Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity stem from a basic set of Crown laws and international laws.
Over a period measured in decades, the constitutional rights, legal rights, and basic human rights of millions of vulnerable people have been violated. The upside for successive governments has been billions of dollars in “$avings”. The downside cost is a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions with possibly 15,000 – 30,000 suicides and an unknown number of “Misadventure” and so-called “natural causes” deaths like the death of “Sarah”. See https://wordpress.com/post/20292103/1383/
The text below is in 2 parts:
- A short section of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
- Extracts from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
These 2 sections of Australian and international law provide insight into why post breaching fatalities and Centrelink’s fraudulent tort actions to recover alleged over=payments of welfare benefits from welfare recipients are criminal acts that need to be independently investigated by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
SECTION #1 – COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995
Division 3 and 4.
This is the federal law that deals with crimes. Divisions 3 & 4 specify in legal jargon what a crime is and the 2 basic ways a crimes can be committed.
On May 8th 2013, the High Court turfed-out the prosecution of some 15,000 welfare recipients citing as “statutory fiction” the retrospective laws were rushed through the Federal Parliament on 4th August 2011.
In Division 3 below, the key phrase is:
3.1.2 “the law that creates the offence…”, and;
3.1.3 “the law that creates the offence…”.
3.2 “under the law creating the offence…”
(a) “the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establish guilt.”
TRANSLATION: This jargon simply means that you can’t break the law if there is no law to break, i.e. NO LAW TO BREAK = NO CRIME.
(1) An offence consists of physical elements and fault elements.
(2) However, the law that creates the offence may provide that there is no fault element for one or more physical elements.
(3) The law that creates the offence may provide different fault elements for different physical elements.
In order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence the following must be proved:
- the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establishing guilt;
- in respect of each such physical element for which a fault element is required, one of the fault elements for the physical element.
In Division 4 the key phrases are:
(2) In this Code:
“conduct ” means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.
“engage in conduct ” means:
- do an act; or
omit to perform an act
TRANSLATION: there are 2 ways to break the law:
- “an act”, i.e. do something that you should not do, e.g. drive at 80KPH in a 60 KPH zone. (This is an act of COMMISSION)
- “omit to perform an act”, i.e. not do something that you should have done, e.g. drive through a STOP sign at 60 KPH.
Division 4 — Physical elements
4.1 Physical elements
- A physical element of an offence may be:
- conduct; or
- a result of conduct; or
- a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.
(2) In this Code:
“conduct ” means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.
“engage in conduct ” means:
- do an act; or
- omit to perform an act.
Hiding Centrelink’s recordings of phone conversations between welfare recipients and call centre staff is an example of “…an omission” or deliberating deciding to “omit to perform an act” by not providing the phone call evidence in an SSAT or an AAT tribunal trial because it would undermine the Centrelink’s case!
THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BREACHING
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Download from: http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm
- Australia signed the Rome Statute on 9th December 1999
- Australia ratified the Rome Statute by treaty on 1st July 2002
- The treaty came into effect on 1st September 2002, i.e. any violations of the provisions of the Rome Statute are criminal acts in Australia since that date and those responsible can be held accountable.
Article 7: Crimes against humanity
- For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
- For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
- For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.
[ MY COMMENTS re Article 7: ]
- Note that under Article 7 (1) (j), “apartheid” is a Crime against Humanity. From the 1970s until the 1970s, “The Stolen Generations” policies so enthusiastically supported by Australia’s major political parties, i.e. Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP, were popular “apartheid”
- These policies existed and flourished in Australia (as did apartheid in South Africa) because the majority of voters either actively supported these polices, or passively, did not take action to oppose them.
- The same principle now applies to the welfare penalties policies commonly referred to as “Breaching”, i.e. these unconstitutional, human rights violating laws exist today because the majority of Australian voters either approve of them or do not actively oppose them.
- Here is a valid definition of “Breaching” that applied in 2000-2001. Today the penalty is 8 weeks instead of 13 weeks but these laws are still a human rights violation of Article 7 (1) (k):
- “Breaching was the targeted, deliberate removal of the only means of subsistence from financially impoverished, functionally illiterate people, many of whom were emotionally fragile and potentially suicidal, so that for a period of 3 months, they were unable to meet even the most basic of their costs of living.”
- Breaching is also a violation of Australia’s state and territory Homicide
- Way back in 1843, an English Royal Commission came up with this somewhat wordy definition of murder:
- The ‘heart bent on mischief’ must in this case, and it is apprehended in all others, in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual.
CONFUSED BY THAT DEFINITION? Fortunately this Royal Commission came up with a much simpler definition that ordinary people like you and I should be able to understand:
“It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”
Make no mistake: the laws commonly known as “Breaching”or “Serious Compliance Failure” are Crimes against Humanity because they were deliberately intended to deprive people of their only means of subsistence.
- Do that a 3 or 4 million times and the body count soon starts to add up as any ruthless dictatorial tyrant will tell you!
- The problem with a total death toll of 30,000 from 3 or 4 million deliberate acts of destitution is that it represents TOO SMALL a figure. The real death toll could be far higher!
The 2nd Crime against Humanity.
If the barking dog next door keeps you awake, that is a mental health issue for it is disturbing your “mental serenity”!
Tough anti-bullying laws introduced in New South Wales after a suicide driven by work-place carry a 10-year sentence.
- In South Australia, uploading illuminating or demeaning articles to the Internet that endanger a person’s mental health carry a 2 year sentence.
- However South Australia is looking at moving into line with New South Wales.
- Perhaps this is because new mental health research indicates that when people with Depression are demeaned or humiliated, it can trigger a suicide. http://www.workplacebullying.org/2012/01/12/livescience/
- One of the world’s best known case of humiliation triggering a suicide was the 2012 suicide of Jacintha Saldanha after 2DayFM broke Australian and New South Wales telecommunications laws and recorded and broadcast a secretly recording of a conversation between Ms Saldanha and a 2DayFM radio presenter.
If you can sue for mental health/stress or be jailed for engaging in demeaning and humilating conduct, clearly Australian Federal Government policies that provoke high potential levels for suicidal behaviour have to a crime, right?
Spot on! Check out this Article in the Rome Statute:
TORTURE IS PROHIBITED UNDER Article 7 (1) (e).
- Torture is defined under 7 (2) (e):
- “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
- NOTE this: “the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused;”
- Torture does not have to be physical.
- It can be severe “EMOTIONAL” pain or “SUFFERING”.
- If you think that deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence for 2 or 3 months is not about deliberately inflicting emotional pain and extreme physical suffering, the think again!
- You do not have to inflict physical injury, a crime known as “Battery”; it can also be in the form of deliberately imposing emotional suffering or exposing people to severe hardship that may endanger their lives!
- Note also what is known as a “Privitation clause”, i.e. a legal cop-out. “…except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions”.
- This legitimizes torture if the pain or suffering is caused by “lawful sanctions”. It is this cop-out that Senator Payne, Ms Campbell and the Department of Human Services legal advisors rely upon when engaging in legal actions against welfare recipients.
- In effect, their attitude is, “We CAN torture you mentally and emotionally because we are engaged in “lawful sanctions”!
How low can you go?
THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT: You need to realise that the privitation clause does not apply when lawful authority is misused for an unlawful purpose, i.e. when politicians and/or public servants (or police officers) break the law: Misuse of lawful authority is “MALFEASANCE”.
- In malfeasant circumstances, the privitation clause is “Null and Void” and Article 7 (1) (j) applies in full.
- Centrelink withholding evidence in a tort claim, e.g. not making the recordings of phone calls available, or deliberately hiding credible, relevant, significant facts is not just a ‘procedural fairness’ violation; it is a SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACT and any suffering experienced by welfare recipients as a consequence of this criminal activity is a Crime against Humanity under article 7 (1) (f) of the Rome Statute.
In my last posting I revealed that Senator Payne, the Minister for Human Services, and Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary for Human Services, had spent a staggering $565,000 in an attempt to recover an alleged over-payment of less than $6,000. They were apparently quite prepared to bankrupt a man in order to do this.
Did Buck Taylor, man the only working gun on HMAS and fight of marauding destroyers, just so that Tony Abbott could violate the constitutional, legal and human rights of young Australians by depriving them of a welfare allowance if the were unemployed?
- Did these brave men and women die so that Tony Abbott could give welfare benefits to terrorists who like to rape 9 year old girls or behead anyone who disagrees with them?
- Did these brave men and women sacrifice themselves so that in just one year, Tony Abbott could deliberately deprive 346,078 impoverished people of their only means of survival?
- Did they die, so that Tony Abbott could turn the RAAF into a taxpayer funded aerial taxi service when he needed to meet with Liberal Party power-brokers?
Good government is about upholding both national laws and international laws. So, is this good government:?
“The light of human rights is fading in Australia.”
‘The Immigration Minister spat the dummy on international law saying: “This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations.” The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.” Opinion – The Drum 7th October 2014 Professor Ben Saul, Emeritus Professor of International Law, University of Sydney.
So, is this also good government:?
“People have a right to be bigots” said the Australian Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis during senate debate on an amendment to Section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/attorneygeneral-george-brandis-people-do-have-a-right-to-be-bigots-20140324-35dj3.html
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for Justice in Australia.