Yesterday, the first VACCINE-GATE case hit the British High Court.
ANDREW BRIDGEN RAISES THE ISSUE OF EXCESS VACCINE DEATHS IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT
This legal challenge comes just 19 days after a British MP, ANDREW BRIDGEN, made a speech in the House of Commons in which he pointed out that South Australia would be a model case for examining the lethal impact of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The following statements are from Andrew Bridgen’s speech in the House of Commons:
The one place that can help us understand exactly what has caused this is Australia, which had almost no covid when vaccines were first introduced, making it the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only 1,000 cases of covid across its whole population by December 2021, before omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44-year-olds, there were historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With the vaccine roll-out to the under-50s, this rocketed to over 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, which was 67% more than usual. Overall, 17,900 South Australians had a cardiac emergency in 2021 compared with only 13,250 in 2018, which is a 35% increase. The vaccine must clearly be the No. 1 suspect for this, and it cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021, and that increase is due to cardiac deaths.
These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population, because there are fewer deaths from the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of covid, because they have happened in places that covid had not reached. They are not due to low statin prescriptions or undertreated hypertension, as Chris Whitty would suggest, because prescriptions did not change, and any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental covid-19 vaccines.
On the 25th October 2023, i.e., yesterday, a Federal Court decision may have opened the door to almost all people who have been infected with COVID-19 being able to sue both the Federal Government AND their State Government.
The details are below, but keep in mind the fact that the “summary” of the Federal Court’s decision decision is a staggering 290 pages long. A crucial ‘summary’ point is the following “ought to have known” statement, which applies not only to COVID-GATE, but also to VACCINE-GATE and the WELFARE-GATE massacres.
Justice Stewart stated:
I have found that before the embarkation of passengers on the Ruby Princess for the cruise in question, the respondents knew or ought to have known about the heightened risk of coronavirus infection on the vessel, and its potentially lethal consequences, and that their procedures for screening passengers and crew members for the virus were unlikely to screen-out all infectious individuals. That knowledge arises from the respondents’ experience in February 2020 of coronavirus outbreaks on other vessels owned and operated by them, namely the Diamond Princess off Japan and the Grand Princess off California, their knowledge of the characteristics of the virus and in particular that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people could be infectious, and the respiratory illness outbreak on the Ruby Princess’s immediate past voyage. To the respondents’ knowledge, to proceed with the cruise carried a significant risk of a coronavirus outbreak with possible disastrous consequences, yet they proceeded regardless.
The following COVID-19 documentary video opens the door for 935.000 people South Australians to sue the South Australian Parliament for criminal neglect.
The fact of the matter, which is clearly evident in the video, is that the South Australian Government predicted that removing quarantine restrictions could result in many thousands of people being infected and could result in an estimated death toll over an arbitrary 300-day period of as many as 424 deaths.
Viewers of the video should note that the Marshall Government, the ALP under the leadership of Peter Malanauskas, and independent members of the South Australian Parliament knew that lifting the border quarantine restrictions “carried a significant risk of a coronavirus outbreak with possible disastrous consequences, yet they proceeded regardless.”
[NOTE: the list of orders can be printed from this page]
Readers take note – the statement below does not state that the “summary” is 290 pages long.
“In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the reasons for judgment and orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court’s reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at http://www.fedcourt.gov.au together with this summary.”
BOUGHEY v R. [HCA 29, 6th June 1986)
SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE ASKED A JUDGE IF THE ROADMAP OF DEATHS WAS LEGAL
The Pandemic Treaty will enable the World Health Organization to globally suspend national constitutions and the human rights of every person in the world. Check out this video and watch the first 2 minutes:
The Voice Referendum was “a resounding thumping” acccording to Channel 9’s political editor Charles Croucher, with only the bureaucrat laden Australian Capital Territory voting to support the proposed change to the referendum. However, as the most recent COVID-19 statistics reveal, with over 5,700 unlawful deaths in 2023, the Federal Paeliament has some serious explaining to make to the courts as well as families of the victims.
Charles Croucher summnarized the referendum results with these comments:
“This was a comprehensive result across the board. NSW and Victoria were both in the 50-odds. That is a thumping in any measure.”
Charles Croucher also said the “bigger picture” of the referendum wasn’t drawn on state or political lines, but of generational. “Those on the polling booths would say younger people were more inclined to vote Yes. The polling says that,” he said.
The ‘streets verse the elites’
“Then there’s the thing – the defining battle is this idea of the ‘streets verse the elites’ – that’s those that have verses those that haven’t.
“Those wealthier educated suburbs vote yes, the Teal seats voted yes, and those outer Metropolitan regional seats in particular voted No.”
Charles Croucher pointerd out a crucial fact: Ordinary people, Aussie Battlers, who are stuggling to cope with the huge rises in the cost of living, voted NO, but the wealthy voted YES.
Australia has also been divided in another, far more serious way.
COVID-GATE: This is my colloquial name for the following bio-terrorist casualty figures:
WE STARTED 2023 WITH ANOTHER 23 DEATHS
The Ultimate DivisionSince the 1st Janauary 2023, 5,785 more people have died from COVID-19. All of these deaths were totally avoidable.
However by not complying with the law, the COVID-19 death toll has been allowed to rise, and rise, and keep on rising.
2020 DEATH TOLL – 909
31st DECEMBER 2020 – A TOTAL OF 909 DEATHS
2021 DEATH TOLL – 1,330 MORE DEATHS
31st DECEMBER 2021 – THE CLAYTON’S QUARANTINE
The so-called ‘tough’ quarantine measures were a con job as the international notders were left open and airliners flew in the deadly COVID-19 virus on a daily basis. As a consequence in 2021, the death toll increased from 909 to 2,239, but worse was to come in in 2022.
THE 2022 DEATH TOLL OF 17,052
WE STARTED 2023 WITH ANOTHER 23 DEATHS
In 2022, the death toll increased from 2,239 to 17,053 as of 22L59 p.m. on the 31st December 2022 – an increase of 14,813.
NOW WE HAVE THIS:
WHICH COUNT IS MORE IMPORTANT?
The results of the referendun, or the still rising COVID-19 death toll?
Ron Medlicott. Citizen, teacher and volunteer Christian lay-advocate
The message to be had from the text of the email below is that Senator Lidia Thorpe is still selling out the people of Victoria, which is really bad news when it comes to her response to the World Health Organization’s blatant grab for total control of the world once they decide to declare a pandemic.
The email to Senator Thorpe: Like my previous email, this email should have been given to the federal Police and since they have not been knocking on my door, or smashing it down, I suspect that the senator for Victoria is continuing to conceal these crimes.
Hmm! Not good
TEXT OF THE EMAIL
10th October 2023
ATTN: Senator Lidia Thorpe – via email
Re: The text of my previous email to you can be viewed online by any interested party, e.g., the Australian Federal Police or other vested interest parties.
If you and your staff deliberately ignore the information that I provided to you in yesterday’s email, you may face serial murder charges.
I would point out that as a member of the Australian Federal Parliament, you have constitutional obligations, statute law obligations and, since October 2020, a Sworn Oath of Office obligations to uphold the law. Not forwarding my email to the Federal Police, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or going public with the information provided may. in law, make you a voluntary accessory to the criminal abuses of public office that I mentioned in my email.
To put it bluntly, doing nothing about either that email or this email is not a viable legal option, unless you want to risk imprisonment for life.
Division 2 Public interest disclosures
25 Simplified outline
The following is a simplified outline of this Division:
The protections in Division 1 apply to public interest disclosures.
Broadly speaking, a public interest disclosure is a disclosure of information, by a public official, that is:
• a disclosure within the government, to an authorised internal recipient or a supervisor, concerning suspected or probable illegal conduct or other wrongdoing (referred to as “disclosable conduct”); or
• a disclosure to anybody, if an internal disclosure of the information has not been adequately dealt with, and if wider disclosure satisfies public interest requirements; or
• a disclosure to anybody if there is substantial and imminent danger to health or safety; or
• a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with the above matters.
Subdivision A—Public interest disclosures
26 Meaning of public interest disclosure
(1) A disclosure of information is a public interest disclosure if:
(a) the disclosure is made by a person (the discloser) who is, or has been, a public official; and
(b) the recipient of the information is a person of the kind referred to in column 2 of an item of the following table; and
(c) all the further requirements set out in column 3 of that item are met:
Column 1: Item Column 2: Recipient Column 3: Further requirements
Colum 1 Item 3 Type Emergency disclosure
Column 2 Recipient – Any person other than a foreign public official
Column 3 Further requirements (See the text below)
The discloser believes on reasonable grounds that the information concerns a substantial and imminent danger to the health or safety of one or more persons or to the environment.
I would point out that as a direct consequence of the members of the fake ‘National Cabinet’ being allowed by 226 members of the Federal Parliament to override the Constitution, the lawful authority of both the Federal Cabinet and the Federal Parliament itself, there have been deliberate violations of Commonwealth anti-terrorism, biosecurity and public health and safety laws. As a consequence of the Members of the Federal Parliament letting the fake ‘National Cabinet’ commit these crimes, almost 12 million people have been infected with what the World Health Organization considers to be “a lethal and dangerous disease” that has been, since at least January 31st 2020, “a public health emergency of international concern.”
Would you care to explain your personal failure to do the job that the people of Victoria expected you to do? In 1898, when Lord Haldane placed before the House of Commons the Bill to establish Australia’s proposed federal constitution, he stated the following:
“This bill is permeated through and through with the spirit of the greatest institution which exists in the Empire, and which pertains to every Constitution established within the Empire—I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible to—nay, is almost the creature of—the Legislature.
This is not so in America, but it is so with all the Constitutions we have granted to our self-governing colonies. On this occasion we establish a Constitution modelled on our own model, pregnant with the same spirit, and permeated with the principle of responsible government.”
In order to ensure ‘responsible government’, and in order to protect the people of Australia from “a lethal and dangerous disease”, it was, and it still is, the responsibility of every Senator in the Australian Parliament to veto the entry of COVID-19 into any part of the commonwealth of Australia. It was also the collective responsibility of every non-executive member of the Australian Federal Parliament to veto the unlawful decisions made by Scott and/or the Federal Executive. As a direct consequence of the failure of every non-executive member of the Australian Federal Parliament to veto these unlawful decisions, almost 12 million people have had their lives placed in deadly peril and nearly 23,000 people have been murdered. I would also draw to your attention, the fact of law that every elected member of every State and Territory Parliament also has precisely the same legal obligation within their respective parliaments. Every one of you had, and still has, a legal obligation to prevent the Executive from violating Australia’s binding anti-terrorism and biosecurity laws – no exceptions allowed, which makes Gladys Berejiklian’s “Call the ICAC” statement in regard to the COVID-19 Murders video extremely relevant to the current situation.
The fact of law is that even as you read this communication, you have both a personal knowledge of “a substantial and imminent danger to the health or safety of one or more persons” and multiple obligations to follow in the footsteps of ATO whistle-blower, Richard Boyle, and ‘blow the whistle’ on this murderously lethal criminal activity.
AN ASIDE – THE ‘GOOD FAITH MURDERS
A quick side step – Rebecca Skinner’s apology to Centrelink staff for acting in “good faith” when systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients is worthless as, in law, there is no such thing as a “good faith murder”or, given the number of deaths, a “good faith holocaust.”
Now you know why, when Peter Dutton asked if the Parliament could override the Constitution, Mark Dreyfus instantly went ballistic. The Parliament has not only being violating the Constitution for decades, the ‘total of the tape’ on the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” welfare penalties death toll really does validate the use of the term ‘holocaust’. Since Mark Dreyfus QC had studiously ignored these murders in 2010, nothing, absolutely nothing, must now be allowed to let these murders float to the surface in the aftermath of the taxpayer funded Robodebt cover-up, i.e., the Robodebt Royal Commission of inquiry.
BACK ON TOPIC:
At the present time, the State Government in Victoria is deliberately concealing the massive death toll caused by unlawfully allowing COVID-19 into the State. Check out this online con job:
Step #2: Scroll down to COVID-19 associated deaths, rolling 7-day average by jurisdiction, 01 Jan 2022 to 03 Oct 2023 and hire someone with a PhD in Statistics to tell you how many people died in Victoria on the 1st October 2023. Alternately, complete the following steps:
Step #3: Scroll down to the Hyperlink titled “State and territory statistics” and click on it.
Step #4: Click on the hyperlink for the State of Victoria.
Step #5: Scroll down the web page and click on the hyperlink titled “Coronavirus (COVID-19) case numbers and statistics”.
Step #6: Congratulations! You have gone full circle and are now back at Step #1 and can repeat this cycle fruitlessly and endlessly until you either fall asleep or die. (Whichever comes first.)
For the record, the last published data on Victoria’s COVID-19 death toll before this con job was introduced was as of 3rd September 2023. The data as of that date revealed the following facts about Daniel Andrews leadership skills when it came to managing the illegal entry of COVID-19 into Victoria:
COVID-19 cases: 2,972,239 confirmed cases
COVID-19 deaths: 8,392 confirmed deaths in which the disease was a primary or a comorbidity factor.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics
When it comes to out-of-date, the ABS wins the prize for totally useless COVID-19 statistics:
Between the 5th April 2020 and the 9th September 2022, accurate and highly informative information was available from the ‘COVID-19 at a glance’ infographic reports:
MY BOO-BOO: on the 9th September 2020, I sent a message pointing out to Dr. Kidd, the Commonwealth’s Deputy Chief health Officer, that COVID-19 fatalities were culpable homicides because allowing COVID-19 into Australia was a bioterrorist activity. The response was to stop publishing the highly informative ‘infographic data sheets’. (Hmm!) I do not believe that this was a coincidence as the current obfuscation of the casualty figures conceals the ancient art of “cooking the books”. Re-open the following URL and scroll down to the interactive graph titled ‘COVID-19 associated deaths, 01 Jan 2022 to 03 Oct 2023’
Place the tip of your mouse cursor on the very end of the line graph and note that the provisional death toll is just ‘2’, which is highly misleading. Note also that the peak ‘Rolling-7 day-average-death-toll’ peaked at about 110 on or about the 26th January 2022. This raises the question as to when did the fake ‘National cabinet’, led by Scott Morrison, intend to call it quits and impose an internal borders quarantine?
The answer is of course – NEVER. No matter how many people died, the economy, and re-election, came ahead of all else, including the massive COVID-19 death toll.
“FACTS DO NOT CEASE TO EXIST…”
100-years ago in 1923, Aldous Huxley wrote that“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
I make that point because you are one of the 227 reasons in the Australian Federal Parliament why our nation’s indigenous people have horrendous health problems. You are also one of the reasons why welfare recipient death rates have been up to 713% greater than the Standardized Death rates reports by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Before you spit the dummy on that seemingly outrageous and defamatory statement, please re-read Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the current Constitution:
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 conscription),
benefits to students
and family allowances;
Every indigenous person in Australia is entitled to ask what part of “medical and dental services” don’t you understand? Under section 268.5 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), medical and dental services are resources indispensable for survival. These services are far more than ‘just’ a constitutional right; like unemployment allowances, as Section 268.5 (2) of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act (1995) makes quite clear, these services are a legal obligation upon the Federal Parliament that carries the penalty of imprisonment for life if they are not provided:
268.5 Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts certain conditions of life upon one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group; and
(c) the perpetrator intends to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such; and
(d) the conditions of life are intended to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) In subsection (1):
conditions of life includes, but is not restricted to, intentional deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as deprivation of food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.
The Parlinfo search engine reports 1,336 instances of the phrase “resources indispensable for survival” but I cannot find any mention of a Hansard record where you have ever used that phrase in Senate debates.
Indeed, I can only wonder how many times in your capacity as a Centrelink Indigenous Advisor, did you fail to tell breached indigenous people that not only were their constitutional rights being violated, they were also the victims of State-sanctioned-genocide? Similarly, how many times did you fail to tell indigenous victims of the murderously lethal Robodebt scam that if a Centrelink error had occurred more than 6 weeks previously, then nothing had to be repaid as 100% of the debt was required to be waived under Section 1,237A of the Social Security Act. Did you also forget to mention that the moment that they told a Centrelink official, e.g., yourself, that they believed a mistake had been made, then, in law, Centrelink was required to argue the merits of its claim in a court hearing.
If you have watched the following video, you will understand why it has been Standard Operating Procedure for decades to ‘skip-the-courts’ as no court that viewed the following video would accept any ‘evidence’ from Centrelink’s incredibly dysfunctional computer system as being credible and relevant:
At the end of the day, every member of every parliament in Australia needs to collectively explain why almost 12 million people have been infected with COVID-19 and why almost 23,000 of those people are now dead.
As a Senator for the State of Victoria, you need to explain the Welfare-Gate holocaust, i.e., why have millions of people been deprived of their constitutional rights and why are possibly more than 100,000 of the victims of these criminal activities now dead.
In addition, as a self-appointed champion of the rights of indigenous people, you have to explain why you have allowed indigenous people to be subjected to the unconstitutional, intentional deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, i.e., the non-provision of medical care. The nuclear submarine deal may reportedly cost $368 Billion and what is manifestly obvious is that just half the cost of one submarine would fund state-of-the-art medical clinics at every isolated outback community of 200+ across the nation. That would include the cost of building all-weather air strips with automated navigation and landing aids. The primary reason why indigenous people have serious health problems is because the 227 Members of the Federal Parliament has failed to uphold its constitutional obligations to indigenous people.
I agree with you 100% when you claim that Anthony Albanese has committed genocide. However, problem with your making that very public claim is the proverbial 3-finger-pointing-backwards’ problem, i.e., you are as much a part of the problem as is Anthony Albanese and the other 225 members of the Australian Federal Parliament. Until you find the moral fortitude to expose the decades-long failure of the Parliament to uphold the Constitutional rights of vulnerable people, absolutely nothing is going to change.
Re-think the paradigm about the referendum, because ‘Albo’ has already made it quite clear that ‘if’ the people say no to ‘The Voice’, then the proposal is effectively a dead issue. In my previous email, I pointed out that Anthony Albanese may have deliberately set out to annoy the national electorate so that ‘The Voice’ referendum would fail. No matter how much people who are opposed to the referendum were vilified and abused, Anthony Albanese repeatedly failed to take decisive action to shut it down, e.g., knock it off or I’ll also give the No vote supporters a $100 million to argue their case. The failure to take some form of firm, decisive action to prevent this very overt abuse is strongly suggestive of either incredibly weak leadership or a deliberate effort to lose the vote. Deliberately losing the referendum may be exceedingly Machiavellian to be sure, but as you should be well aware after 6-years in Victoria’s Parliament and the Federal Parliament, such tactics are the very heart and soul of Australian political ethics.
As a former CES job club manager, and as an Australian citizen, I have a duty to disclose the truthand therefore, like my previous email, this email will also be posted online for consideration by vested interest parties.
Yours truly,
Ronald Medlicott.
[Citizen, registered teacher and a volunteer welfare rights lay-advocate]
With over 20,000 now dead from COVID-19, YOU need to share this posting.
The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) is quite literally blackmailing every member nation into giving the WHO total control of the world once they declare a pandemic.
To understand how the WHO can get away with this blackmail-driven grab for world control, watch this gob-smacking video
In order to understand WHY this brazen blackmail of almost 200 WHO member nations, is possible, (including every European country, the USA and Australia), is possible, watch the following videos:
Now watch the first 30 seconds of this utterly horrific documentary movie and then fast forward to the 8-minute mark where you will seemingly be transferred to another planet.
Once you watch that documentary video, you know and understand precisely why the WHO can successfully blackmail the Albanese Government into agreeing to hand over the civil rights of every person in Australia to the WHO.
How do you and I deal with this up-coming sell-out of our nation?
The answer is that we personally phone every one of our 12 State senators (or 2 Territory senators) and we make it quite clear that caving into this blackmail is a very clear admission that they deliberately violated Australia’s anti-terrorism laws.
therefore, by caving in and agreeing to the WHO grab for world domination, they are admitting to violating Australian anti-terrorism and biosecurity laws.
This means that they will eventually face prosecution for the criminal violation of our federal anti-terrorism laws and the serial murder of 23,000 people.
Make sure that each knows about the 3 videos that are posted above.
LAST STEP:
With over 20,000 now dead from COVID-19, YOU need to share this posting.
The more people who put the hard word on the senators, the quicker they will cave in.
Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, teacher, and Christian volunteer lay-advocate
CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS WORKED PERFECTLY FOR 122 YEARS
The following embarrassingly informative flyers can be used by VOTE NO supporters to exploit the massive ignorance of the YES vote battalions and their $100 million taxpayer-funded bag of ‘male bovine fecal material’.
Note that each flyer contains verifiable FACTS, which is a clear contrast with the emotional drivel and the grossly erroneous misinformation that underpins the YES campaign.
How often has Clause 5 of the Constitution been mentioned in the YES campaign adverts? (ZIP – ZILCH – ZERO)
Loyal Australians who want to actively defend our heritageshould print some, or all, of these flyers and place them in places where all voters can see and read them BEFORE they vote.
Note that all of the flyers are contained in a single PDF document that you can get at this URL:
Indigenous people are not the only people who have died in the last 77 years because the Federal Parliament has refused to comply with the 1946 referendum obligations.
FLYER #2: THE QUESTION:
THE UNANSWERED ANSWER IS NO
FLYER #3: MESS UP THE NATION
HOW TO TOTALLY MESS UP THE NATION
NOTE: Voters are being asked to give the Federal Parliament powers that have been in the Constitution since the 9th July 1901.
FLYER #4: THE RAT-OUT
RATTING OUT THE FAKE NATIONAL CABINET
With almost 12 million cases of COVID-19 and with almost 23.000 deaths, Anthony Albanese wants to set up a private ‘rat-out’ of his fellow fake ‘national cabinet’ members. The next flyer reveals why.
FLYER #5: COVID-GATE SA MURDERS
Exposing people to COVID-19 VIOLATES MORE THAN THE CONSTITUTION
According to the Constitution, the real ‘National Cabinet’ is the Executive Council of the Federal Parliament. The prime Minister, State Premiers and Chief Ministers constitute a national advisory body whose decisions must be ratified by every parliament.
Almost 23,000 people have died because the politicians in Australia’s 9 parliaments abrogated their responsibilities to voters,
FLYER #6: THE HAMAS WARNING:
THE HAMAS ATTACK HAS SHOWN US JUST HOW EVIL RACIAL DIVISION IS
DON’T LET IGNORANCE, POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM and ARROGANT BIGOTRY DESTROY OUR NATION – DO WHAT YOU CAN TO SHARE THE TRUTH AS WIDELY AS YOU CAN.
https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3to
Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, teacher, & Christian volunteer lay-advocate
Standing on the steps of the Sydney Opera House shouting “Gas the Jews” is a major crime that even under Australian anti-terrorism laws could result in serious, and well deserved, jail time.
The reported beheading of 40 babies and young children has caused shock, horror and revulsion around the world and Israel has made it quite clear that the price to be paid is the total annihalation of Hamas.
Therefore, if the “Gas the Jews” offenders are eventually deported to Israel, could the ultimate penalty be a death sentence?
ISRAEL HAS VOWED TO REVENGE ITS DEAD
Israel will never stop looking for Nazi Holocaust criminals, and now members of Hamas, and possibly the Iranian Government, face the same fate.
This now raises a serious question for the Opera House “rally”, i.e., which is better? Imprisonment for 25 years in an Australian prison for violating Australian anti-terrorism laws, or deportation to Israel?
I could be totally wrong, but I suspect that declared Hamas supporters may not live very long once they fall into the hands Israeli authorities?
In 36 hours, as a nation, we are going to have to chose between societal harmony or racial division.
We need to chose wisely and learn from the terrible, horrific mistakes made by Hamas in the attack on Israel’s children.
Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, teacher, & a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
For people who need a powerful way to convince people to say NO to ‘The Voice’ referendum, the Hamas terrorist driven racial hatred riots in Sydney have unintentionally provided a very simple way of sending this message to voters.
This Hamas racial hatred rally may have violated more than 100 federal and New South Wales anti-terrorism laws, but the police simply stood by and let it happen instead of arresting the rally organizers.
BABIES BEHEADED BUT OUR POLITICIANS WIMPED OUT
The image below can be printed and placed near the entrance to polling centres so that voters can read it before voting.
A YES VOTE COULD TEAR AUSTRALIA APART
RECOMMENDATIONS:
[1] Either double-click on the above image and download it to your computer, or make your own copies and print them.
[2] If you have access to a laminating machine, or can afford to pay Office Works to laminate each flyer, laminate each of the posters.
[3] Place one poster each side of the entrance to a polling station so that people approaching from different directions can see the warnings.
[4] Blue Tack in place for removal once the polling station closes. Alternately, secure to fence posts or fence rails with plastic cable ties, which makes it harder for people to steal the posters.
[5] You can erase my name and address if you want to put your name on the poster – the important point is that the warning is made public.
FOR THE RECORD- THE RALLY WAS AN ILLEGAL TERRORIST ACTIVITY
The following text was response to comments by a federal MP Allegra Spender, on a Sky News broadcast. I am of the opinion that ms. Spender was more interested in avoiding accountability for an Hamas racial hatred rally has actually occurring in Australia.
AUSTRALIA HAS LOTS OF PROBLEMS: Anthony Albanese has spent $100 MILLION promoting racial division and the Hamas terrorist riots are simply a consequence of that irresponsible conduct.
Take note – free speech does not include violating anti-terrorist laws or advocating terrorism laws. Allegra Spender is also well aware that that the Hamas terrorist riots in Sydney violated more than 100 federal and State anti-terrorism laws.
The Hamas Terrorist Riot (HTR) violated a tsunami of laws, however, as Allegra Spender so graphically demonstrated, the political will to uphold the law is “MISSING IN ACTION”.
Below are a few examples (of laws) that Allegra Spender, like the NSW government, has opted to deliberately ignore.
Commonwealth Criminal Code – Section 100.1 (Definitions of Terrorist activity)
listed terrorist organisation means an organisation that is specified by the regulations for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of terrorist organisation in section 102.1.
organisation means a body corporate or an unincorporated body, whether or not the body: (a) is based outside Australia; or (b) consists of persons who are not Australian citizens; or (c) is part of a larger organisation.
terrorist act means an action or threat of action where: (a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and (b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory
100.1 Elements of the definition of terrorist act (2) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or (b) causes serious damage to property; or (c) causes a person’s death; or (d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or (e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public;
3) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and (b) is not intended: (i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or (ii) to cause a person’s death; or (iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or (iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
Division 102—Terrorist organisations Subdivision A—Definitions 102.1 Definitions (1) In this Division: advocate has the meaning given by subsection (1A).
In order to understand the gross hypocrisy of Allegra Spender, check out this 5 month old video:
Allegra Spender and the cabinet solidarity murders.
(Note the URL is omitted to avoid this posting being censored.)
Since I first contacted Allegra Spender on the 6th May 2022, I estimate that around 15,000 people have died as a consequence of Allegra Spender concealing the issues reported in the YouTube video.
Ron Medlicott. Citizen, registered teacher & volunteer welfare rights advocate
Senator Lidia Thorpe has been vilified by Sky News for claiming that Anthony Albanese has committed genocide. In the text of an email that is shown in this posting, I warned Senator Thorpe that she could be now be prosecuted for criminal defamation because her allegations may have been too vague to constitute fair and reasonable comment.
Re: MAJOR UPDATE OF PREVIOUS EMAILS – YOUR CHOICE: PROTECT YOUR SELF FROM CRIMINAL DEFAMATION CHARGES, AND PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE, OR ELSE PROTECT THE PARLIAMENT – PLEASE CHOOSE WISELY
WARNING: Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited – FCA 652 (30 June 2015)
A Fairfax Media tweet “Treasurer for Sale” and a billboard advert “Treasurer Hockey for Sale”, cost Fairfax Media $200,000 in compensation and close to that amount in legal fees and court costs.
WHY?
ANSWER: Because the phrases, unlike the published Fairfax news article of some 1,500 words, contained no clarifying details and as a consequence, the statements were deemed by Justice White to be defamatory.
“GENOCIDE”: Unless a genocide allegation is used in a very specific context, i.e., under Sections 268.3, 268.4, or 268.5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), or the Genocide provisions in Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, any claims of Genocide constitute both civil defamation and criminal defamation. This is particularly so when the claim lacks specific examples that a court would consider to be CREDIBLE – RELEVANT – & SIGNIFICANT.
A volunteer welfare rights lay-advocate, I have filed numerous complaints against the Australian Federal Parliament with the UNHRC, (23th November 2016 ) the International Criminal Court, (30th March 2017) and more recently, in some 10,000 pages of (censored or stolen) submissions to the RRC inquiry. Whilst I have 3 senate suppression orders, no-one is rushing out to sue me because the goal is to keep the allegations away from the courts!
Currently, I am completing yet another complaint to the Australian Federal Police, and to understand the gist of that complaint, just watch the very short video clips mentioned in the text below. Although you are being blasted by Sky News and other News Australia Ltd organizations for claiming that Anthony Albanese has been committing GENOCIDE, the fact of the matter is that IN LAW, you are 100% correct. Check out he following Genocide provision in Section 268.5 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) is the statute law being violated in a far more diverse range of ways than you appear to be aware of.
268.5 Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts certain conditions of life upon one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group; and
(c) the perpetrator intends to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such; and
(d) the conditions of life are intended to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) In subsection (1):
conditions of life includes, but is not restricted to, intentional deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as deprivation of food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.
Note that depriving a person of “resources indispensible for survival” includes the following criteria:
Food,
medical services,
systematic expulsion from homes.
These 3 mission-critical criteria for what constitutes the crime of GENOCIDE have far, far wider ramifications that any member of the Federal Parliament, including yourself, appears to have (openly) appreciated.
Whilst these criteria do apply to the lack of adequate care for indigenous people in isolated locations, as a direct consequence of the 1946 referendum, the violation of these criteria applies on a far larger scale to another group of very vulnerable people in Australia, i.e., welfare recipients, which includes many indigenous people.
THE 1946 REFERENDUM – POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE CIVIL RIGHTS
Totally missing from the current referendum debate is any reference to the 1946 referendum, which added Section 51 (xxiiiA). Note that I have bullet-pointed this amendment to the Constitution for clarity, and also to emphasize why Mark Dreyfus may have deliberately interjected to prevent Linda Burney from answering Peter Dutton’s question, “Can the Parliament override the Constitution.”
Section 51 (xxiiiA) placed the following constitutional obligations and constraints upon the Federal Parliament:
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 conscription),
benefits to students
and family allowances;
IMPLICATIONS OF SECTION 51 (xxiiiA):
Implication #1: Welfare allowances are a constitutional right with the responsibility upon the Parliament for THE PROVISION of welfare allowances.
Implication #2: There is no constitutional right for the Federal Parliament to enact laws that DEPRIVE or WITHHOLD a welfare allowance.
Implication #3: The provision of welfare allowances cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, which means that Work for the Dole is unconstitutional.
Implication #4: Under Section 270.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) Work for the Dole is SLAVE LABOUR, and every person ever forced to do Work for the Dole is the victim of a serious crime and can either seek victims of crime compensation or go the class action route and sue the Commonwealth, the parliament, and the government agencies that knowingly ignored this criminal violation of the Constitution.
Implication #5: When it comes ‘Dunderheads-R-Us’, Tony Abbott and (former Senator) Amanda Vanstone jointly win the Gold Prize with the following statement from paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper:
Design principles to support this objective include:
• An adequate safety net:
Assistance is targeted to those most in need. People with no other means of support are assisted with their basic costs of living.People with no capacity for work receive a package of assistance that reflects their need for long-term support.
Implication #6: A REALITY CHECK:- In law, all ‘no show – no dole’ penalties, and every ‘non-compliance penalty’ in the Social Security (Administration) Act are ‘Bad-in-Law’ statutory fictions because they are:
[A] Unconstitutional.
[B] An Act-of-Genocide.
[C] A major crime that carries a penalty of imprisonment for life.
[D] All welfare penalty driven deaths are Crimes against Humanity, (Murder) under Section 268.8 of the Commonwealth criminal code, whilst collectively, all such deaths are GENOCIDE under Section 268.3, which explains why these welfare penalty triggered deaths, and Robodebt deaths, are currently:
[i] Unreported by Centrelink/Services Australia
[ii] Secretly classified by the Leg-Con Committee since at least November 2005 – See submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 inquiry. Officially submission 287 is ‘Not yet available’, but it is the subject of a secret “confidential” order made under a totally worthless Parliamentary Privilege ‘don’t copy – don’t distribute order.
Parliamentary Privilege can only be used for the proper processes of the Parliament, which does not include mass fraud and serial murder. In addition, the order is legally worthless because it was rushed out so fast that the letter was UNDATED.
[iii] IRRELEVANT: In March 2006, the EWRE Committee dismissed the harms caused by unlawful laws as “irrelevant”. I may be wrong but if you waive a copy of that letter in the lenses of the mass media’s cameras, the ALP, the Coalition, and the Greens will quite likely join the ranks of the Australian Democrats in the dustbin of history.
THE ROBODEBT ROYAL COMMISSION CON JOB:
As many as 10,000 pages of submissions and over 100 Emcott report videos may have either been censored or stolen. Watch the following 2-minute video which provides details as to who really set up Robodebt:
For insight into the scale of the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll, watch this 3-minute video, which is the source video for part of the previous video:
Yes, the AAT has been holding skip-the-courts-kangaroo-court-‘trials’ for a very long time and yes, Scott Morrison knew about this criminal activity just after he became the Minister for Social Services, i.e., in March 2015.
HANSARD – CARC 31ST July 2020, page 14: Check out this statement by Kathryn Campbell, which provides insight into why the AFP is investigating Robodebt and why the investigation is bad news for Albo:
I suppose if I think about it the fact is we—’we’ the organisation, the governments of many persuasions—have been using ATO averaging for many years. That was not a new thing we did. So the legally insufficient point is about income averaging. We have been doing that for many years. I think we’ve found evidence back into the nineties, and officers have suggested that it was occurring back in the eighties. So this was a continuation of a program, it was just a different way of delivering it.
Implication #7: Robodebt is around 35-years-old and it is a major crime, with deaths being culpable homicides, as in ‘genocide’ under s. 268.3. (Hmm!)
COVID-GATE
For the record, exposing people to COVID-19, or the known-and-admitted-to-be-lethal mRNA-based vaccine substances, is a terrorist activity under Section 101.1 of the Commonwealth criminal code, as defined by Section 100.1 (2) (a – e), which makes the following video credible, relevant, and extremely significant in both criminal trials and civil class actions:
Division 101—Terrorism
101.1 Terrorist acts
(1) A person commits an offence if the person engages in a terrorist act.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
A terrorist act is defined in part 5.3 Division 100
Part 5.3 Terrorism Division 100—Preliminary
100.1(1) Definitions
100.1(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a)causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(b)causes serious damage to property; or
(c) causes a person’s death;or
(d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or
(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public;
HOW IS THAT FOR TOTALLY SURREAL?
Implication #8: Now you know why Anthony Albanese has done a back-flip on holding a COVID-19 Royal Commission. For further insight, watch this even more surreal GENOCIDE video , which provides insight into why almost 935,000 people in South Australia have been infected with COVID-19, e.g., my wife was very ill and I was seriously ill and had to have cancer surgery suspended for 3 months. However, my mother was one of the people who died and I am NOT happy Senator; not happy at all.
The first 30-seconds of this video set the scene for the appallingly unbelievable nightmare in Clip 5 at the 8-minute point in the video.
WHAT COULD TOP THE CONTENT OF CLIP #5?
Try the following extract from the following Hansard media report of a statement made by Scott Morrison to the mass media on the 18th May 2022. When reading the statement, please keep in mind the following basic matters of fact:
Scott Morrison and the State Premiers are NOT the National Cabinet; that is the Executive Council of the Federal Parliament.
The members of the fake ‘National Cabinet’ along with the Chief health Officers, violated Section 101.1, as defined by Section 100(1) (2) (a – e).
The members of the fake ‘National Cabinet’ along with the Chief health Officers, have no legal authority to determine the cause or manner of death of any of the almost 23,000 COVID-19 fatalities because the jurisdiction to do this resides with State and Territory Coroners Courts.
Accellaration of death due to COVID-19 interacting with Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a common cause of COVID-19 driven deaths and nation leaders and national and regional Chief Health Officers were warned about this on the 31st May 2020 in an official WHO COVID-19 Situation Report #132:
People living with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are more vulnerable to becoming severely ill or dying from COVID-19. The pandemic has also caused NCD service disruption according to preliminary results of a rapid assessment, and WHO encourages governments to ‘build back better’.
The logic is simple:
[A] COVID-19 + an NCD = severely ill or dead.
[B] In addition, the high demand on hospitals caused by COVID-19 results in “NCD service disruption”.
JOURNALIST: [Inaudible] highest transmission rates in the world, one of the highest COVID transmission rates. We’re approaching 6,000 deaths so far this year. Was a decision taken that this is an acceptable number? And if not, what are you doing to stop 50 deaths from COVID a year, a day in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, there’s been 7,853 deaths where people have died with COVID in this country, there’s been 200 – 2,376 in aged care since the pandemic started. There’ve been 65 deaths in the last 24 hours of people who died with COVID and 15 of those were in aged care. And every single one of these deaths, from the outset of this pandemic is a terrible loss for the families of those who have been lost. Now, you will also know that as the number of case numbers has risen, and that’s what was always going to happen, as part of the national plan that we put together with the states and territories, the case numbers would rise, and there was some 53,000 case numbers yesterday. And what you see when you have case numbers at that level is that people, when they pass away for many other, from many other causes, they will die with COVID. And their deaths are recorded as COVID deaths. But that doesn’t necessarily mean, as the Premiers themselves have set out, that they passed away because of COVID. That’s a very different proposition. That’s a very different proposition. And that’s also the position of the Chief Medical Officer and the other health authorities around the country. But let me make this point, you may have seen the article in The New York Times and in an article in The New York Times, they said very clearly, if the United States had followed the path that Australia had, there’d be 900,000 more people alive in the United States today. Now, that is more than the metropolitan population of San Francisco. Australia has one of the lowest death rates from COVID anywhere in the world.
The last statement is in reality a myth because Australia has one of the highest ‘Excess Death Rates’ according to OECD data. The above comments by Scott Morrison may have been to conceal a cover-up of the fact that the members of the fake ‘National Cabinet’ had violated the anti-terrorism laws. On the 23rd May 2022, when Anthony Albanese was sworn in as the Prime Minister, 8,110 people had died because the fake ‘National Cabinet’, aided by the Chief Health Officers, (AHPPC) had violated Australia’s anti-terrorism law.
Note that as of 00:00 a.m. (Greenwich Mean Time) on the 7th October 2023, in Australia, a total of 11,776,670 confirmed cases of COVID-19 had been reported to the WHO and there were 22,819 confirmed deaths, i.e., since Anthony Albanese was sworn in as the Prime Minister, there have been an additional 14,709 COVID-19 deaths.
Implication #9: Most of the sickness and death could have easily been prevented by closing Australia’s international and State/Territory borders and by enforcing a rigorous 60-day local area quarantine. However, since that was politically unpopular, the political decision was to continue to violate Australia’s public health, biosecurity, anti-terrorism and genocide laws.
THE ANNUAL COVID-19 DEATH TOLL
2020: 909 deaths (26th January 2020 – 31st December 2020)
2021: 1,330 deaths (Cumulative: 2,239 deaths)
2022: 14,831 deaths (Cumulative: 17,052 deaths)
2023: 5,767 deaths (as of 7/10.2023 – Cumulative 22,819 deaths)
Implication #10: As of the 7th October 2023, the Year-to-date death toll of 5,767 COVID-19 deaths is 256.5% greater than the combined number of deaths for 2020 and 2021.
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS
Based upon this COVID-19 data:
35.54% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred under the leadership of Scott Morrison
64.46% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred under the leadership of Anthony Albanese, the COVID-19 death toll is currently at
In view of the seriousness of the crimes and the massive scale of the casualties, I therefore have serious doubts that Anthony Albanese will establish a royal commission to examine the causes of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.
CLAUSE 5 OF THE COVERING SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Clause 5 of the Preamble to the Australian Constitution is critical to the functioning of every parliament within the Commonwealth of Australia:
5. Operation of the Constitution and laws
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth
Since 1920, the High Court has had quite a lot to say about Clause 5 above, with the following statement being made by the High Court in 1997;
Lange v. The Australian Broadcasting Commission (HCA 25- 1997)
Keep in mind that this decision was made 26 YEARS AGO, and not yesterday. Please note that I have bullet-pointed the statement for clarity and emphasis:
“In the last decade of the twentieth century, the quality of life and the freedom of the ordinary individual in Australia are highly dependent on the exercise of functions and powers vested in public representatives and officials by a vast legal and bureaucratic apparatus funded by public moneys.
How, when, why and where those functions and powers are or are not exercised are matters that are of real and legitimate interest to every member of the community.
Information concerning the exercise of those functions and powers is of vital concern to the community.
So is the performance of the public representatives and officials who are invested with them.
It follows in my opinion that the general public has a legitimate interest in receiving information concerning matters relevant to the exercise of public functions and powers vested in public representatives and officials.
Moreover, a narrow view should not be taken of the matters about which the general public has an interest in receiving information.
With the increasing integration of the social, economic and political life of Australia, it is difficult to contend that the exercise or failure to exercise public functions or powers at any particular level of government or administration, or in any part of the country, is not of relevant interest to the public of Australia generally.”
The High Court also made this ruling in Lange, which is of direct relevance to any person who believes that the Parliament, or a specific government, may have exceeded its lawful authority. Note the specific reference to Clause 5 and the principle of “one system of jurisprudence” across the nation.
Changes to the Constitution can have unintended consequences that render the parliaments and/or the justice system unworkable, and therefore constitutional change is a very cautious, carefully considered process whereby the issues are impartially and thoroughly evaluated for both intended and unintended consequences.
As can be seen from the following High Court statements, changing the Constitution is an extremely complex legal process because the laws of the nation are based upon the Constitution. As a consequence, there is absolutely no scope for emotional judgements that may be based upon either uninformed personal opinions or the emotional sway of popular songs. The ‘slagging’ of people who are opposed to any proposed change by accusing them of being either “racist” or “stupid” has no legitimate role or place in the constitutional debate process, and neither does $100 million in advertising for the purpose of persuading ill-informed or totally ignorant voters to support a chance in the Constitution that may have profoundly serious, totally unforeseen consequences.
“Here, “[w]e act every day on the unexpressed assumption that the one common law surrounds us and applies where it has not been superseded by statute”. Moreover, that one common law operates in the federal system established by the Constitution. The Constitution displaced, or rendered inapplicable, the English common law doctrine of the general competence and unqualified supremacy of the legislature.It placed upon the federal judicature the responsibility of deciding the limits of the respective powers of State and Commonwealth governments. The Constitution, the federal, State and territorial laws, and the common law in Australia together constitute the law of this country and form “one system of jurisprudence“. Covering clause 5 of the Constitution renders the Constitution “binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State”. Within that single system of jurisprudence, the basic law of the Constitution provides the authority for the enactment of valid statute law and may have effect on the content of the common law.
Conversely, the Constitution itself is informed by the common law. This was explained extra-judicially by Sir Owen Dixon:
“We do not of course treat the common law as a transcendental body of legal doctrine, but we do treat it as antecedent in operation to the constitutional instruments which first divided Australia into separate colonies and then united her in a federal Commonwealth. We therefore regard Australian law as a unit. Its content comprises besides legislation the general common law which it is the duty of the courts to ascertain as best they may. … The anterior operation of the common law in Australia is not just a dogma of our legal system, an abstraction of our constitutional reasoning. It is a fact of legal history.“
Asking extremely ill-informed or totally ignorant people to emotionally vote for a change to the Constitution that could have devastatingly disastrous consequences for the nation’s political and legal systems can be likened to leaping from a plane without a parachute. Whilst the freefall may be fun, when you hit the ground, the consequences are downright messy!
Section 51 of the Constitution requires “good government”, and as far as the way in which ‘The Voice’ referendum has been handled, there has been a total absence of “good government”. For example, every voter should have been informed about the possibility of Clause 129 (iii) of the proposed amendment being in conflict with Clause 5 and the inherent danger that the Federal and State Parliaments may cease to function effectively with every decision being subject to vigorous challenge in the High Court.
I have been a qualified Indigenous Education teacher for 50 years, and I am well aware of the appalling conditions that confront many isolated indigenous communities. However, after almost 40 years of social justice advocacy, and with an awareness that the proposed amendments may have devastating consequences that could place indigenous people on the pointy-end of community focussed hatred, I cannot in good conscience support such a sloppy, dysfunctional referendum process in which “the details” are not being specified because at this time they are totally unknown.
THE MACIAVELLIAN IRONY
A genuine concern that I expressed in a Ronald’s space blog posting several months ago is the possibility that Anthony Albanese is deliberately being manifestly biased and over-bearing because he wants to discourage voters and lose the referendum so that he can declare The Voice to be a dead issue.
That sounds absolutely crazy. Why would he do such a thing as deliberately lose what was a dead cert’ win? The answer to that question is in the following extract from Clause 5 of the Constitution:
“… all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State”
As has already happened in South Australia, the Federal Parliament already has the constitutional power to establish ‘The Voice’. By losing a referendum on the 14th October 2023, Anthony Albanese will have provided the Federal Parliament with the legitimate grounds to ‘bury’ the issue for the rest of the 21st century.
That is pure Machiavellian politics at its worst, and Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, and all other supporter of The Voice proposal, yourself included, appear to have walked right into this brilliantly conceived constitutional trap.
In closing, since you have publicly accused Anthony Albanese of the crime of genocide, you could potentially face prosecution for criminal defamation. This would result in your expulsion from the Federal Parliament if you were to be convicted.
A lay-advocate, I therefore recommend that you download and keep reading the High Court’s Lange v. The Australian Broadcasting Commission decision until such time as you fully understand its scope and relevance to the current potentially dire predicament that you have unwisely placed yourself in.
Ronald's space 