A REPUBLIC IS ABOUT US

 

There are a lot of ARM types crooning that Barbados has become a republic. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/barbados-declares-a-republic/13655810     And saying that we should follow what they have done. We should become a republic because of the things WE HAVE DONE! To re-establish ourselves as a modern socially and ecologically democratic republic with a citizen enforceable bill of rights.

 

The last ARM republic model was voted down by us republicans because it wasn’t good enough . It sought to replace the English form of legislative dictatorship on behalf of crooks, to an Australian form of legislative dictatorship on behalf of crooks see Kartinyeri at pars [11]-[13] https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/22.html  . We wanted direct election of the new president , repeal of apartheid provisions such as s25 of the constitution

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coacac627/s25.html , indigenous recognition , a statement that we are a modern democracy and a bill of rights. No attempt was made to codify the military powers of the parliament or president.  It was about US, not the royals!

 

The High Court cases of Lange v the ABC and Kable v The DPP and Spycatcher https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1988/25.html  and  Sue v Hill  https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html     are Authority that since the Australia Acts 1986 UKs1  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/2 and Australia http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/aa1986114/   its our constitution that is the law. Though it was said in Sue v Hill that the UK Parliament may seek to take over through repeal of part of that act but the High Court might refuse to allow it . A referendum on a republic is but a formality.

 

We lock pommies up in Villawood . They are a foreign power. After the Woomera breakout, a refugee even tried to seek refuge in the pommie consulate. The pommies being a foreign power had diplomatic status AGAINST US!

Its not really about the royals and the English at all. ITS ABOUT US, AND WHO WE WERE AND WHO WE NOW WANT TO BE !

 

The Union Jack on the Australian Flag is unconstitutional on the face of it. S116 of The Australian Constitution says that “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.” http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

 

The national flag is a creature of statute and is subject to the constitution see  S15A CTH Acts Interpretation Act http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s15a.html

 

 

The flag is legislated for in the CTH Flags Act 1953 s3(1) ands 3(3) here  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fa195361/s3.html

 

The schedule mentions the St Georges Cross but there is also the Cross of st  Andrew and st Patrick http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fa195361/sch1.html

 

 

Whilst s3(2) is what is called “double entrenchment” , a statutory” manner and form requirement” for a law to take effect  , stating that there must be a plebiscite in each state and territory for a new flag , this can be overridden by a new CTH amendment or by the high court .

 

 

John Howard , remember, over-rode the native title act s7 and the racial discrimination act to validate past acts of dispossession and oppression http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/s7.html in s 3(d) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/s3.html

 

 

There is a presumption in favour of liberty ( In Re Yates , Chu Keng Lim )  and the court has consistently said that a law enhancing freedom and democracy will be favoured over a law dimishing it (See McCloy v NSW , Unions NSW No1 and 2, Brown v Tasmania par [222]) .And using the right wingers case against them , Kartinyeri v The CTH  https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/22.html   works in the alternative that any new law can repeal an old one directly/explicitly , indirectly/impliedly through the English doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy which that case in pars [11]-[13] says means “absolute despotic power”.

Freedom FROM religion is a liberty due to the role of religion in oppression.

 

In my cases of Coleman v Power in the Qld Court of appeal here  https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-243.pdf   and here https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-539.pdf    and in the High Court here    I knocked off a provision and charges under the then 70 year old Vagrants Act as being subject to the constitutional law NOW. SINCE THE AUSTRALIA ACTS. The Constitution goes through ALL LAW AND COURT PRACTICE. Lenah per Kirby at pars [204]-[ 210]   http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html     , Brown v Tasmania at par [190]  ,

Old laws can be struck down NOW.

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RE-OPEN THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF DONOR MAFIA MATES !! - Pat Coleman

RE-OPEN THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF DONOR MAFIA MATES !!- Pat Coleman (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 ) Since I started posting all over   they shut off the ECQ Squiz site to break my links. The new site has massive links here https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/disclosure-of-political-donations/published-disclosure-returns   You have to scroll down and chose the archive and manually search from there .     The legal opinion expressed in this article has since been affected by the repeal of s28 of The C TH Crimes Act 1
Read more

SCOOP: THE CRIMES OF TOWNSVILLE MAYOR JENNY HILL’S GANG, MAIDMENT GROUP AND THE CORRUPTION OF LAURENCE LANCINI AND OTHERS. -PAT COLEMAN 5/7/2018

SCOOP: THE CRIMES OF TOWNSVILLE MAYOR JENNY HILL’S GANG, MAIDMENT GROUP AND THE CORRUPTION OF LAURENCE LANCINI AND OTHERS. -PAT COLEMAN 5/7/2018 THE COPPERS CAN CHARGE HER MOB NOW!    PASS THIS TO THE QLD COPPERS (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 ) Since I started posting all over   they shut off the ECQ Squiz site to break my links. The new site has massive links here https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/disclosure-of-political-donations/published-disclosure-returns   You have to scroll down and chose the archive and manually search from there . This article is to
Read more

QLD COMPULSORY PREFERENTIAL VOTING INVALID

  QLD COMPULSORY PREFERENTIAL VOTING INVALID “ Keeping in mind that in Qld, voters are defined as “Electors” , political parties are not to be given unequal status over electors. If political sovereignty means anything an elector should be able to reject candidates and parties who are against optional preferential voting. It would be bullshit for a bullshitting judge to say if you don’t like them vote them out and at the same time say you cant exclude those people and exhaust your vote. The judge should metaphorically speaking, be hung upside down   by the ankles -like Mussolini in the public square,   along with such candidates. “   The consequences of knowingly engaging in unconstitutional behaviour  In Lange v The ABC [1997] HCA 25 , 189 CLR 520 https://jade.io/article/67991?at.hl=Lange+v+the+australian+broadcasting+corporation+%5B1997%5D+189+CLR+520 The Full bench of 7 judges of the high court said that when the constitution deprives legislation or actions of val
Read more