOODY YOU TOO .Your corrupt parties are an act of violence against the people and the
environment.
Despite everything evidenced by history you didn’t
call a royal commission into stolen wages and there were no Nuremburg like
prosecutions of still living police and government officials who kept
indigenous people in slavery whilst embezzling their pitiful wages. And you
only even then, offered a poultry $4000 compensation ‘to those with docs’ when
former pollies and the like could always pick up hundreds of thousands in
bonuses.
It can be seen from the donations disclosures as
compared to government actions , environmental approvals and awarding of
government tenders how and what you have been using , and continue to use ,
that ‘absolute despotic power’ for.
The auditor general’s reports on tenders and
commercial in-confidence proves that.
After the Inquiries into massive Qld local
government corruption , the CCC’s Operation Belcarra and the Parliaments so
called Implementing Belcarra Stage 1 and the Councillor Complaints Inquiry, Labor and the LNP took tens of thousands of
donations from that cesspit of corruption -the LGAQ, which is publicly funded, and who had argued
against the developer donations ban . This was a heist and a rort in my view. http://democracyforsale/search-aec/
and https://disclosures.ecq.qld.gov.au
That legislation was before parliament when you all
took those donations. The outcome was that there was a 6 month delay till the
“backdated developer donation ban” came into effect. And even then you arnt
going to prosecute , you will only pay it back like a loan after it served your
purpose and then redirect further developer money through lobbyists like Damien
Power’s GovStrat and Cameron Milners ‘Next Level holdings’, who pass on a
sizable cut to your parties .
Just so happens they also represent miners who gave
you unlawful foreign donations you didn’t get prosecuted for and people who
want to take chunks of Marine Park and World Heritage areas. Which is another
reason this bill doesn’t include positive environmental rights.
You held another recent expensive donations inquiry
into the banning of corporate donations on top of the developer donation ban. In
that Inquiry you unlawfully redacted and censored publicly available donations
disclosures from your own websites that were used to explain why the bans
should be widened . I refer to the
submissions here https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/committees/EGC/inquiries/current-inquiries/ElectoralPolDonations2018
and mine is sub 13 . How it they were unlawfully censored is here in my
blogpost:
RE-OPEN THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF DONOR MAFIA MATES !! -by Pat Coleman
https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/07/re-open-submissions-to-qld-donations.html
You did this knowing it that whilst it was
demonstrably unlawful, parliamentary privilege meant that it could not be
mentioned in court. I am fully aware this is DONE AS A PROVACATION TO GET ME TO
SAY I WANT TO THROTTLE YOU OR SOMETHING. This won’t work as there is a difference
between how I think and what I do in these respects. Does you bill mean you
have to publish them in full or a court can order it? Doubt it.
THE
“ENFORCEMENT” PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
The first thing to be looked at in considering
whether an act conferring rights actually protects them , is what actions a
CITIZEN THEMSELVES may take against state actors or those acting on their
behalf.
We go straight to s58-59 of the Bill .
Division 4 Obligations on public entities
58 Conduct of public entities
(1) It
is unlawful for a public entity—
(a) to
act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible
with
human rights; or
(b) in
making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration
to a
human right relevant to the decision.
(2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to a public entity if the entity
could
not reasonably have acted differently or made a
different
decision because of a statutory provision, a law of
the
Commonwealth or another State or otherwise under law.
Example—
A
public entity is acting to give effect to a statutory provision that is not
compatible
with human rights.
(3)
Also, subsection (1) does not apply to a body established for a
religious
purpose if the act or decision is done or made in
accordance
with the doctrine of the religion concerned and is
necessary to avoid
offending the religious sensitivities of the people of the religion.
(4)
This section does not apply to an act or decision of a private
nature.
(5)
For subsection (1)(b), giving proper consideration to a human
right
in making a decision includes, but is not limited to—
(a)
identifying the human rights that may be affected by the
decision;
and
(b)
considering whether the decision would be compatible
with
human rights.
(6) To remove any doubt, it is declared that—
(a) an act or decision of a public entity is not
invalid merely
because, by doing the act or making the decision,
the
entity contravenes subsection (1); and
(b) a person does not commit an offence against
this Act or
another Act merely because the person acts or makes
a
decision in contravention of subsection (1).
59 Legal proceedings
(1)
Subsection (2) applies if a person may seek any relief or
remedy
in relation to an act or decision of a public entity on
the
ground that the act or decision was, other than because of
section
58, unlawful.
(2)
The person may seek the relief or remedy mentioned in
subsection
(1) on the ground of unlawfulness arising under
section
58, even if the person may not be successful in
obtaining
the relief or remedy on the ground mentioned in
subsection
(1).
(3) However, the person is not entitled to be
awarded damages on
the ground of unlawfulness arising under section
58.
(4) This section does not affect a right a person
has, other than
under this Act, to seek any relief or remedy in
relation to an
act or decision of a public entity, including—
(a) a right to seek judicial review under the Judicial
Review
Act 1991 or the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999;
and
(b) a
right to seek a declaration of unlawfulness and
associated
relief including an injunction, a stay of
proceedings
or an exclusion of evidence.
(5) A
person may seek relief or remedy on a ground of
unlawfulness
arising under section 58 only under this section.
(6)
Nothing in this section affects a right a person may have to
damages apart from the operation
of this section.
60 Entity may choose to be subject to obligations
(1) An
entity may ask the Minister, in writing, to declare that the
entity
is subject to the obligations of a public entity under this
division.
(2) If
asked under subsection (1), the Minister must make the
declaration
by gazette notice.
(3)
The Minister must, by gazette notice, revoke the declaration if
asked in writing by the
entity.
Despite s 14 of the bill which sets out :
14 Human rights are protected
Nothing
in this Act gives any person or other entity a right to limit to a greater
extent than is provided for under this Act, or destroy, a human right of any
person.
If the bill were to
become law and were relied on in court anyway:
- s58(1) and (6) means the act doesn’t allow you to clobber private prisons companies contracted by the state ;
- private security hired by the state or local councils;
- private security, companies contracted by public entities contracted by the state who are public entities under s9 and 10 ;
- The private company which has become a public entity can also tell the minister it doesn’t want to have human rights obligations under 60(3).
USING THE BILLS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
ASSOCIATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY
S21-23 OF THE BILL SETS OUT:
21 Freedom of expression
(1)
Every person has the right to hold an opinion without
interference.
(2)
Every person has the right to freedom of expression which
includes
the freedom to seek, receive and impart information
and
ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Queensland
and
whether—
(a)
orally; or
(b) in
writing; or
(c) in
print; or
(d) by
way of art; or
(e) in
another medium chosen by the person.
22 Peaceful assembly and freedom of association
(1) Every person has the right of peaceful assembly
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and join trade unions.
23 Taking part in public life
(1) Every person in Queensland has the right, and
is to have the opportunity, without discrimination to participate in the
conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Every eligible person has the right, and is to
have the opportunity, without discrimination—
(a) to vote and be elected at periodic State and
local government elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of
the electors; and
(b) to have access, on general terms of equality,
to the public service and to public office.
Freedom of expression and the right to protest on
the street.
The current s5 of the Peaceful assemblies act sets
out that 2 or more people are an assembly and have the positive right of
assembly in a public place. If this is carried out in a manner which is not
under the current laws- a breach of the peace , then it is not a public nuisance
nor disorderly merely because its a protest or an act of peaceful political
expression .
However , in a ‘Kafkaesque’ and ‘catch 22’ twist of
legal gymnastical bureaucratic bullshit 1 person acting alone can be targeted
by council laws that would have been otherwise unlawful by virtue of that
section , or by rogue coppers or state hired security.
The Qld Court of Appeal upheld that 1 person was not
protected by the peaceful assemblies act in Coleman v Sellars . The UNHRC
Whilst upholding my right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the
ICCPR for being prosecuted and gaoled for matters of reading out the UNDHR
without a council permit, said that 1 person was not protected by freedom of
assembly. Your bill does not set out how previous UNHRC decisions are to be
implemented.
http://cynicismcentral.pvthosting.net
, Coleman v Australia https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/coleman-v-australia-hrc-communication-no-11572003-un-doc-ccprc87d11572003-10-august-2006
At the moment 1 person can be targeted, although
unlawfully, for public nuisance or a breach of the peace because of a lack of
an enforceable statutory positive right under state law.
There are magistrates courts decisions, district
court decisions, other court of appeal decisions and supreme court civil
decisions that say that protest is not ipso facto unlawful and that such
arrests can be resisted but a cop merely has to claim nuisance and you have to
go through the rigmarole of fighting the cops and arguing your case at common law.
As your bill would have it if , during that unlawful
arrest you are subjected to cruel or degrading treatment , you could neither
sue a ‘public entity’ being a state actor , or claim a criminal offence has
been committed IF THE ACT IS RELIED ON IN COURT.
You would have to state unequivocally at the
beginning judicial proceedings you make no reliance on the act and you will
fight it under existing provisions because if you did so you would be denied
damages for false imprisonment and excessive force. And every act of resistance
will have been for nothing.
You wont even be able to say that a cop
discriminated against you and this was an ulterior motive . And will have to
prove it in the usual ways which is difficult because you appoint acting beaks
who are scared to challenge “authority” unless they don’t get the full gig.
This sort of
situation is bound to increase violence for people to be able to gain a
‘remedy’ at first instance on the street straight away. And to have your
protagonists medical info to nail to the door of the corrupt politicians who
brought about the situation.
But here is another gymnastical way around that
The Crimes Act 1914 was amended to repeal the free standing right of
protection from interference with political liberty that applied to “Any political
Right” that used to be expressed in
s28. This went through all jurisdictions. So, when they realised this old law
was there they repealed it . It used to say :
“CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, commits an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.”
Have a look at
volume 2 here https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00274/Download
Now you have to go through the rigmarole using s 4 , 9 and s327(1) of
the CTH Electoral Act
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s327.html
“Interpretation”
and legalese the court (cos the coppers will have arrested you now) to prove
your protest or comments were an “electoral matter” and ss9 there that affects
or is likely or calculated (O’Sullivan v
Lunnon http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/57.html
) to affect any election at any time based on the word “THE” meaning “ANY”
election in s322 “interpretation” before you get protected by s 327 (1) that says Interference
with political liberty etc.
327(1) A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free
exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty
that is relevant to an election under this
Act. Penalty:
Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty units, or
both.
What that mean again, is that people will have to
refuse to refer to your act and instead use ;
- The freedom of communication ;
- Because s327 refers to ‘ANY’ political right , the ICCPR and common law cases ;
- The Criminal Code
- The common law definitions of breaches of the peace and recent decisions making it unlawful to arrest a protestor merely because they are protesting , for public nuisance (Subject to hate speech and the CTH Racial Discrimination Act)
Does
the proposed bill enhance or protect voters rights ?
Let us refer to the Qld Electoral Act which used to
allow for optional preferential voting. OPV allowed voters to refuse to vote
for corrupt people and fascists, Nazis and religious nutters and people whom
they otherwise didn’t like in their electorates by leaving their squares blank
on the ballot .
You changed this so we couldn’t refuse to vote for
you no more or we couldn’t vote at all . The relevant parts of the new
provision used in 2017 are as follows:
Electoral
Act 1992 QLD123Formal and informal ballot papers
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1992-028#sec.123
(1)Subject to this section, for a ballot paper to have effect to
indicate a vote for the purposes of this Act—
(b)the ballot paper must not contain any writing or
mark (other than as authorised by this Act) by which the elector can be
identified; and
(2)A ballot paper is taken to contain writing or
marks that indicate the voter’s intended order of preferences, even though the
square opposite the name of 1 of the candidates has been left blank, if—
(a)the voter has written the numbers 1, 2, 3 and so
on in all the squares opposite the candidates’ names except for the blank
square; and
(b)the numbers mentioned in paragraph (a) are consecutive numbers,
without the repetition of a number.
(2A)A ballot paper mentioned in subsection (2) is taken to indicate that
the candidate whose name is opposite the blank square is the voter’s last
preference.
Corruption buster Tony Fitzgerald rightly condemned
this act of bastardry as being corrupt.
So , let us look at s 15, ss 21(1) , 21(2)(b) , 22(2) and s23 of your bill. If the bill
said that a provision of an act was invalid to the extent of any inconsistency,
then a court could direct the electoral commission to count formal any vote
that was cast in the fashion of the previous OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL MANNER
because:
- A person has the right to vote in writing but express their right NOT TO EVEN RECOGNISE someone other than their first or consequent preferences;
- A corollary of the right to freely associate is the right to disassociate from people they don’t like , or have personal information that requires them to exercise their conscience against at the ballot box. It is ironic that the consorting laws make it unlawful to associate with people after a police warning and you can commit an offence , but if you have no intention of associating with them and don’t want to vote for them they force you to recognise them on the ballot for even your first preference to be valid ; and
- We are unable , without discrimination , to cast our vote in the manner which we please , and exhaust our preference as we please to adhere to the preamble to the act and the lessons from our own, and world history.
But , alas , all that is another illusion and we
have to resort to the constitutional implication of freedom of communication .
Access, on general terms of equality, to the public
service and to public office. BUYING INFLUENCE A BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS .
The existing general
constitutional law as regards to equality of access to government :
The High Court of Australia Held in Nationwide News (1992)
177 CLR 1 that there is an implied right to access the seat of government at p
60, 72, 73, and 74 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/46.html
- There are also discussions about freedom of movement in Kruger v Commonwealth ("Stolen Generations case") [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1; (1997) 146 ALR 126; (1997) 71 ALJR 991 (31 July 1997) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/27.html
The Supreme Court of Qld said in Coleman v Watson and The
State of Qld and Ors Its a fundamental right to access the parliament, Justice
Cullinane intentionally did not explain where he got that from to “DILUTE” my
precedent ;
Coleman v Watson and The State of Qld and Ors http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2007/343.html
http://cynicismcentral.pvthosting.net/watsonmagistratesday1p1-86.pdf.pdf for evidence and circumstances but day 2 in
court for final submissions Townsville
Magistrates Court File Number 0332003 D.2 T21/RTN M/T TSV7600 (HILLAN MAGISTRATE) p 112-135 http://cynicismcentral.pvthosting.net/day2.pdf
The High Court further held in McCloy v NSW [2015] HCA 34 (7 October 2015) there must be equality of access to government
They upheld the NSW ban on developer donations . They were against the
Americanisation of donations. It was said at par [93] “...the public interest in removing the risk and perception of
corruption is evident. These are provisions which support and enhance equality of access to government,
and the system of representative government which the freedom protects. The
restriction on the freedom is more than balanced by the benefits sought to be
achieved.” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html
The Qld Court of
Appeal held that equality before the law was a constitutional principle In re : Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act
2002 (Qld), Re [2003] QCA 249 (13 June 2003) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2003/249.html
- Derived from this is the political right to access the seat of government and its services on the basis of equality. This cannot be legislated away and I feel this is a new area of litigation.
- You favour donors who get what they want , wreck the environment and when people come up against this , coppers who are under pressure will use excuses to breach peoples human rights to protest against it . But catch 22 , they cant use this act or they will do themselves out of damges.
- It is clear that laws and actions that enhance the perception that corruption is evident, say, like compulsory preferential voting, or allowing foreign or corporate donations, and donors seeking tenders are increasingly held in low regard by the High Court. But you have to get it into court.
- It is clear from your bill that you are seeking to protect your donors who become public entitles . Under your bill they can opt out of human rights protections and cant be civilly or criminally prosecuted by using the act. Commercial in-confidence protects the arrangements from being public or the fact that it was a simple dodgy pay off that got them the gig and the terms of the contracts would expose that.
- Your bill , s17 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment
A
person must not be—
(a)
subjected to torture; or
(b)
treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; and
- S 30 Humane treatment when deprived of liberty sets out :
(1)
All persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Yet the motives of the
private prisons industry are those of profit. Thus prisoners guilty or not,
awaiting trial, become property and commodities like slaves. This is inhuman,
cruel and degrading. It affects the innocent not adjudged as well as those who
are guilty.
And despite everything
your bill says about that, no law will be overturned by it. Imprisonment must
be done by the state alone.
THE EQUALITY PROVISIONS IN PROCEEDINGS
I refer to s32 and 33 of
your bill. Because people are want to be poor and get arrested enforcing their
human rights , it is as stated before a matter of course they end up in court .
Invariably it is the magistrates court.
If you are brought before
the District Court you get a free transcript, Yet if you fight a trial in the
magistrates court , as I have done many times , you are not allowed to film or
have a free transcript of proceedings . You are forced to buy your own words
back . it doesn’t help that they are expensive and reporting has been
privatised . Thats cos they have an interest in not allowing you access without
payment because of their profit motive. And you have an interest because of
their donations.
- Because matters of evidence can swing on verbals it is necessary to have transcript to refer to in final submissions because your fate hangs upon it.;
- Because a civil trial will result from flogging coppers below , you need your record evidence from below and you may have no money . Even if you have won you need something to help you find a lawyer . But that would cost money .
- Not having transcripts or a complete record of proceedings to refer to is a breach of procedural fairness in those proceedings based on you lack of means (Kalifeh v District Court Judge Job (1996) 85 ACRIMR 68 at 69)
- There is nothing stopping a justice from ordering you be allowed to film the proceedings in the interests of justice, subject to the current exclusions . However, though your bill , if it said that any law or action is invalid to the extent of any inconsistency would force them to allow you to film proceedings as a record at no cost , and , though you could refer to the equality provisions to interpret current provisions , you would be denied compo cos you used the act in court .
- The inexpensive option is to allow people to organise the filming of their proceedings , or amend the Justices Act 1886 to make it compulsory for the state to do so and supply a disk at no or at nominal cost like you would in an RTI application. It will work itself out. But your bill fails because of the reasons provided. It should be amended and the justices act should be amended to make all the provisions freestanding and enforceable with civil and criminal liability attached.
Equality and right to information
A person who is
impecunious is more than likely skint from having to fight the state , and
having to pay an up front fee for matters concerning their personal affairs .
Obtaining this information during trials and before civil proceedings , or to
assist in the complaints process is as crucial
as discovery. s34 and other
provisions relating to time costings of the Right to information act should
either be amended to get rid of all fees for personal affairs or the provisions
of your bill must be made free standing and enforceable with civil and criminal
liability attached .
Civil liability of police in QLD
Because your bill would seemingly negate civil or criminal liability attaching to police, if referred to , and the previous provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 made it impossible to get both coppers and the state for exemplary damages , that act , s10.5 should be amended to state unequivocally that both police and the state are civilly liable if they are not acting in the course of lawful duty for the 3 heads of damages in tort , being general , aggravated and exemplary damages to teach the state that tort doesn’t pay . This would put the common law where it is supposed to be in QLD. Your bill should be amended to make freedom of expression free standing so that it reflects unequivocally that it is nor part of the states duty to stop non fascist expression .
PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
Because you would,
with your bill , seek to limit REPRISALS
by citizens against state entities , or non state entities who happen
to be donors who don’t recognise lefty greenie freedom of protest against
corruption , it is necessary to rearrange the criminal code provisions relating
to private prosecutions to make it easier from them to be brought against your
donors and state actors .
After all , they pay your way , you make the laws
regarding police activities , the way we vote , who gets appointed to the DPP ,
the definitions of corruption , the enforcement of electoral offences , or the
manner in which the state doesn’t act at all against itself . Surely , this is
what is needed cos you are all paid by the same people and their lobbyists to
do the same dodgy stuff that leads to rights infringements in the first place
...Catch 22!!
Pat Coleman
Comments
Post a Comment