Australia’s supposedly “irrelevant” crimes against humanity can be summed up in just one word:
Note the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-FN
For my lastest video update, if you have 14 minutes and 41 seconds to spare, check out this:
Section 42 of the Social Security (Administration) Act is Australia’s genocide law. Whilst “No show, no pay” may be a great cliche, the real-world human impact can best be described as “Do as we say or you may die.”
No-one should kid themselves; if you deprive impoverished people of their sole means to survive, some will die. In violation of human rights conventions that prohibits national governments from deliberately depriving people of what may be their sole means of subsistence for about 40 years or so, it is should come as no surprise that the death toll is:
Unreported by Centrelink;
In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.
Secretly classified as “confidential” by the Federal Parliament;
A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.
Also dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Federal Parliament;
Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia’s already disavantaged unemployed by making tham even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a “job”. Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as “not relevant”. Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous summary dismissal of the post breaching fatalities by the EWRE Committee?
Ignored by the Federal Police due to the “gravity/sensitivity” of the number of deaths that have occurred.
This undated Federal Police letter , which gives the proverbial “1-finger-salute” to paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution, was secretly classified confidential in November 2005 by the Senate’s LEG-CON Committee, possibly to conceal a ‘dirty deal’ between the AFP and Howard Government which still protects federal politicians who are caught out rorting parliamentary entitlements from being investigated. Without any Federal Police investigation, politicians who rort the Entitlements Fund cannot be prosecuted.
At the end of the day, from a criminal law or crimes against humanity perspective, does it matter if the total “scorecard” is less than 100,000 or possibly more than 500,000?
THE “SCORECARD” REPORTS: readers should note that that they are TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.
For the victims, whatever the number, “dead is dead”. Around the world, the challenge for all decent people of goodwill is to ensure that no more Aussie Battlers wind up dead because of Section 42’s defacto death penalty that is administered, not by a Court of Law but but clerks, some of whom revel in having the power of life and death at their fingertips!
Under Australia’s criminal laws, citizens who do nothing about these deaths makes them an accessory by ‘Act of Omission”, a crime under section 4.2.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). So, if you live in Australia and have read this posting, what is your legal standing in regard to the Section 42 death toll?
Note to people who live in South Africa – your government’s decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute treaty which gives jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court may actually have been legally valid. the United Nations Human Rights Commission has known about this genocide for years but so has done nothing to stop it. If that is not bias, what is it?
Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher and a lay Christian advocate for justice in Australia.
This entry was posted in Human Rights violations
, News and politics
, Welfare rights
and tagged article 7 rome statute
, crime against humanity
, death sentence
, defacto death sentence
, genocide in australia
, jurisdiction of the courts
, nor jurisdiction
, scorecard report
, section 4.2.2
, section 42
, south africa
. Bookmark the permalink