Understanding Australia’s GENOCIDE law means looking at the law and the reasons why this law is a recklessly dangerous, criminal violation of civil rights.
[Note: the short link URL for this website is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-I6 ]
Subdivision B—No show no pay failures 42C No show no pay failures
(1) The Secretary may determine that a person commits a no show no pay failure on a day if:
(a) the person commits any of the following failures:
(i) the person fails to participate, on the day, in an activity that the person is required to undertake by an employment pathway plan that is in force in relation to the person;
(ii) the person fails to comply, on the day, with a serious failure requirement imposed on the person;
The primary purpose of this recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, human rights violating, ‘Do as we say or you may die’ Bill was, and still is, to coercively intimidate very vulnerable people.
It compels victims to undertake an unconstitutional activity, i.e. “civil conscription”, which is a form of ‘coercive servitude’, [Slavery] that is expressly prohibited in paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian constitution.
Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act is “Bad Government” for this law deliberately penalizes people who do not ‘comply’ with the unconstitutional ‘obligation’ referred to as ‘Work for the Dole’, with a defacto death sentence, i.e. they are deliberately deprived of what may be their sole financial means to survive.
Not one of the officially “confidential” and “irrelevant” homicides caused by this Genocide law has ever been included in public accountability reports.
Note the “Reasons for Failure” column – the determine of whether or not these ALLEGED “failures” were legally valid and justified any penalty being imposed, has always been a matter for the courts as per ASIC v Hellicar at paragraph 143. (See last posting for details.)
The ‘No show, No pay’ penalties violate Article 1.2 of both the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights, and the International Convention on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights. The 2 articles are identical and prohib the targeting of a societal group, e.g. welfare recipients, and the imposition of any measure that deprives members of this group of their sole means of subsistence. Deliberately depriving people of their sole means of subsistence is a crime against humanity.
THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
THE ROME STATUTE: Provisions in Article 7 that may apply to the ‘No show, no pay’ breaching penalties include the following: [It is for a court to decide which provisions of the following violations apply.]
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:
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(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;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. [The great ‘catch-all’.]
THE DENLAY DECISION
You do not have to look at international laws and conventions to find statute laws or case law decisions that make it quite clear that violating of human rights is not acceptable. The Denlay Decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal in 2010 is an excellent case law example that demonstrates that the ‘No show, no pay’ law is not legally valid.
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Denlay & Anor  QCA 217 (20 August 2010)
Primary Facts of the Matter: The Commissioner of Taxation commenced enforcement proceedings against taxpayers, [Denlay], for the payment of assessments. The taxpayers sought an order from the court to stay the proceedings as they would be forced into liquidation. The Court ordered the stay of proceedings as there was relevant evidence, which should have been considered by the Commissioner, indicating that they would suffer hardship in having the judgement enforced.
The Court stated at paragraph 50: This leads to the appellant’s third point, that the loss of their property and consequent inability to prosecute their appeals does not constitute extreme personal hardship. The point may be answered shortly. It is preposterous to contend that the loss of the respondents’ entire estate, and with it any chance of demonstrating that the basis for the assessments was wrong so that they should not have lost their property, could not be a hardship rightly called extreme. It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context. Certainly the primary judge cannot be criticised for so regarding it.’
The ‘No show, no pay’ penalties deprive IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE of the ability to subsist for a period of up to 2 months, down from 3-months and less than the 6-months that some members of the Liberal-National coalition wanted to see introduced, e.g. Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews.
[NOTE: Both politicians have law degrees and therefore ‘ought to know’ that when you deprive impoverished people of the ability to subsist, some will cease to exist!]
The Denlay decision was made on 20th August 2010, and yet Royal Assent was given to the latest version of the unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘No show, no pay’ Bill on 1st July 2016.
How does any federal politician, especially those with law degrees, e.g. Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, explain that discrepancy?
The answer is to found in this letter from Federal Agent Louise Denley, i.e. politicians have a ‘resonable belief’ that they are beyond accountability before the law
Politicians also believe that the deaths of welfare recipients are “irrelevant”.
The Senate’s response to a detailed submission concerning the lethal harm caused by “Breaching” penalties, aka ‘No show, no pay’ penalties, was this disgraceful “irrelevant” response:
Despite what Secretary John Carter and the EWRE Committee senators may have believed, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” murder
The on-going defrauding of welfare recipients at rates of up to 73,000 people in one hit, i.e. New Year’s day 2016, and the current reported rip-off rate of up to 20,000 people per day has to stop. However, the power of life and death is the ultimate addiction, and Australia’s federal politicians, and the Posen Minded public servants who do their bidding, will not stop until they are forced to stop.
When a supposedly civilized nation spends decades repeatedly ‘strengthening’ a human-rights-violating, genocidal law that can indiscriminately kill vulnerable people by deliberately depriving them of their sole means of subsistence, shouldn’t all civilized nations and all people of good-will unite and raise a voice of protest?
If you want this criminal abuse of power to stop, you must take action to stop it.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.
You can file a Genocide/Crimes against Humanity complaint with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. To do this, send an email to InfoDesk@ohchr.org and state that you wish to add your support for the complaints lodged by another Australian citizen, Ronald Medlicott, aka me.
Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, genocide survivor and a Christian volunteer lay advocate for justice in Australia.