Anda di halaman 1dari 71

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 5 10-12-2013

131210-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. regarding the Bible, Religion, etc.

I made my statements, and I can only thank those who provided their comments, irrespective if they do whole, partly or not at all are in consensus with me. As much as I view I have my rights to cast my views, I not only accept but actually appreciate 10 others to express likewise their views, even if some of it might be contradictory to my views. It is only then that we can seek to come to some consensus to address issues.
. Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to the Constitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or anywhere else. Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God. Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God.

15

20 QUOTE As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution desired to avoid the religious conflicts that was so rife in the United Kingdom (as now known) at the time and hence placed s116 in the constitution to ensure religion never should be part of legislation in 25 the Commonwealth of Australia, albeit they accepted that States independently could still pursue religious issues.
.

Time and time again over the decades I had people arguing that the courts are not operating appropriately because they are subject to Gods laws, etc. Time and time again I expressed my 30 views that they should not seek to raise the religious issue where it had no relevance to the issues before the court, but rather address their respective cases upon relevant legal issues. Before I address further issues, let me refer to a 1992 incident. My father Gerrit Hendrik Schorel (one of 15 children) had an older brother (my uncle) also named Gerrit Hendrik Schorel (Who 35 also had a son named Gerrit Hendrik Schorel). When my sister Willemina came to Australia (1992) with our uncle, he passed away 2 days later. I contacted the local church (residing then in Berriwillock) and sought to arrange for a religious funeral. The Minister refused to attend as I understood it because I refused to force my children to attend to church. One of my daughters would go regularly, but that was her choice, however I held it was not my right to dictate or 40 otherwise to force any child to attend to a church service. The minister held I had the right to force them to attend upon which I made clear if I was deemed to have the right to force them then I had also the right to not force them.to attend. My sister, who desired a church service was devastated the minister refused to be involved and so we had to engage a Minister living some 200 kilometres away. Any FAIR MINDED PERSON, at least in my view, would find it utter and
p1 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

sheer nonsense that a minister of religion would deny a religious funeral to an 86 old man, who died shortly after arrival who clearly had done no wrong, as this had nothing to do with any of my children attend or not attend to church. Once the minister of religion actually attended to my residence demanding I force the children to attend and I explained to him that he could see the 5 land in front of my residence and if any wanted to exercise any religious faith and do so in the midst of the property then so be it, they didnt have to attend to some church building. Not uncommon church buildings are later sold and converted to private residents, and so the building has no religious meaning in itself other than when used for religious purposes. Religious zealots will always crop up and we must be careful in dealing with them. As Rabbi 10 Rosenberg (see below) points out what is done under the pretext of religion to children. PROHIBITION OF RELIGIOUS TEST, ETC, meaning that not only the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to allow as a legislative power for the Commonwealth of Australia but also denied any such executive powers to the Federal government. (See also the quoted below the HANSARD records of the Constitutional Convention Debates held on 7 & 8 15 February 1898.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

20

25

Mr. HIGGINS.-It has been circulated for several days, and is to the effect that neither a state nor the Commonwealth shall make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion or imposing any religious test or observance. Of course, we all know that a great effort has been made to have an acknowledgment of the Almighty inserted in the preamble. This is a very difficult subject to speak about in mixed assembly; but I must speak plainly, or not at all. This recognition of God was not proposed merely out of reverence; it was proposed for distinct political purposes under the influence of debates which have taken place in the United States of America. At the time of the Massachusetts Convention there was a long discussion as to whether the Constitution should not be rejected, inasmuch as it did not contain any reference to the existence of God, and Professor Fiske, in his work upon The Critical Period of American History, pp. 321 and 322, writesNext came the complaint that the Convention did not recognise the existence of God, and provided no religious

30 tests for candidates for federal offices. But, strange to say, this objection did not come from the clergy. It was urged
by some of the country members, but the ministers in the convention were nearly unanimous in opposing it. There had been a remarkable change of sentiment among the clergy of this state, which had begun its existence as a theocracy, in which none but church members could vote or hold office. The seeds of modern liberalism had been implanted in their minds. When Amos Singletary of Sutton declared it to be scandalous that a Papist or infidel should be as eligible to office as a Christian-a remark which naively assumed that Roman Catholics were not Christians-the Rev. Daniel Shute, of Hingham, [start page 655] replied that no conceivable advantage could result from a religious test. "Yes," said the Rev. Phillip Payson, of Chelsea, "human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God. A religious test as a qualification for office would have been a, great blemish." "In reason and in the Holy Scripture," said the Rev. Isaac Backus, of Middleborough, "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world." With this liberal stand firmly taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily over-ruled. END QUOTE

35

40

45 And, now how this 1967 amendment to the Constitution created a BLACK HOLE in the constitution in that the Commonwealth of Australia cannot protect Aboriginal religious items by legislation.
.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

50 QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

p2 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting. Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree. Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota. Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted. Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes. Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote. END QUOTE
.

No one seems to understand/comprehend that because of the amendment of s51(xxvi) by placing 15 Aboriginals under the legislative powers of the Commonwealth of Australia then by s116 prohibition the Commonwealth of Australia cannot legislate to say protect the Aboriginals religious matters, such as religious objects. The States no longer have the legislative powers for this as the moment the commonwealth of Australia commenced to legislate upon Aboriginal matters then the States legislative powers came to an end. 20
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive. END QUOTE Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100. Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws? Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth. END QUOTE

25

30

35

I will quote from one of mine 2007 published book; INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices Legislation (Book-CD) A Book about the Validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 Decision 40 ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1
QUOTE FROM BOOK Dear Reader, 27-5-2007 Published on the 40TH anniversary Aboriginal DOOMSDAY, to remember when Aboriginals where relegated to be an inferior race, no longer equal to other Australians. INSPECTOR-RIKATI on IR WorkChoices legislation, A book about the validity of the High Courts 14-112006 decision ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour), is to expose how people are deceived in what is really constitutionally applicable. See Chapter 022A -failure of the case-etc, for some reply to WorkChoices legislation 16-11-2006 judgment. There are three versions, each with their own ISBN number. One is the limited book print in A4 size in Colour, one is the limited book print in A4 size in B&W, and the other is on CD. The CD version has all Chapters, where as the book prints mainly have Chapter 022A which in itself is the volume of a book, and covers certain material that are in fact stated in other Chapters. For reason of book page printing limitations all subfolder material has been excluded, Chapter 000i is partly included, but many others Chapters specially noted in the document 005 CONTENT & INDEX, such as Chapters 001, 002, 003, 005, etc, are fully included in the book print. As usual Chapter 33 on the CD has included also the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates. ( Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) p3 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

55

Essenberg v The Queen B55-1999 McHUGH J; But Parliament - some people would regard it as regrettable - can, in effect, do what it likes. As it is said, some authorities could legislate to have every blue-eyed baby killed if it wanted to. Is this the kind of utter nonsense we should expect from a High Court judge? Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; Mr. DEAKIN.-What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. What kind of liberty is this now where our civil liberties, including the right to enter in a employment contract or reasonable use of WATER is not robbed from us by the Federal Government, albeit unconstitutionally, and little if anything is done by the High Court of Australia who as the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION should be vigilant against any unconstitutional conduct rather then as it appears to me they did on 14 November 2006 twisting the true intentions of the Framers to the Constitution in such manner as to try to bring within the scope of legislative powers a meaning that not only the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to allow as a legislative power for the Commonwealth of Australia but also had been rejected in 4 referendums by the people them selves. See also Chapters 34C and 63 re WATER issue. Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).Then, following out the idea that this Constitution takes its origin from the people, when we are seeking the element's of its renovation and repair we throw it back upon its source, and appeal to the popular voice for a justification of any improvement or alteration which time may necessitate. And Mr. BARTON.Another guarantee of the preservation of the Constitution [start page 2471] until the electors themselves choose to change it, is contained in the provision that the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court is to be final. Shaw v MIMA B99/2002 (17 June 2003) KIRBY J: I am afraid I have to tell you that is where you lost me because, as far as I am concerned, I do not see how the Australia Act 1986, an act either of the United Kingdom Parliament or of the Australian Parliament, has the slightest power to alter the Australian Constitution, that power belonging to the people as electors. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/2002/B99/1.html Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Mr. BARTON.Another guarantee of the preservation of the Constitution [start page 2471] until the electors themselves choose to change it, is contained in the provision that the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court is to be final. Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians . I think it is right and fit that the highest court in Australia should be left as the guardian of the expressions of the people, and the sole body to determine finally what the people meant when they used those expressions . In my view we need better educated judges at the High Court of Australia who can fully comprehend the true intentions of the Framers of the Constitution regarding certain constitutional provisions that are before the Court or relevant to the matters before the Court. In my view, Chapter 22A is an indictment against the High Court of Australia that it unjustly approved the WorkChoices legislation as being constitutionally valid even so it never was. Are we now having that as like the unconstitutional Australia Act 1986 the judges of the High Court of Australia set themselves up to disregard constitutional limitations, to disregard civil rights, political freedom, religious freedom, etc and they just for themselves take over the constitutional embedded right of the elector to determine what, if anything of the Constitution is permitted to be amended by them basically amending the Constitution by what ever excuse they proffer. We, the People, own the Constitution and we must send a clear message to politicians and judges that we, the People, will not tolerate this unconstitutional conduct. Either we have law and order and politicians and judges alike also obey the law (the Constitution) or we have none. Hence, I urge everyone to stick up for your constitutional rights and pursue that those who temper with out constitution will be held accountable before a Court of law. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear WATER relates to the value of our land and we are not going to give that to the Federal Government! We have now, as I understand it, that the NSW State Government, for that matter, p4 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

licensed a USA gold Mine company to use about 10 million dollars of ground water a day, while the Federal Government now announced that if its doesnt rain in the next few weeks it will not allow any WATER allocation to be made. So it appears to me USA companies can use water plenty full but farmers/irrigators are robbed of their livelihood. This, and numerous other issues must be drastically attended too. The Federal Government was, so to say, for more then 10 years asleep being the wheel, ignoring the over allocation of WATER, and now suddenly intents to cut of all WATER allocations. But no doubt the USA mining company can continue its WATER usage! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, Factory laws would remain with the States and not to be given to the Federal government, and likewise neither so our civil rights. (See Chapter 63, also Chapter 34C, etc) We, the People, must stand united and ignore our own contemporary personal gains for pursuing ultimately to protect our constitutional rights. After all, once you accept the Federal government to ignore constitutional limitations then where do they stop? After all the unconstitutional murderous invasion is a clear example how the federal Government ignored constitutional limitations and worse the High Court of Australia, as I view it, sanctioned this murderous invasion on the very day the invasion commenced, when on 19 March 2003 it refused to allow my case lodged with the Court to be heard and determined upon its MERITS, where on constitutional grounds I applied within section 75(v) of the Constitution for the High Court of Australia to issue a Mandamus? Prohibition against Australian troops to participate in the murderous invasion. We now know that these illusive WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION never existed but I view the High Court of Australia has blood on its hands by having refused (notably on the very day the murderous invasion commenced) to have my applications to be heard and determined upon their MERITS! And, as the judges had been fraternizing with the first Defendant, the Governor-General when I had a case outstanding before the High Court of Australia, and the Court then subsequently refused to allow my case to proceed, then the Reader can determine for himself/herself if this is the kind of impartial conduct one could expect from judges of any Court. As this book sets out, constitutionally there is no power for the Commonwealth of Australia to force anyone to vote.

25 However, as the Author himself discovered a magistrate basically could not care less and caused convictions, albeit
being overturned on appeals. Hence, do not expect an easy ride, so to say, as more then likely you will face some obstacle course, but this book may assist the Reader in getting ample of background material to prepare for the defending of your constitutional rights to decide if you desire to vote or not. By reading all the available material you may just be better aware of what is constitutionally applicable and if it comes to a show down in the Courts it may be the difference between succeeding or being defeated. This book was based upon the Author having succeeded UNCHALLENGED on all constitutional issues raised in his appeals of heard determined on 19 July 2006 before the County Court of Victoria! As this book also sets out the Westminster Act 1931 (UK), the British National Act 1948 (UK), the Australia Act 1986 (UK) are all ULTRA VIRES for so far they are in conflict with the principles embedded in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and the Australia Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1948 (Cth), likewise are ULTRA VIRES for so far they conflict with the constitutional principles embedded in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). It is for this also that we need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations. If you are going to vote in an election then why not vote for an INDEPENDENT so that the major political parties get a message that we, the people, are sick and tired of their inroads into our civil rights and other rights and we demand a better and more responsible Government. We do not want a government that incites division among people of one religion because the Government cant handle criticism. The Framers of the Constitution specifically prohibited the usage of religion but we now find politicians tripping over each other to try to get anyone with some sort of religion on their side as to get their vote. Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; If anything if the reading of this book does give the Reader a better understanding what their (real) Constitution is about then this book will have served its purpose, albeit if the material contained in this book can also assist for people to obtain JUSTICE that is even better. There is a lot more in this book worthy of proper consideration, just check it out! See also DISCLAIMER. Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka Chapter 000C Judeo-Christian * Gary, what is your view about this Judeo-Christian thing?

30

35

40

45

50

55

60
p5 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI, I am not some converted Jew, I have real Jewish blood flowing through my veins, inherited from my ancestors but would like every one TO SHUT UP about religion and accept the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution that they didnt want this POLITICAL UNION, the Commonwealth of Australia to be torn with religious hatred.

5
Being it Muslims, atheist or whatever their social and other values are as much important to us in Australia then that of Jews, Christians, etc. We do not, and this is what the Framers of the Constitution warned about, have this Commonwealth of Australia decent into some religious civil war. There is absolutely no validity in seeking to argue that somehow Christian values are overriding, as many non-Christians have contributed to this development of this continent and none were rejected because of their values may have been non-Christian. Lets make it clear, the value of a person is not and never should be measured in his/her religious or non-religious lifestyle but rather in what the person stood for as a human being. As I have already previously extensively canvassed this issue I do not propose to repeat all the same again. Just that I will highlight some matters. Why should a murdered who happen to have a religion that god forgive sins be better then a non-religious person who does not commit such a crime? http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21752187-2,00.html Tradition Immigration minister Kevin Andrews said the test would force potential citizens to know about Australias political system, Aboriginal history and that the nations values were based on Judeo -Christian tradition. "It's the sort of thing you would expect someone who goes through school in Australia would know at the end of secondary school, and probably in some instances at the end of primary school," Mr Andrews told the Herald Sun.

10

15

20

25
One of the questions is likely to be: "Which city is the capital of Australia: Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra or Hobart?" Another is: "Which animals are on the coat of arms?" Among the possible answers is: "Lion and unicorn".

30
The test will be based on a new resource book, The Australian Way of Life, being drawn up by the Immigration Department. The US Courts have extensive ruling on matters such as the one quoted below and the Framers of the Constitution

35 themselves also explained matters.


116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion 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.

40

Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support

45 materials provided in the following link:


Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized or organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a religion at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged. And Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You are not required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law. And

50

55

p6 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law or trying to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that you don't know your rights.

5 WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354. 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356. 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates; Mr. HIGGINS.I know that a great many people have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words in the preamble of this Bill by men who know the course of the struggle in the United States, but who have not told the people what the course of that struggle is, and what the motive for these words is. I think the people of Australia ought to have been told frankly when they were asked to sign these petitions what the history in the United States has been on the subject, and the motive with which these words have been proposed. I think the people in Australia are as reverential as any people on the face of this earth, so I will make no opposition to the insertion of seemly and suitable words, provided that it is made perfectly clear in the substantive part of the Constitution that we are not conferring on the Commonwealth a power to pass religious laws. I want to leave that as a reserved power to the state, as it is now. Let the states have the power. I will not interfere with the individual states in the power they have, but I want to make it clear that in inserting these religious words in the preamble of the Bill we are not by inference giving a power to impose on the Federation of Australia any religious laws. And Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to the Constitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or anywhere else. Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God. Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God. The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think the honorable member is in order in making a speech.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mr. HIGGINS.-I thank the honorable member for being disorderly under the circumstances. I think there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I also see this, that the taking of an oath in a court of justice or on taking office is quite a different thing from having in a well thought-out preamble to a Constitution any reference to religious belief. END QUOTE END QUOTE FROM BOOK

It does not offend me whatsoever if people convey to me their views that may be completely contradictory to those I express, as again, they have a right to do so. However, if they express their views with the intend that others must obey their views (to act according to their views) 55 then it no longer are merely expressions of views but rather some indoctrination and dictatorship upon others.
p7 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

As Jim rightfully pointed out, in one of his emails to me, there are numerous translations of the Bible and so numerous different versions, perceptions, etc. Once, I attended to a church service assisting with the transport of a widow (whos late husband 5 was a mason) and the Minister actually made known to me that he was a lawyer. I then asked him what Bible is used in the courts when a witness swears an oath. And he gave me the response that he actually never even had considered this and didnt know. Please find why no Officer is exempt from Prosecution that has been adopted worldwide: 10 Extract from the Nuremberg Judgment within the International Military Tribunal 1st October 1946 bottom of page 100
QUOTE Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defence they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes, which are shown to have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed. The truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know. This must be said: Where the facts warrant it, these men should be brought to trial so that those among them who are guilty of these crimes should not escape punishment.

15

20 END QUOTE
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15 QUOTE PARKER C.B. It is plain that the policy of all countries, s are to be administered to all persons according to their own opinion, and as it most effects their conscience, and laying the hand was originally borrowed from the Pagans. It is said by the defendants counsel, that no new oath can be imposed wit hout an Act of Parliament, and for this purpose several cases were cited. My answer is: This is no new oath END QUOTE

25

30

And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15 QUOTE Willis C.J. There can be no evidence admitted without oath, it would be absurd for him to swear according to the Christian oath, which he does not believe; and therefore, out of necessity, he must be allowed to swear according to his own notion an oath I cannot say I lay a great stress upon the authors which give am account of the Gentoo religion, because it must depend upon their veracity and private judgment; but I found my opinion upon the certificate which says, the Gentoos believe in a God as the Creator of the universe, and that he is rewarder of those who do well, and an avenger of those who do ill END QUOTE

35

40

And 45
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15 QUOTE Lee C.J. I agree entirely with the opinions of Lord Chief Baron Parker and Lord Chief Willes; that where it is returned by the certificate the witness is of a religion, it is sufficient; for the foundation of all religion is the belief in god. Through difficult to have a distinct idea of an infinite and incomprehensible Being as god is; yet mankind may have a relative idea of the being of a God, as dependent creatures upon Him.An oath is a religious function that mankind have universally established END QUOTE

50

And
OMYCHUND v BARKER (1744) Chancery 1 Atk, 21; Willes 538; 1 Wils K>B> 84; 26 E. R. 15 QUOTE LORD Hardwickle L.C. Suppose a Heathen, not an alien enemy, should bring an action at common law, and the defendant should bring for an injunction, would anybody say that the plaintiff at law should not be admitted to put in an answer according to his own form of an oath? If otherwise, the injunction must be perpetual, and this would manifest p8 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

55

10

denial of justice This falls in exactly with what Lord Strair, Puffendorf, etc say, that it has been the wisdom of all nations to administer such oaths, as are agreeable to the notion of the person taking, and does not at all effect the conscience of the person administering, nor does it in any respect adopt such religion: it is not near so much a breaking in upon the rule of law, as admitting a person to be an evidence in his own cause Upon the special circumstances of this case, I concur in opinion with my Lords the Judges, that the depositions of those witnesses ought to be read as evidence in this cause, and do not therefore order that the objection be overruled, and the depositions read. END QUOTE See also; Phipson 482, 483; Nokes 392 as to various modes to administer oaths to non-Christians. R. v. Moore (1892) 61 L.J.M.C. 80 (C.C.R.), Nash v Ali Khan (1892) 8 T.L.R. 444 (C.A.), R. v.Clark[1962] 1 W.L.R. 180 (C.C.A.)

.
R. v Butterwasser Court of Appeal 1947 , 1K.B. 4; 63 T.L.R., 463; 111 J.P. 527; 91 S.J. 586; 32 Cr. App. R. 81;

15 [1947] 2 All E.R. 415


QUOTE There is no obligation on a court to hear evidence after verdict. One small point which shows the distinction between evidence after the verdict and evidence before the verdict is the different oath which use to be administered to the witness. The form of the oath which was formerly administered to the witnesses during the trial is well known; The evidence you shall give to the court and the jury sworn between the Sovereign Lord, the King, and the prisoner at the Bar, shall be the truth, and so forth. After verdict, the witness who came into the box to give evidence was sworn on what was called the voire dire, that is to say; You shall true answer make to all such questions as the court shall demand of you. The court could then demand any information it saw fit to ask for.. END QUOTE
.

20

25

30

35

40

QUOTE Australian Agricultural Co Ltd. v F.E.D.F.A of Australasia (1913) 17 CLR 261 and 278 The oath of a justice of this court is ' to do right to all manner of people according to law' Our sworn duty is to the law itself and to the organic nature of the constitution first of all. If, then, we find the law to be plainly in conflict with what we or any of our predecessors errornously thought it to be, we have, as I conceive no right to choose between giving effect to the law, and maintaining an incorrect interpretation, It is not, in my opinion, better that the court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.. Whatever else may be said with respect to previous decisions - and it is necessary here to consider the principals upon which a court should act in particular cases - so much at least emerges as is undoubtedly beyond challenge, that where a former decision is clearly wrong, and there are no circumstances countervailing the primary duty of giving effect to the law as the court finds it, the real opinion of the court should be expressed. END QUOTE

It must be clear that an oath can be made upon any kind of document, being it a bible in once own language or other, in whatever version that bible may be is not relevant unless the person brings along (as I did with my Dutch language bible) his/her own Bible, but in the end the oath remains to be an oath and even affirmation has the same standing in court, albeit over the 45 decades often people would give me the understanding that (albeit I view their perception was wrong) because it was not an oath but a affirmation then they could lie in court as they didnt offend their own religion as such. This is the problem when people confuse religion with legal proceedings and the legal requirements within it. 50 Those who have the belief that all laws are God created would fall foul where John M Abbott gave me the understanding that God gives us the freedom to live how we desire. 55 Let us look back to the time of the Framers of the Constitution:
.

HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) (Clause 52 then is now Section 51 of the constitution) QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:

p9 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

In their eyes it was held to maintain a white Australia policy. However, one has to read it appropriately. They held that where it came to Aboriginals, then where they were granted colonial/state franchise to vote then by way of s41 of the constitution their franchise rights was protected. 10 People therefore misconstrue that the Framers of the Constitution were against Aboriginals and seek to cite s51(xxvi) and s127) as they were at the time of federation to underline this. However, as I pointed out in my published books, s127 was if anything protecting Aboriginals (I will not now set it all out) and s51(xxvi) was beyond doubt also to protect Aboriginals. So, in that regard it appears to me that the 1967 referendum as actually a con job referendum, a 15 previous Federal government aborted upon legal advice. As I understand from the writings of Mr David Ashton-Lewis (considering he has a considerable legal background) that he agrees with my statement
QUOTE

I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia. END QUOTE

20 Religion and/or the practice thereof should be the personal right of a person provided it does not unduly affect the
rights of any other person. As such, what two consenting adults may do in the privacy of their own home may be their right but to expect others to accept this as some kind of marriage I view undermines the purpose of marriage. To me the issue of "de facto" marriage is likewise so. END QUOTE

25

Over the decades that I assisted in litigation, and this included those of numerous faith, including Islam, I made it always clear that they were entitled to profess their religious views but have to accept I may have my own views which may not be as they view it. 30 By this, I never had an issue with them, including lawyers I at times represented. I found that when I assisted a party in litigation, which was all over religious issues, judges would welcome my approach not to zero in about the Almighty but remain focused on the legal issues before the court. At times this different approach by me I viewed had a positive 35 change in the proceedings.
.

40

45

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal , and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians. END QUOTE

It is regrettable to notice that a party (without anyone assisting) stands at the Bar table and go on and on about the Almighty and then end up losing the case for failing to address the real legal 50 issues. And then they blame the judiciary for their own failures. In my view, when a person makes an oath or affirmation then it is not relevant if that person may or may not hold any value to the oath or affirmation given but that it is legally applicable to what the circumstances may deem applicable. 55 Hence, if a person knowing the Bible in the court room is not which he/she adheres to but nevertheless makes an Oath, then I view this witness is bound by the legal enforcement and
p10 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

application of the oath and cannot be excused by not being the correct version, being it the St James bible or otherwise. Hence, I always indicated to parties I assisted in litigation that if you are going to make an oath or an affirmation either way you are bound to tell the truth and nothing but the 5 truth. Therefore, if you do not want to be faced with telling the truth then avoid becoming a witness, if that is reasonably possible. If God gave us the desire to live as we desire then why at all bother about whatever anyone else wrote in their respective versions of the Bible? As I understand it, many parts of the bible were written hundreds of years later. As such to claim a verbal account of whatever Moses had claimed God had instructed him and advised about, such as the killing of others, including children, I view cannot be accepted as so to say being set in concrete. On the one hand some are claiming if something good occurred then God did so and if something bad happened then well it had nothing to do with God. As such, God only is there for the good and not for the bad. Others however claim that when something bad happens then that is a punishment by God. Others make known it has nothing to do with God, because people lives their freely as they desire. Then we have of course that Satan is the alleged fallen Angel, who causes people to do bad things. One then have to ask if God does nothing but just purportedly be there and Satan can cause people to act badly then is Satan more powerful then God. Is God powerless to act against Satan? Why then do people have to pray to God if he is so to say dormant in any assistance as he will refrain from acting? If on the other hand God is a mere illusion and so Satan as for people to confine with if they have emotional issues, as much as for centuries many different religious conduct was followed, including the sacrifices of humans, then one may ask what possessed the Framers of the constitution to place in the preamble something they had no way of proving to exist, being the Almighty. Why indeed should I have life insurance, car insurance, home and property insurance and a lot more all in case some evil event were to come upon me if God is the Almighty and so why can this God then not provide protection against this evil. Is this God just sitting back allowing even young newborn children to suffer? Is this God allowing people to end up in car accidents and other serious accidents and then watch them being in excruciating pain slowly die rather than to so to say lend a hand to avoid the prolonged suffering? Is it Gods will that people suffer at the hands of their perpetrators/tyrants/dictators? Why then have a god at all if all God does is to sit back and let the suffering continue? Indeed, why for those centuries are children being allowed to be abused by pedophiles under religious cloak (Not ignoring the non-religious abuses) as so to say the hand of God should strike the abusers. Not that they can carry on for decades and they may repent and seek forgiveness just before they die and then allegedly can still go to heaven to so to say sit with their victims, of many may have been killed in the process of torture and abuse. Is this how heaven is to be assumed, where the rapist and murderer can share a lovely time with his/her victims, in eternity? If Jesus died for the sins of everyone then does this mean we should get rid of the judiciary because whatever crime we committed or are to commit Jesus already paid the price for it? Or are we going to have a DEOBLE JEPARDY in that if you are sentenced in a court then you will be deemed to be clean of any wrongdoing as you have served your punishment? Or is God sitting back and let people to commit crime while some time down the line you will be judges on your deeds even so you already may have served the punishment issued by the court? As I understand it Judas is portrayed as the traitor of Jesus, but writings discovered appears to indicate that Judas not at all was betraying Jesus. Yet, the common folk statement of being a Judas generally refers to being a betrayer, etc.
.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50 We are living in a time where we have no way of knowing what actually transpired some thousands of years ago. We all may interpret the writings in different ways, as much as those who transcribed the original scrolls may have misinterpreted the same. Even in todays society
p11 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

we can have a different meaning to the same words or same text written, pending which part of a country one resides in.
.

In Germany Du bist a fuile hond (My German may not be fully correct in writing) means You 5 are a lazy dog where as in Dutch Jij ben a vuile hond is an insult that one is a dirty dog. Let us therefore be clear about it that the manipulation of what was included in the original Bible and what was later left out and replaced with other parts in itself already undermines the credibility of what actually the Bible was in its original state. Then each time someone translated/transcribed/copied it then a simple error in one letter can make a big difference to the 10 meaning of what was originally written. QUOTE

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all 15 the men. All five of the Midianite kings Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba died in the battle. END QUOTE 20 Whomever wrote this part made clear that the LORD had commanded Moses. Who really made this claim and what is its authenticity? Was it simply that the author of this writings had done no more but written down the story he was told by someone else, who may or may not correctly have understood it from someone else, etc, etc? We will never know what really has eventuated so long ago and therefore in my view, we should accept that whatever version a person takes as acceptable to him/her as a belief that we should not interfere with. Indeed, we have no right to do so. However if a person associates his/her belief to harm others then it becomes societies obligation to deal with this. To those who are claiming Gods will should be enforced above that of statue and common law then I ask how can you prove that what you are on about is actually Gods will and not merely something concocted or otherwise claimed that has no basis in what Gods will may or may not have been. Not uncommon I have heard people claiming that the illness of their child was Gods will to blame the parents for their sins and yet John M Abbott appears to make known that Jesus died for the sins of others. Seems to me people will make their own kind of claims how it may suit their particular views and beliefs and we will therefore never resolve this issue. In that case, we should simply accept that everyone may adhere to their religious faith, for so far they ascribe to one, and this provided they do it for themselves and not seek in any way directly or indirectly to harm others.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-

25

30

35

40

"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world." END QUOTE
.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

45 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me. But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power p12 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. END QUOTE
.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expectedMr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established.

10

15

20 END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution?

25

Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

30 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. We are going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose. The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme. END QUOTE

35

40

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire . A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates p13 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. By putting into the Constitution words prohibiting the Commonwealth Parliament from making certain specified laws you create the implication that the Parliament has power to deal in other respects with religious observances. END QUOTE Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

10 Preamble:-Whereas the people of [here name the colonies which have, adopted the Constitution] have agreed to
unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established: And whereas it is expedient to make provision for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of Her Majesty: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I beg to moveThat the following words be inserted after the word "Constitution" (line 2):-"humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God." I wish to move the insertion of this form of words in the preamble, because I think that it embodies the spirit of the

15

20 nine suggestions in regard to this matter made by the various Houses of Parliament which have considered the Draft
Constitution. The words I wish to insert are simple and unsectarian. They are expressive of our ultimate hope of the final end of all our aspirations, of the great elemental truth upon which all our creeds are based, and towards which the lines of our faiths converge. They will, I think, recommend the Constitution to thousands to whom the rest of its provisions may for ever be a sealed book. If our whole ceremonial life is not touched with insincerity and its symbols are not empty and vain, if there be a reality greater than we can grasp at the back of all our aspirations; a mind as eternal as time, and infinite as space, to which the phenomena of the world and our lives are but a passing phase; if the invocation of the Divine blessing and sanction upon the many occasions of our [start page 1733] daily life is not a mere empty formality we cannot, at the moment of entering into a union so full as this of the possibilities of good and evil, of contentment or regret-of, in the words of Jeremy Taylor, felicity or lasting sorrow-refuse to give expression to the central fact of all our faiths. In an affirmation of pure reverence and submission such as this, the adherents of all creeds, sinking their differences of form and method, can join, and will find the spirit of toleration in them growing strong under a sense of their common aim. It will thus become the pledge of religious toleration. We may be met again by mere considerations of propriety. We may be told that everything has its appropriate time and place, and that words of faith should not be embedded in the preamble of an Act of Parliament. But I would point out that this objection proves too much, and, if pushed to the full limit of its application, would deprive half the offices and courtesies of life of their highest significance. The stamp of religion is fixed upon the front of our institutions, its letter is impressed upon the book of our lives, and that its spirit, weakened though it may be by the opposing forces of the world, still lifts the pulse of the social organism. It is this, not the iron hand of the law, that is the bond of society; it is this that gives unity and tone to the texture of the whole; it is this, that by subduing the domineering impulses and the reckless passions of the heart, turns discord to harmony, and evolves the law of moral progress out of the clashing purposes of life. In these days of too-often dying ideals, when thoughts that once would burn are chilled by the besetting touch of commonplace; when utility seems the measure of virtue, and the greater passions pale under the searching rays of reason; when affection, love, duty, the divine but reckless instincts of patriotism, have been expressed in the language of metaphysics, or become the subjects of mental pathology; when the ardour that fires our noblest aims is damped by a calculating cynicism, and the glow of poetry goes out before the glare of materialism; it is well that we should set in our Constitution something that may at times remind us of ideals beyond the counter, and of hopes that lift us higher than the vulgar realities of the day. I speak not as one whose mind is braced beyond the measure of his neighhours by an adamantine faith, or any of those consolations that come from the larger hope. Say what we will, there are moments, short though they may be, when the puzzle of life and destiny staggers the sense, when the shadow is cast and obscures the vision, and the best of us feel our weakness and loosening grip of the unseen. Then it is that the symbols of faith and reverence attest their power and efficacy, and brace the reeling spirit with a recovered sense of the breadth and continuity of man's consciousness of an inscrutable Power ruling our lives. This is the basic principle, the central theme, of all our creeds and dogmas-the great elemental truth, in which all their differences disappear. Let us, then, in no spirit of Pharisaism-for we speak as much for others as for ourselves-fix in the Constitution, this mark of the Omnipotent, this stamp of the Eternal, this p14 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

testimony of feeling, or it may be but of desire, in which faith may find a recommendation, and doubt discover no offence. The CHAIRMAN.-I would call the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that a number of amendments have been suggested by various Houses of Legislature which are in effect of a similar nature to the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Glynn). I would, therefore, suggest that any honorable member wishing to bring the amendment into conformity with the language of any of these parliamentary suggestions should move an amendment upon it inserting the words suggested by the Houses of any of the colonies. All these suggestions are [start page 1734] practically of the same effect, though expressed in different words. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-In Adelaide I voted against the insertion in the preamble of a form of words proposed

10 by the honorable member (Mr. Glynn), and it is with regret that I shall have to repeat that vote-at the present time,
because the Constitution contains no provision to obviate the had effect which the insertion of these words will have. I am glad that I am so far justified in my opposition to the proposal made by the honorable member in Adelaide by the fact that no Assembly and no person has suggested the insertion of the words which were then proposed to be inserted by the honorable member. Those words were utterly inappropriate. I freely admit that the words which he now proposes to insert are not quite so objectionable, though I still think that the amendment could be improved upon. I say frankly that I should have no objection to the insertion of words of this kind in the preamble, if I felt that in the Constitution we had a sufficient safeguard against the passing of religious laws by the Commonwealth. I shall, I hope, afterwards have an opportunity, upon the reconsideration of the measure, to bring before the Convention a clause modified to meet some criticisms which have been made on the point, and if I succeed in getting that clause passed it will provide this safeguard. I shall have an opportunity then of explaining how exceedingly important it is to have some such safeguard. There is no time for me now to go into an elaborate history of this question so far as the United States of America are concerned. I have investigated it with a great deal of care, and I can give the result of my investigations to honorable members, who, I hope, will not believe that I would misled them if I could help doing so with regard to the effect of what has taken place there. Because they had no words in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States to the effect of those which the honorable member (Mr. Glynn) wishes to insert, Congress was unable to pass certain legislation in the direction of enforcing religion. There was a struggle for about thirty years to have some words of religious import inserted in the preamble. That struggle failed; but in 1892 it was decided by, the Supreme Court that the people of the United States were a Christian people. Mr. BARTON.-That decision was followed practically by the decision that they were a Christian people.

15

20

25

30

Mr. HIGGINS.-Yes. That decision was given in March or February, and four months afterwards it was enacted by Congress that the Chicago Exhibition should be closed upon Sundays, simply upon the ground that Sunday was a Christian day. The argument was that among a Christian nation you should enforce Christian observances. Mr. BARTON.-Could they not have closed the exhibition on Sundays without that enactment? Mr. HIGGINS.-I think the honorable and learned member will hear me out in this, that there is nothing in the

35 Constitution of the United States of America, even indirectly, suggesting a law of this sort. No doubt, the state of
Illinois could have passed such a law, because it has all its rights reserved. But there was nothing in the Constitution enabling the Congress to pass. a law for the closing of the exhibition Sunday. As soon as ever those parties who had been working for the purpose of getting Sunday legalized throughout the United States found that decision given in February, 1892, that "this is a Christian nation," they followed it up quickly, and within four months there was a law passed for the closing of the exhibition on Sunday. Mr. WISE.-Was that held to be constitutional? Mr. BARTON.-It has not been challenged yet. [start page 1735] Mr. HIGGINS.-It has been in force for five and a half or six years, and it was struggled against, as my honorable

40

45 friend will know. There was a strong monetary interest against it, and they, no doubt, took advice, but I will say
frankly that I am not aware that it has been held to be constitutional. I understand though that there has been no dispute among the legal men in that country as to its being constitutional. Honorable members will hardly realize how far the inferential powers have been extended in America. I should have thought it obvious, and I think Mr. Wise will agree with me, that the Congress had no power to pass a law of that sort. p15 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. WISE.-I admit that your statement puts a very different complexion on the matter. Mr. HIGGINS.-I hope it does, because it will become a very important matter. I should have thought that it was not within the scope of Congress to pass a law, no matter how righteous, to close the exhibition on Sunday, but I find, on looking to a number of decisions in the United States, that it has been held again and again that, because of certain expressions, words, and phrases used in the Constitution, inferential powers are conferred upon the Congress that go beyond any dreams we have at present. I know that a great many people have been got to sign petitions in favour of inserting such religious words in the preamble of this Bill by men who know the course of the struggle in the United States, but who have not told the people what the course of that struggle is, and what the motive for these words is. I think the people of Australia ought to have been told frankly when they were asked to sign these petitions what the history in the United States has been on the subject, and the motive with which these words have been proposed. I think the people in Australia are as reverential as any people on the face of this earth, so I will make no opposition to the insertion of seemly and suitable words, provided that it is made perfectly clear in the substantive part of the Constitution that we are not conferring on the Commonwealth a power to pass religious laws. I want to leave that as a reserved power to the state, as it is now. Let the states have the power. I will not interfere with the individual states in the power they have, but I want to make it clear that in inserting these religious words in the preamble of the Bill we are not by inference giving a power to impose on the Federation of Australia any religious laws. I hope that I shall be excused for having spoken on this matter. I felt that it was only fair that honorable members should know that there is a damer in these words, if we are to look to the precedent of the United States. I will help honorable members in putting in any suitable words provided that we have sufficient safeguards. Mr. LYNE.-Will you explain, before you sit down, where the particular danger is? Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us. We are going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state at present has the power to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not disturb that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-riding power over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall observe for religious reasons, and what day they shall not observe for that purpose. The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law it likes under my scheme. It can pass any law of that sort now; but surely it is a proper thing for a state, and it is not a proper thing for the Commonwealth, to exercise this power. I feel that honorable members who value state rights reserved [start page 1736] to the states, who value the preservation of the individuality of the states for state purposes, will agree with me that it is with the state we ought to leave this power, and that we ought not to intrust it to the Commonwealth. For instance, our factory laws are left to the state. Those laws provide for a certain number of hours of rest, and that employes shall not work on Sundays, and so forth. If we leave the factor laws to the state we should also leave this question of the observance of Sunday to the state. I will not take it from them. At the same time, I am not going, no matter what the consequences are, to help to intrust this power to the Commonwealth. I want the people of the different states to manage their own affairs as well as they can. I may say frankly that I, rightly or wrongly, am one of those who think that the Christian or religious observance is no good if it is enforced by law. I am one of those who think the religious observance is of no value unless it is the outcome of a man's own character, and the outcome of a man's own belief. Mr. SYMON.-You do not want to keep it always stuck up in the form of a sentence in your bathroom. Mr. HIGGINS.-My learned friend, I believe, is staying at the Melbourne Club, and I am glad that they have taken the opportunity to inculcate sound doctrine upon him. Mr. WALKER.-Is not there an acknowledgment of the Almighty in the schedule of the Bill? Is not this perfectly

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 consistent with the schedule


Mr. HIGGINS.-No; I think the honorable member will see that a recital in the preamble to the Constitution is a very different thing from an oath which may be taken in a court of justice or anywhere else. Mr. DOUGLAS.-You will find that you can make an affirmation without referring to Almighty God. Any person can make an affirmation who has no belief in Almighty God.

50

The CHAIRMAN.-I do not think the honorable member is in order in making a speech. p16 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. HIGGINS.-I thank the honorable member for being disorderly under the circumstances. I think there is a good deal of force in what he says, but I also see this, that the taking of an oath in a court of justice or on taking office is quite a different thing from having in a well thought-out preamble to a Constitution any reference to religious belief.

Mr. WALKER.-It is prescribed in the schedule. Mr. HIGGINS.-That may be, but a schedule is quite a different thing from a preamble. Dr. QUICK (Victoria).-I have no doubt that the Convention ought to thank the honorable member (Mr. Higgins) for the warning he has thought fit to give; at the same time, I, for one, see no cause for fearing that any of the dangers he has suggested will arise from inserting these words in the Bill. He has said that under the American Constitution, in which no such words as these appear, certain legislation has been carried by Congress forbidding the opening of the Chicago Exhibition on a Sunday. If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal , and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians. I see no reason whatever for fearing that any danger will arise from placing the words in the preamble. This is a Constitution in which certain powers are conferred on the Parliament of the [start page 1737] Commonwealth. I do not know that the placing of these words in the preamble will necessarily confer on that Parliament any power to legislate in religious matters. It will only have power to legislate within the limits of the delegated authority, and the mere recital in respect to the Deity in the preamble will not necessarily confer on the Federal Parliament power to legislate on any religious matter. Whatever may have been the legislation of Congress as to the Chicago Exhibition, there may be reasonable grounds for doubting as to whether it may not be ultra vires. Mr. Higgins has vaguely alluded to certain words and expressions in the Constitution of the United States. I do not know what those words are which could have justified such legislation, but in reference to this Bill I challenge any one to point out any clause which would justify the Federal Parliament in legislating on any religious matter. If there is such a clause in the Bill, then by all means strike it out or modify it, but, until Mr. Higgins can point to a clause in the Bill which will authorize the Federal Parliament to legislate on religious matters one way or the other, his apprehension as to dangers is altogether without foundation, and it should not in any way influence this committee in deciding on the question whether we should put in the preamble words simply recognising the existence of Almighty God and that reverential feeling to which the Deity is entitled. I hope that after due consideration, and in face of the strong recommendations of all the Parliaments of Australia, and the numerous and influential petitions which have been presented to the Convention by the inhabitants of Australia, honorable members will give more respect to the Parliaments and the people of Australia than to the warning held out by Mr. Higgins. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-Before the amendment is put, I should like to say a few words in explanation of the position I hold. I am quite aware that since it was debated in Adelaide there has been considerable argument and a certain degree of warmth about this matter. Just as I thought that the mover of the amendment in Adelaide, which amendment was defeated, might well not press it to a division, so I had hoped that we should have had no amendment of this kind moved here. If such an amendment is to be made, I will say, at the outset, that the form of this one is the least objectionable which could be devised, for my friend (Mr. Glynn) consulted the Drafting Committee about the form of the amendment, and, so far as they in that capacity could offer any opinion, they thought it was as good a form as could be put in. But, with regard to the substance of the matter, I have all along thought that it is, to a certain extent, a danger to insert words of this kind in the preamble. Mr. Higgins has clearly put before us the difficulty which arose in the United States-a difficulty which arose out of a decision without any such words in the Constitution, which led to a decision and an enactment, and which it is probable we do not want to see arising under our Constitution. My honorable friend (Dr. Quick) has argued that if, in the absence of any such words in the Constitution of the United States such things could happen as have happened under that Constitution, our case will be no worse if we put words of this kind into the preamble of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. I am rather of the contrary opinion to that of my honorable and learned friend. I think that if there is a danger of a body of religious laws being passed or of decisions being given by a court, without words of religion in the forefront of the Constitution, in its very preamble, that danger, by every consideration of experience and common sense, would be increased by putting in an express amendment which might be construed as a peg on which to hang such further decision or such further enactment. The court, I know, in the case that was [start page 1738] in question, went outside the Constitution for its material. It referred to the Declaration of Independence, which was the precursor of the Constitution that had been entirely swept away by the Constitution of the United States. It referred to the grants to the planters and to those who had p17 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

15

20

25

taken up the plantations in America, as well as to the charters and enactments under which they were governed. The court referred to all those things, and to every piece of paper on which it could lay its hands, for the purpose of deciding that the United States was a religious nation, and inasmuch as these expressions, which were dug up by the court in grants, were used as much under a Catholic as under a Protestant regime, but under no other regime, they then decided that the United States were not only a religious nation, but also a Christian nation. Now, I think that those matters are better left in the hands of the states. The states have certain plenary powers, which we do not wish to cut down, except so far as may be necessary for the purpose of federal government. The states have power to impose Sunday observance laws. Each state-and it is only of states that the Commonwealth will be composed-has power to regulate these things within its own territory, and the territories of the states together make up the sum of the territory of the Commonwealth. So that there is power in existence to deal with these matters without duplicating that power. The danger is, if we are to pay any attention to the decisions in the United States, that the thing that was done in the United States is more likely to be done here if we duplicate that power, because the result will be a conflicting body of laws dealing with religious matters and the observance of the Sabbath. Now, I do not look on that prospect with any degree of pleasure; I do not think that that will be a state of things which will be desirable under our Constitution. I have no desire to add anything further, except that I do not wish to be understood as withdrawing from the opinion I expressed at Adelaide, but the views I expressed there, in opposition to a similar amendment, may have perhaps received some confirmation from the facts as to the United States enactments and decisions which Mr. Higgins has brought forward in the course of this debate, and which were. mentioned partly by me some days ago, when speaking on another clause. I do not think there ought to be the slightest acrimony of any kind in a debate on this subject. It is really a pity that we have to vote on such a subject, but I feel quite sure that it will be debated in a spirit entirely reverential on both sides. For myself, I hope I have not introduced a word which would enable any one to say that I have dealt with this matter in any factious or party spirit, and any idea of faction or party must be eliminated from these proceedings. If a division is called for-and I must say that I do not like divisions on these questions-I shall, as a matter of consistency, vote as I did before, if Mr. Glynn persists in his amendment. At the same time, I must admit that I shall recognise the good intentions and high motives by which those who seek to introduce a declaration of this kind into the Constitution are actuated. Mr. LYNE (New South Wales).-Having moved, in the New South Wales Parliament, a motion somewhat similar to the one now moved by Mr. Glynn, I took considerable interest in, and paid great attention to, the remarks which were made by Mr. Higgins, and I may say that I would not hesitate for a moment, if I thought there was any menace to the powers of the states in adopting this proposal, to vote in opposition to the way I voted previously on the subject. But I cannot see that there is any menace to the states at all, or that any power will be taken from the states by inserting this amendment in the preamble of the Constitution. As one honorable member-I think it was Dr. Quicksaid, certain actions have been taken by the states in [start page 1739] Congress where there is no mention of the Supreme Being in the preamble or in the Constitution at all; and, if we leave this amendment out of the preamble, that power will be much the same as it is in the states. Now, all we do by this amendment is to define something more definite than has evidently been defined in the Constitution of the states. Remembering that the Federal Parliament will represent the various states to a very great extent, I think that anything that might be feared in the way Mr. Higgins suggested could be put on one side at once. Moreover, I recognise this fact-that the insertion of this amendment will assist very materially in the acceptance of the Constitution. It may be, and probably is, a matter of sentiment-I suppose none of us pretend to be actuated on a question of this kind other than by sentiment-but I feel convinced that the insertion of this amendment in the preamble will influence a large number of votes in favour of this Federation Bill. Not having heard anything to shake my belief that that will be so, I shall adhere to the vote that I gave on a previous occasion. Mr. DOUGLAS (Tasmania).-When this subject was broached in Adelaide, I took the opportunity of stating that I could not see the utility of inserting these words in the preamble of the Commonwealth Bill, and my opinion has not in anyway altered up to the present time. I should like to know what is the object honorable members have in view in desiring the insertion of these words? Do these words convey to the public mind any particular idea that their insertion in the preamble of this Bill would make us a religious people? The words in question are "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." Now, do not we all rely upon the blessing of Almighty God in our daily transactions? Certainly. But do we set forth that fact in all our letters and documents by which we communicate with one another? Certainly not. No doubt the supporters of this amendment desire to make the public believe or fancy that they will become a religious people if such words as these are put into the preamble of this Bill. Do we do this at the present time in our ordinary legislation? Do not we all know that it is a mockery that the House of Commons at the present time commences its sittings, day by day, by having prayers read in that assembly? The Speaker of the House of Commons reads the Lord's Prayer before proceedings are commenced, but it has crown into such a farce that nobody attends the House until the prayer is over. Do we want to introduce that system here? p18 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

50

55

Mr. PEACOCK.-It is done here. Mr. DOUGLAS.-I believe that there are still some legislative assemblies in Australia where they commence the day's proceedings by reading the Lord's Prayer. It was originally done in Tasmania, but it was soon found out to be a perfect piece of mockery, and abandoned.

Mr. ISAACS.-Do not you have any reference to the Supreme Being in the Governor's speech in Tasmania? Mr. DOUGLAS.-We used to have the Lord's Prayer read in the Legislative Council, but it became a matter of such indifference that the custom was given up. I do not know whether you have it in your Parliament in Victoria. Mr. PEACOCK.-Yes; in our Legislative Council the President reads the Lord's Prayer. Mr. DEAKIN.-And nearly all the members know it now.

10

Mr. DOUGLAS.-When any honorable member became a candidate for the position of a representative of his colony in this Convention, did he go down on his knees and pray Almighty God to confer a blessing on him in order that he might secure a position here? Of course, we all have these good feelings in our minds when legislating here, as is shown when we come to anything which suggests brotherly feeling or action, and, therefore, why insert these words in the preamble to the Bill? [start page 1740] What is the object of inserting these words? Is it to make the people believe that they will be more religious if the words are inserted? Shall we be more religious if we put them in? Will it have any effect whatever upon us? Why, it is all nonsense-a sham and a delusion-like many other things that have taken place here! I presume that I am ordinarily as religious as any member of this Convention, but I do not make a parade of it. I take my Sunday walks, but I do not do as the Quaker did, who said to his assistant-"John, if you have sanded the sugar and wetted the currants, you can now come in to prayers." Mr. WALKER.-It was not a Quaker who said that. Mr. DOUGLAS.-Well, it was somebody like the honorable member, then. The CHAIRMAN.-Order.

15

20

25

30

Mr. DOUGLAS.-The honorable member presents a large petition, praying for the insertion of this amendment, and thinks he has done a great deal of good to the community by so doing. Now, does that do any good at all? Do we pay any attention to it? Dr. Quick says we all have some religious views, and even Hindoos and Mahomedansalthough I presume there are very few Mahomedans here-even religious Hindoos and religious Mahomedans would not apply the words of this amendment in the same sense as we apply them, nor are they applied in the same sense by Christians of one character and Christians of another. And we know that there are at least about 120 different descriptions of Christians, and, it may be, many more. The insertion of these words would be a mockery, and that is the reason I voted against their insertion before. I want to be sincere, and I do not want to make the people believe by going into the street and saying-"I am a religious man," that, therefore, I am a religious man. Mr. PEACOCK.-They would not believe you if you did. Mr. DOUGLAS.-A man's actions and not his words denote what he is, and hypocrites in religious circles do more harm to religion than is done by persons outside religious circles. I oppose this amendment because I believe it will minister to, hypocrisy to put these words in the Bill. I sincerely and truthfully believe in the Almighty Power, but I do not wish to introduce any reference to that Power in the preamble to this Bill. You do not introduce it in your ordinary Acts of Parliament, and, therefore, why should you want to introduce it now? You know what happens in the House of Commons in England, as I have told you, and surely you do not want the same farce to be enacted here. I agree with our leader that we had better leave these things alone. I hope with him that a division will not be taken on this subject. Let every member of the Convention give his voice on the question; but let it end there. I do not think it is a matter in which, in a community like p19 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

ours, a body like this Convention, which has been brought here for a particular purpose, should interfere. We should be travelling out of the range of the purpose for which we were sent here by inserting such words in the preamble to this Bill. If the question goes to a division, I shall vote against the amendment. Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I desire to say just a few words, because I think there is a more serious

5 question involved than the mere insertion of the words of this amendment. I am sure that we all listened with great
pleasure to the speech of Mr. Higgins on the subject. He reminded us of the decision in America that the Christian religion is a portion of the American Constitution, and of the enactments that were passed in consequence. I do not know whether it has occurred to honorable members that the Christian religion is a portion of the English Constitution without any decision on the subject at all. It is part of the law of England which I should think we undoubtedly brought with us [start page 1741] when we settled in these colonies. Therefore, I think we begin at the stage at which the Americans were doubtful, without the insertion of the words at all, and I would suggest to Mr. Higgins to seriously consider whether it will not be necessary to insert words distinctly limiting the Commonwealth's powers. Mr. HIGGINS.-There are words printed in an amendment to that effect.

10

15

20

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I feel more strongly than ever that that ought to be done, because I can very well understand the way in which the very persons who are presenting petitions and asking for this recognition would resent the consequences if they found that the religious control was taken away from the state and put into the Commonwealth. For my own part, I think it is of little moment whether the words are inserted or not. The piety in us must be in our hearts rather than on our lips. Whether the words are inserted or not, I think they will have no meaning, and will have no effect in extending the power of the Commonwealth; because the Commonwealth will be from its first stage a Christian Commonwealth, and, unless its powers are expressly limited, may I legislate on religious questions in a way that we now little dream of. Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I desire simply to say that I strongly support the position of Mr. Glynn. The amendment was agreed to.

25

The preamble, as amended, was agreed to. The title of the Bill was agreed to. END QUOTE HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

30

The CHAIRMAN.-The next question is Mr. Higgins' proposed new clause in lieu of clause 109, which was struck out. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I was not aware that this clause would come on so soon; but, inasmuch as I have spoken to the words in the preamble so recently, I think I shall be able to save honorable members the infliction of a long speech on this subject. My idea is to make it clear beyond doubt that the powers which the states individually have of making such laws as they like with regard to religion shall remain undisturbed and unbroken, and to make it clear that in framing this Constitution there is no intention whatever to give to the Federal Parliament the power to interfere in these matters. My object is to leave the reserved rights to the states where they are, to leave the existing law as it is; and just as each state can make its own factory laws, or its own laws as to the hours of labour, so each state should be at full liberty to make such laws as it thinks fit in regard to Sunday or any other day of rest. I simply want to leave things as they are. I do not want to interfere with any right the state has. I merely want to make it clear that, having inserted in the preamble of the Constitution certain words which, 'according to United States precedents, would involve certain inferential powers, there is no intention on the part of the Convention to confer even inferentially these powers on the Federal Parliament. I want, in this respect, as I said, to preserve the states' rights intact, but upon my former amendment I went too far, according to the views of the members of the Convention, and, therefore, I am only going to the extent of making it clear that the Commonwealth Parliament is to have no such power. I went too far on my former amendment, inasmuch as I said that neither a state nor the p20 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

Commonwealth was to have this power. I did that because the then existing clause 109 only referred to a state, and provided thatA state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Well, I did not know that the Convention was willing to go so far as it has gone, and strike out the whole of

5 that clause as to the state. However, it has done so. I beg to move the insertion of the following new clause to
replace clause 109 already struck out:The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, or for the establishment of any religion, or imposing any religious observance, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

10

15

20

I may state that most of this clause, with regard to the making of laws, is already in the American Constitution, either in the original Constitution or by way of an amendment of the Constitution. In the Constitution of the United States there is a provision that the Federal Parliament is not to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and there is also a clause, the very first amendment of the Constitution, that the Federal Parliament is not to make any law for the establishment of any religion. In the original Constitution you will find also a clause to the effect that there is to be no religious test required as a qualification for any post or office. The only difficulty, therefore, is in respect of these words about imposing religious observances, and that part, as I have already indicated this morning, is rendered necessary by the inclusion in the preamble of our Constitution of words which they have not got in the American Constitution. But in consequence of a decision of the United States in 1892, which went to the effect that the United States of America form a Christian nation, the courts have held that the United States are able to make laws for the purpose of imposing Sunday observance all over the Commonwealth. I say, then, in brief, that I merely want to preserve to the individual states the [start page 1770] absolute power of regulating all observances of this sort. They have the power as it is. They can make any factory laws they like, and I want to make it clear that there cannot be an overriding Commonwealth law which will interfere with the power the states now have. Therefore, I have moved this new clause. Mr. REID (New South Wales).-If my honorable friend could point out in the Bill any subject allied with religion which would make it necessary to put such a clause as this in the Bill, I would vote with him. Mr. HIGGINS.-The preamble. Mr. REID.-That can only be amended by reference to the people. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I feel some hesitation about voting for this proposed new clause. It was

25

30 proposed originally in clause 109 thatA state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Well, that clause has been struck out. It was decided that we should not prevent any state from making a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. That was done partly on the ground that we did not desire to interfere unnecessarily with the states. But clause 109 was struck out on the more solid ground, that there was no likelihood of any state ever prohibiting the free exercise of any religion-that there had been nothing of the kind in the past, and that there was not the slightest reason to expect the occurrence of any such thing in the future; that the more the institutions under which we live expanded, the less likelihood there was of any religious persecution of any kind. Now, if we hold that view with regard to the state, why should we not hold it in regard to the Commonwealth? If that is the reason which makes us strike out a clause prohibiting any state from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, why should we not hold that as a valid and sufficient reason against inserting any clause prohibiting the Commonwealth from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion? If we feel secure from religious persecution under the Parliaments and the Governments of the states, what reason have we to fear that we shall be subject to religious persecution under the Federal Parliament, which it is supposed will be superior in character to the Parliaments of the states? If the fear does not exist in the one case-and we think so little of it as to cause us to strike out clause 9, as we did-why should we entertain the same fear with regard to the Commonwealth any more than we entertain it in regard to the states? Mr. WISE.-You might say the same thing as to Congress. p21 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

10

15

Mr. BARTON.-Certainly there is a decision in the United States to the effect that it is a Christian nation. What does that decision amount to? Is it not really a decision based on the fact that the institutions of England, under the common law, are Christian institutions, which, so far as they are not interfered with by any written Constitution, belong to citizens of the United States, as having been brought over by them as British subjects, and kept by them from that day to this? If that is the ground of the American decision, which I suspect it is, the same thing applies in some of these colonies. Decisions have been given to the effect that there colonies are Christian communities. I remember a case in which that doctrine was expounded at length by the late Chief Justice Martin, of New South Wales. Now, if the colonies are Christian communities, the common law of England will apply to the Commonwealth, except so far as this Constitution alters that law; and if it is part of the common law of England that we shall be regarded as a Christian community, what fear is there of our suffering any dangers of the kind indicated in the amendment, simply because we are a Christian community? I do not see any danger of the [start page 1771] kind to be anticipated. I think that because we are a Christian community we ought to have advanced so much since the days of State aid and the days of making a law for the establishment of a religion, since the days for imposing religious observances or exacting a religious test as a qualification for any office of the State, as to render any such dangers practically impossible, and we will be going a little too far if we attempt to load this Constitution with a provision for dangers which are practically nonexistent. Mr. HIGGINS.-That is the question-are those dangers non-existent? Mr. BARTON.-I do not think the fact that we may be held by law to be a Christian community is any reason for us to anticipate that there will be any longer any fear of a reign of Christian persecution-any fear that there will be any remnant of the old ideas which have caused so much trouble in other ages. The whole of the advancement in English-speaking communities, under English laws and English institutions, has shown a less and less inclination to pass laws for imposing religious tests, or exacting religious observances, or to maintain any religion. We have not done that in Australia. We have abolished state religion in all these colonies; we have wiped out every religious test, and we propose now to establish a Government and a Parliament which will be at least as enlightened as the Governments and Parliaments which prevail in various states; therefore, what is the practical fear against which we are fighting? That is the difficulty I have in relation to this proposed clause. If I thought there was any-the leastprobability or possibility, taking into consideration the advancement of liberal and tolerant ideas that is constantly going on of any of these various communities utterly and entirely retracing its steps, I might be with the honorable member. If we, in these communities in which we live, have no right whatever to anticipate a return of methods which were practised under a different state or Constitution, under a less liberal measure of progress and advancement; if, as this progress goes on, the rights of citizenship are more respected; if the divorce between Church and State becomes more pronounced; if we have no fear of a recurrence of either the ideas or the methods of former days with respect to these colonies, then I do suggest that in framing a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia, which we expect to make at least as enlightened, and which we expect to be administered with as much intellectuality as any of the other Constitutions, we are not going to entertain fears in respect of the Commonwealth which we will not attempt to entertain with respect to any one of the states. Now, we have shown that we do not intend these words to apply to our states by striking out clause 109. That might be a provision that might be held to be too express in its terms, because there may be practices in various religions which are believed in by persons who may enter into the Commonwealth belonging to other races, which practices would be totally abhorrent to the ideas, not only to any Christian, but to any civilized community; and inasmuch as the Commonwealth is armed with the power of legislation in regard to immigration and emigration, and with regard to naturalization, and also with regard to the making of special laws for any race, except the aboriginal races belonging to any state-inasmuch as we have all these provisions under which it would be an advisable thing that the Commonwealth, under its regulative power, should prevent any practices from taking place which are abhorrent to the ideas of humanity and justice of the community; and inasmuch as it is a reasonable thing that these outrages on humanity and justice (if they ever occur) should be prohibited by the Commonwealth, it would be a dangerous thing, perhaps, to place in the Bill a provision which would take out [start page 1772] of their hands the power of preventing any such practices. Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you think that the Commonwealth has that power under the existing Bill?

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mr. BARTON.-I am not sure that it has not. I am not sure that it has not power to prevent anything that may seem an inhuman practice by way of religious rite. Mr. HIGGINS.-I want to leave such matters to the states. Mr. BARTON.-But inasmuch as we have given to the Commonwealth the power of regulating the entry of that class of persons, and the power of regulating them when they have entered, is it not desirable that in that process p22 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

there shall be left to the Commonwealth power of repressing any such practices in the name of religion as I have indicated? If it be necessary that there should be some regulative power left to the Commonwealth, then the argument that we should leave the matter to the states does not apply, because we give such a power to the Commonwealth.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Then all crimes should be left to the Commonwealth? Mr. BARTON.-No; because you do not give any power with regard to punishing crime to the Commonwealth, but you do give power to the Commonwealth to make special laws as to alien races; and the moment you do that the power of making such laws does not remain in the hands of the states; and if you place in the hands of the Commonwealth the power to prevent such practices as I have described you should not defeat that regulative power of the Commonwealth. I do not think that that applies at all, however, to any power of regulating the lives and proceedings of citizens, because we do not give any such power to the Commonwealth, whilst we do give the Commonwealth power with regard to alien races; and having given that power, we should take care not to take away an incident of it which it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to use by way of regulation. I have had great hesitation about this matter, but I think I shall be prevented from voting for the first part; and as to establishing any religion, that is so absolutely out of the question, so entirely not to be expectedMr. SYMON.-It is part of the unwritten law of the Constitution that a religion shall not be established. Mr. BARTON.-It is so foreign to the whole idea of the Constitution that we have no right to expect it; and, as my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Symon) suggests by his interruption, I do not think, whatever may be the result of any American case, that any such case can be stretched for a moment in such a way as to give Congress power of passing any law to establish any religion. I do not suppose that there is a man in Congress who would suggest it; and I have no doubt that the same court that decided that the community was a Christian community would say that the United States Congress had no power to establish any religion. The only part of the matter upon which I have had the least doubt (having become more confirmed in my opinion since I have considered the matter further) is the latter part of the proposal, which is that no religious test shall be required for any place of public trust in the Commonwealth. I do not think that any such test would be required, and the only question is whether it is possible. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible. Therefore, my disposition is to vote against the whole clause. Mr. REID.-I suppose that money could not be paid to any church under this Constitution? Mr. BARTON.-No; you have only two powers of spending money, and a church could not receive the funds of the Commonwealth under either of them.

10

15

20

25

30

[start page 1773] Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-I can conceive of no matter more fit for state control than that of religious observance, and, therefore, I am utterly unable to follow the leader of the Convention (Mr. Barton) in his contention. There should not be any opening for doubt as to the power of the Commonwealth to exercise control over any religion of the state. I wish I could share Mr. Barton's optimistic views as to the death of the spirit of religious persecution. But we have seen in our own time a recrudescence of that evil demon, which, I fear, is only scotched and not killed. At any rate, the period during which we have enjoyed religious liberty is not long enough for us to be able to say with confidence that there will be no swinging back of the pendulum to the spirit of the times from which we have only recently emerged. Consequently there is some reason for the alarms which have been expressed by a very large body of people, who have not been represented in this Convention, by long petitions, but who none the less are entitled to be considered when we are framing this Constitution, and who, rightly or wrongly-for my own part, I believe rather more wrongly than rightlybelieve that the agitation for the insertion in the preamble of the words which we have inserted to-day is sufficient to cause alarm among citizens of certain ways of thinking, and that there is an interior design on the part of some people in the community to give the Commonwealth power to interfere with religious observances. Mr. HIGGINS.-We had 38,000 signatures to a petition from the people in Victoria against the inclusion of these words in the preamble. Mr. WISE.-I am very glad to hear it. That strengthens my argument. if 38,000 citizens of Victoria sent a petition against the inclusion of these words, not because they disapproved of the words in themselves, but p23 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

35

40

45

10

15

because I suppose they were afraid that the inclusion of them would confer upon the Commonwealth some power to legislate with regard to religious observances, I say that fears of that sort should be respected. I know a considerable body of people in New South Wales, who, perhaps, have not made themselves heard in this Convention by petitions, who are actuated by the same alarms. Now, why should we not meet the scruples of these gentlemen as we met the scruples and feelings of another class of the community, when we put the words to, which I have alluded into the preamble? We none of us here believe in our hearts that these words added much to the preamble, but we put them in, as we thought, because they were a just satisfaction of a, certain sentiment. May we not support this on the same ground? May we not say-"We will clear away once and for ever any doubts which you may feel by making it clear that all matters of religious observance and control over religion shall be left to the states to which they naturally belong." Is the fear which is expressed groundless? If it had not been for the speech of Mr. Higgins this morning we might say that the fear was absolutely groundless, and that it was impossible that the Commonwealth should exercise, or seek the power to exercise, any control over religious observances. Yet, when we have the example of the United States, not six years old, I do not think the leader of the Convention can carry the force of conviction to us here, when he asks us to believe that there is no fear whatever of the Commonwealth exercising a power which we cannot believe would be exercised by any state. Supposing the Commonwealth is swayed by some popular feeling, such as swayed Congress in 1892, and some law were passed, say, dealing with Sunday observance, which might reflect the wishes of the majority of the people, but which would be most distasteful and persecuting to a minority. In a matter of religious feeling, a minority are [start page 1774] entitled to the utmost respect and should have their feelings guarded. Mr. FRASER.-Is not the majority entitled to respect? Mr. WISE.-Certainly. Mr. FRASER.-A very small minority might shock the great majority of the people. Mr. WISE.-Let every one follow his own religious observances without shocking anybody, and do not let him impose his rule on anybody else. I am pointing out that when we have got that example before us, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is something in the argument which has been raised. When we find that the American Constitution took that power, without the words in the preamble which we have inserted to-day-without even the support of that contention which we have given by putting these words in the preamble-we ought to take care to put plainly in the forefront of the Constitution the provision that the Commonwealth shall not interfere in any way with the rights of the states to regulate religious matters. How can it be said that the observance of Sunday in Northern Queensland would shock the people of Victoria? There is no doubt the observance of Sunday is largely a matter of climate, and a great many religious observances are matters of climate. It might be that one rule should prevail in the tropical portion of this country, and another rule in the south. It ought to be made perfectly clear that the opinions of a large number of persons in one portion of the Commonwealth, as to adopting a certain method of observance of Sunday, shall not prevail in other states, and that those persons shall not have it in their power to impose a restraint on people in other districts, and that they shall not be able to impose a uniform method of Sunday observance. There are many other questions of a similar kind that might be referred to. What I fear is that we have not yet any sufficient security against a revival of the feeling which has existed for centuries, but which has not been able to make itself felt during the last 50 or 60 years in British-speaking countries, but which I believe, still exists in the hearts of hundreds and thousands of men only waiting for an opportunity to assert itself. If we put in Mr. Higgins' amendment we shall remove those fears and establish a sound principle, and, I believe, will commend the Constitution to a very large number of those who at present are doubtful as to its effects. Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-May I ask the honorable member who moved the amendment whether there is any other power the exercise of which is forbidden to the Commonwealth? Mr. HIGGINS.-I do not think there is an express prohibition.

20

25

30

35

40

45

Dr. COCKBURN.-I think there is not. It seems to me that by making one exception we are introducing a whole atmosphere of ambiguities; that is to say, the Commonwealth at present can only exercise such powers as are explicitly vested in it. If, in addition to that, we forbid the exercise of some power, we leave an ambiguous area between the powers specifically vested in the Commonwealth and the powers forbidden. That opens out a whole circle of ambiguity in this respect. Mr. HIGGINS.-I think I was wrong in what I just now stated; there is a prohibition with regard to the states in clause 108, and there was a prohibition as to the states in clause 109. p24 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

Dr. COCKBURN.-There are many prohibitions with regard to the states. I am very much in sympathy with Mr. Higgins, and if he can point out any case of this kind I would go with him. Mr. OCONNOR.-Clause 109 was a prohibition, but it has been struck out. Dr. COCKBURN.-It seems tome that by passing this provision we shall open the door to the possibility of doubt

5 as to the Commonwealth having more powers than we have vested in it.


[start page 1775] Mr. WISE.-There is a prohibition with regard to interference with trade and commerce. Dr. COCKBURN.-That is a limitation of power which is wholly vested and explicitly placed in the hands of the Commonwealth. It is simply a limitation of the exercise of its executive power, but this is of a different description. It seems to me that by introducing this clause we shall run the risk of indicating that there is another sphere of powers which, though not specified as belonging to the Commonwealth, are not forbidden. Mr. HIGGINS.-The 117th clause says that a new state shall not be formed by the separation of territory from a state without the consent of the Parliament of that state. That forbids even the Federal Parliament forming a new state.

10

15

Mr. WISE.-Clause 95 provides that preferences shall not be given. Dr. COCKBURN.-That is a limitation of the executive power, and none of the instances advanced have satisfied me on the point I have endeavoured to lay before honorable members. I see clearly in my own mind that an exception in this respect will throw some doubt as to the whole scope of the powers of the Commonwealth. By inserting these words, it may be decided that there are some powers in the hands of the Commonwealth which are not explicitly recognised and stated. Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I entirely agree with our leader in this matter. I do not see that there is any necessity for this clause. We are now a homogeneous people, and the safer plan is to leave us so. Mr. HIGGINS.-That is what we want to do. Mr. FRASER.-I am not so very sure about that. If you pass this date all sorts of extraordinary practices may be

20

25 resorted to that would, as I have already interjected, shock the whole community.
Mr. WISE.-Suppose the Federal Parliament passes a law allowing Sunday newspapers, would the Victorians like that? Mr. ISAACS.-They would have no jurisdiction. Mr. WISE.-Yes, they would, if this is struck out.

30

Mr. ISAACS-Under what clause? Mr. WISE.-Under the same clause as in America. Mr. FRASER.-If the Federal Parliament chooses to act in this matter of Sunday newspapers, the people will be cognisant of all that is done. Mr. WISE.-We do not think them wrong in New South Wales.

35

Mr. FRASER.-The probability is that a majority of the people of New South Wales think that it is wrong to allow Sunday newspapers, but they have not the courage to put them down. I believe that is the real fact. I believe that the public men of New South Wales, have not the courage to tackle them. That is about the answer to that interjection. If the public men have not courage to deal with these matters, of course the public will follow them in various devious p25 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

paths. I do not see the necessity for this clause. I hope that we are not going to be driven to accept all sorts of extraordinary proposals simply because of something that has taken place in the United States. We are able to take care of ourselves, and I think the clause would do more harm than good. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-What harm would it do?

Mr. FRASER.-It might offend the susceptibilities of a homogeneous people, and in that way cause trouble and difficulty. There would be no danger in omitting the clause, but there may be danger in putting it in. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I beg to move, as an amendmentThat all the words down to "and" be omitted, with a view to the insertion in lieu thereof of the following:-"Nothing in this Constitution [start page 1776] shall be held to empower the Commonwealth to require any religious test as a qualification for any office of public trust under the Commonwealth ." I do not oppose the earlier part of the clause on the same ground as I put before, because I am satisfied in regard to those matters, to which attention was directed when clause 109 was under discussion, that under the ordinary operation of the common law any inhumanities and cruelties could be effectually stopped. Mr. HIGGINS.-By which Parliament?

10

15

Mr. SYMON.-By either the state or the Commonwealth Parliament. I mention that to show that I do not change my view that that part of the clause is objectionable. But I hold strongly that in consequence of the insertion of the new words in the preamble it is desirable that some provision should be made to make it clear that these words are not to overspread the whole Constitution. Mr. ISAACS.-Would not your view be carried out by leaving the residuum of the clause just as it stands?

20

25

Mr. SYMON.-I should have no objection to that, but I think it would be better to say that nothing in the Constitution shall empower the Commonwealth to impose any religious test. I sympathize with Mr. Higgins in his fear that the insertion of the words we put in the preamble might lead to an impression amongst a larger or smaller section of the community that it would be possible to impose some religious test, and that the sentiment conveyed by the words might overspread the Constitution in some way. My honorable friend desires that there should be something in the nature of a counterblast, for the satisfaction of those who may entertain that apprehension. Mr. FRASER.-There is no necessity for it. Mr. SYMON.-There is great force in what Mr. Fraser says, but there are a number of us who, for reasons which do not militate against our deep reverence and the deep faith that may be in us, think that the words inserted in the preamble are, at all events, open to misconstruction on the part of a larger or smaller section of the community. I do not wish to enter into the subject, but I felt that, and it is with a view of getting rid of any apprehension of that kind, and of securing every vote possible for this. Bill, that I think it well to yield to the view that has been expressed so forcibly by Mr. Higgins. Mr. FRASER.-That is the only argument in its favour. Mr. SYMON.-It is a strong argument. We have inserted certain words in the preamble, and we should put in as a

30

35 solatium, if you like, to those holding opinions in opposition to these words, something else on which the may rely.
Mr. DOBSON.-Would not the amendment leave it open to the Federal Parliament to dictate to any state that it should not open its picture galleries and museums on Sunday? Mr. SYMON.-There, is no power under the Constitution that would enable the Federal Parliament to do that. I am satisfied that it is embodied in the Constitution as a part of the unwritten law that no church establishment shall prevail, and that religious freedom shall be observed. Mr. KINGSTON (South Australia).-I shall support the amendment in the form in which it has been proposed by Mr. Higgins. There is a great deal of force in the suggestion that, in view of the amendment in the preamble, we p26 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

10

should make a declaration of this description in the broadest possible terms, for the purpose of allaying any apprehension that might otherwise be entertained on the subject. As the matter stands at present, the states have full power, if they so desire, to legislate. The Commonwealth will, undoubtedly, also have power to legislate in respect of a matter of this description, so far as the affairs of the people of any race for whom it is necessary [start page 1777] to adopt special legislation are concerned. That power is expressly given to the Federal Parliament, and I have no doubt whatever that in the exercise of it a law might be passed concerning special races, and prohibiting the free exercise of their religion, or imposing something in the nature of a religious test. I do not think that power ought to be given to the Federal Parliament. It is a matter of purely domestic concern, with which the states are particularly qualified to deal. If we carry the amendment in the way in which it is now proposed, we shall secure to the states the power which they at present possess, and which they can be trusted to exercise with an intimate knowledge of all the local circumstances. We shall prevent any unnecessary interference by the Federal Parliament in a matter of domestic concern, and we shall allay those fears which have been referred to by various honorable members. I trust, therefore, the amendment will be agreed to as proposed. Mr. LYNE (New South Wales).-I voted this morning for the amendment of the preamble moved by the honorable

15 member (Mr. Glynn), but in speaking upon that amendment I said that I had been struck by the remarks of the
honorable member (Mr. Higgins), though I did not see how the amendment then before the committee could bring about the results he seemed to think possible. The amendment which the honorable member is now moving will, however, get rid of the possibility of danger. As was said by the honorable and learned member (Mr. Wise), Sunday observance is to a very large extent a matter of climate. In New South Wales we open our museums, our art gallery, and other places of public resort upon Sundays, though I think that in other colonies that is not allowed. It would be hard, however, if a state in the northern part of the continent, where, in consequence of the extremes of the climate, the people require some recreation upon Sunday were prevented by the Commonwealth from doing what we have done. Then, take the case of Sunday newspapers. We in New South Wales do not object to the publication of newspapers upon Sunday, as the honorable. member (Mr. Fraser) would object here. Mr. FRASER.-I did not say so. Mr. LYNE.-That was the conclusion I drew from the honorable member's interjections. However, that is beside the question. What I really want to impress upon honorable members is that it is not a wise thing, where you have a number of states to deal with, to allow the Commonwealth authority to decide how Sunday should be observed. The Commonwealth authority might have that power if this provision were not inserted in the Bill. To my mind, if the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Symon) were carried, you might as well knock out the whole clause, because it takes the kernel out of it. I hope that the Convention will carry the proposal of the honorable member (Mr. Higgins) as it stands. Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-I should like, in two sentences, to put forward a matter to which I invite the attention of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon). If the arguments which prevailed in, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1892 were to prevail in the Commonwealth Supreme Court, the Commonwealth authority would have an implied power to administer the common law in respect to the observances of Christianity. Of course, I may say at once that I cannot understand the decision of the United States court. Mr. HIGGINS.-Still it exists. Mr. WISE.-Yes. Unless the amendment of the honorable member (Mr. Higgins) were carried, the Commonwealth

20

25

30

35

40 authority might, under the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, have this implied power. For this
reason, I appeal to the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) to withdraw his amendment, so that we may take a vote upon the clause as it stands. [start page 1778] Mr. FRASER.-The decision of the Supreme Court might be the opposite to what the honorable and learned

45 member proposes.
Mr. WISE.-Of course it might. Mr. FRASER.-Why should we interfere at all?

p27 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. WISE.-That is what I think. I would leave it to each state to do as it pleases in regard to Sunday observance, but I would deprive the Parliament of the right to make any laws at all upon this subject. Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-I hope that the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon) will not withdraw his amendment. I intend to support it. It appears to me the only provision before us for which there is any justification. I do not know that it is absolutely necessary, but I think that it would be as well for us to have it. With regard to the provision suggested by the honorable member (Mr. Higgins), I think that it would tend to run us into danger rather than, as the honorable member wishes, to enable us to avoid it. Upon the face of the Constitution the Commonwealth has certainly no power whatever to deal with religion, either directly or indirectly. Mr. HIGGINS.-Will you explain why they have these words in the first amendment of the American

10 Constitution?
Mr. OCONNOR.-The provisions of the American Constitution in regard to the powers handed over to the Federal Parliament are not nearly so definite as the provisions of our Constitution. Mr. HIGGINS.-The American Constitution has no recital in the preamble such as we have just inserted in our Constitution.

15

Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes. But the amendment of the American Constitution to which the honorable and learned member refers was rendered necessary by the fact that there is not the definite division of powers in that Constitution that we have in our Constitution. I cannot imagine that clause 52 gives any ground from which it could be argued that the Federal Parliament has the right to interfere in regard to the exercise of religion, or to deal with religion in any way. Mr. KINGSTON.-Except in regard to special races. Mr. OCONNOR.-Of course, in regard to special races the Federal Parliament could make any laws it liked, and I think it very desirable that it should have that power. Mr. KINGSTON.-Would it not be better to intrust this power to the states? Mr. OCONNOR.-No, I do not think so. I think that the power to deal with alien races is given as an exclusive

20

25 power.
Mr. KINGSTON.-It was put back. Mr. OCONNOR.-Directly it is exercised it becomes an exclusive power, and there is no doubt that it will be exercised. By putting into the Constitution words prohibiting the Commonwealth Parliament from making certain specified laws you create the implication that the Parliament has power to deal in other respects with religious observances. If you looked at the prohibition containing this provision, you will find that it deals expressly with Sunday observance, with the exercise of religion, with the establishment of religion, and with the imposition of religious observances. But it might very well be argued that the closing of places of public amusement on Sundays does not rest upon any of these grounds; and if you inserted a provision of this kind in the Constitution, there would be the strongest possible implication that the Federal Parliament would have the power to legislate in regard to social questions which had a religious aspect other than those expressly excluded from its jurisdiction by this provision. That is the danger you are likely to run into by putting this limitation in the Constitution. The Commonwealth Parliament will have no right whatever to interfere with these matters unless by some implication arising out of a provision of [start page 1779] this kind. With regard to the subject of the amendment of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Symon), there is no doubt that the Commonwealth might have the right to impose any form of oath which it thought fit as a qualification of office. I am quite willing however, that some such provision as the honorable and learned member has suggested should be inserted in the Constitution, so that it would not be possible for the Commonwealth to require a religious test. Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here and indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all the theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do what we can to provide against it. p28 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

30

35

40

45

10

Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried. But why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which is not in the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against religious intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty? There is a grave suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this very point. I do not think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They may be wrong. It may be right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in the Commonwealth to pass this law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have the power. But I only say that it is a state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him, shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will not understand that the state, if my proposal is carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop any theatrical performances on Sunday. Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed new clause-put. The committee dividedAyes ... ... ... 22

15

Noes ... ... ... 19 Majority against Mr. Symon's amendment... ... ... 3

AYES.

20

Berry, Sir G. Henry, J. Braddon, Sir E.N.C. Holder, F.W. Brown, N.J. Howe, J.H. Clarke, M.J. Kingston, C.C. Deakin, A. Lee Steere, Sir J.G.

25

Dobson, H. Lewis, N.E. Douglas, A. Lyne, W.J. Downer, Sir J.W. Trenwith, W.A. Fysh, Sir P.O. Wise, B.R. Glynn, P.M.

30

Gordon, J.H. Teller. Henning, A.H. Higgins, H.B. NOES. Barton, E. Leake, G. Briggs, H. Moore, W. p29 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Brunker, J.N. O'Connor, R.E. Cockburn, Dr. J.A. Peacock, A.J. Crowder, F.T. Quick, Dr. J. Forrest, Sir J. Venn, H.W.

Fraser, S. Walker, J.T. Hackett, J.W. Zeal, Sir W.A. Hassell, A.Y. Teller. Isaacs, I.A. Symon, J.H. Question so resolved in the affirmative.

10

Question-That Mr. Higgins' proposed new clause be inserted in the Bill-put. The committee dividedAyes ... ... ... 25 Noes ... ... ... 16 Majority for the clause 9

15
Berry, Sir G. Holder, F.W. Braddon, Sir E.N.C. Howe, J.H. Brown, N.J. Isaacs, I.A. Clarke, M.J. Kingston, C.C.

AYES.

20

Deakin, A. Lee Steere, Sir. J.G. Dobson, H. Lewis, N.E. Douglas, A. Lyne, W.J. Downer, Sir J.W. Moore, W. Fysh, Sir P.O. Peacock, A.J.

25

Glynn, P.M. Trenwith, W.A. Gordon, J.H. Wise, B.R. Henning, A.H. Teller. Henry, J. Higgins, H.B. p30 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

[start page 1780] NOES. Barton, E. Leake, G. Briggs, H. O'Connor, R.E.

Brunker, J.N. Quick, Dr. J. Cockburn, Dr. J.A. Venn, H.W. Crowder, F.T. Walker, J.T. Forrest, Sir J. Zeal, Sir W.A. Fraser, S.

10

Hackett, J.W. Teller. Hassell, A.Y. Symon, J.H. Question so resolved in the affirmative. END QUOTE HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15 QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Let me now draw attention to two very important points in the Bill. A large agitation was. got up in all the colonies in favour of the recognition of the Supreme Being in the Constitution. As the result of that agitation, a phrase has been inserted in the preamble. I will not use the words themselves, but say that the preamble states, that the people, who have agreed on the Constitution, humbly rely on the blessing of the Supreme Being. It was feared that some interpretation such as has been taken up in one or two cases in America might lead to this phrase being regarded as an action taken against religious liberty. This Convention has agreed to a clause which prevents any possibility of that kind as regards the Commonwealth, and which does not interfere with the states in questions of their internal regulation, with which, of course, this Commonwealth will not have anything to do. Clause 115 saysThe Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious

20

25 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. While, therefore, a concession has been made to the popular opinion that some reverential expression should be embodied in the preamble, due care has been taken by the Convention that no reliance upon that provision, and no far-fetched arguments based upon it, shall lead to any infraction of religious liberty under thew laws of the Commonwealth which we hope to create. END QUOTE

30

There is a lot more that was stated by the Framers of the Constitution but safe to say they didnt want religious interferences by anyone. In my view Hill Side Songs and other religious entities 35 should not be allowed to have taxation exemption for being a religious entity because it would conflict the prohibition in the constitution.
.

The following part is of my submissions in a 5 year epic legal battle in which I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of Australia in both appeals 40
p31 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

ADDRESS TO THE COURT including SUBMISSIONS By the Defendant, Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. For 19-7-2006 County Court of Victoria proceedings Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630 QUOTE WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970 1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354. 2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356. 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. 4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367. END QUOTE

10

15

20

25 Therefore, where Edmund Barton made clear a Church cannot receive any monies from the Commonwealth, then this must be deemed to include any tax concession also, if the Commonwealth of Australia allows for religious exemptions than it applies also to anyone nonreligious matter. As such, it becomes nonsense, because anyone can then request taxation exemption on non-religious grounds. 30 Before quoting some emails I draw attention to 2 different issues in the following 2 quotations, but I will refrain from further set out.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

35 QUOTE
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-I think that the clause as it stands is a necessary safeguard to the individual liberty of the subject in every state. It does not interfere with the right of every state to alter its laws and to deprive its citizens of their liberty of being tried by a jury of their fellow countrymen, but it does say that the Federal Parliament shall be compelled to submit any person accused of a breach of the federal laws to trial before a body of his own fellow citizens, in the state to which he belongs. If this clause were not here offenders under the Federal Parliament might be removed under an executive act from one part of the Commonwealth to another, to be tried by resident magistrates, and the Federal Executive would be given authority which might permit them to tyrannously interfere with the liberties of every subject in the community. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-The only argument I have heard in support of the argument of my honorable

40

45 friend (Mr. Glynn) was that which O'Connell used in the House of Commons. He said that he was concerned in a
case in which a prisoner was being tried for murder. The case was tried in Ireland. The one witness who was called for the defence was the murdered man. There was no doubt as to his identity, but the jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I feel very strongly that, no matter how much we may value trial by jury as a piece of

50 machinery, it is not a matter for this Constitution at all.


Mr. WISE.-It is only for indictable offences committed under laws passed by the Federal Parliament. [start page 351]

p32 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. HIGGINS.-But why should we make it a matter for the Constitution, which cannot be affected by anything the Federal Parliament may do, that there shall be a jury for the trial of any indictable offence? Mr. WISE.-Because it is a safeguard of liberty. END QUOTE

5
HANSARD 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST: I altogether disagree with the amendment. I think the clause should contain no qualification of this sort, and that we should trust the various legislatures to do what is beneficial and right in the interests of their respective colonies. The matter would be perfectly secure in the hands of the legislatures. Is it likely that a legislature would elect an unfit person-a person having no knowledge whatever of the state he represented? So far as I am able to judge, no such contingency is likely to arise. In the case of members of the house of representatives no period of residence within the commonwealth is prescribed as a qualification; and if you can trust the people to elect fitting persons to the house of representatives without such a qualification, I can see no reason why you should not place equal trust in the parliaments of the respective colonies. There is another point. We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired his appointment. I am entirely opposed to the amendment, and if I had my way I would place no more restriction upon the eligibility of senators than we place upon the eligibility of members of the house of representatives.

10

15

20

25 END QUOTE
QUOTE Hi Gerrit I would like to try and answer Jim's concerns and what causes his troubled mind and in some instances your own.

30 Jim advances many passages of the bible and questions what kind of God allows rape, torture, murder, pillaging
etc. In a blanket statement, we must first look to Bible Passage that indicates God giving dominion over all things of the Earth and in affect makes us managers without restraint. In this, when some ask: Why does God allow the evils of the world - the answer is not 'Satan made me do it", I believe the answer is that God cannot allow less lest the promise of "dominion over all things" would be in jeopardy. As a footnote, the mere fact that God does not interfere is an expression of perfect freedom for mankind. To set the stage (so to say) let me give an example of what appears to be indiscriminate murder is actually an act of mercy. Jim has not referred to the disaster that occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah where all the inhabitants were, to use a phrase - NUKED and both cities were burnt in a very hot furnace of fire and brimstone including women, children, elderly and young. To make matters worse, all Lot had to do was to find just 10 that were not "corrupted". Ten young children could not be found? How do 6 month or younger children become corrupted. Jim would probably say that this is just another example of Bible teaching gone mad and a Creator which has no heart. On the surface, Jim would be right but let us look closer and see if instead of the Bible being just propaganda that

35

40

45 advertises a wicked and callous God to a record of history and a loving God in this example alone.
p33 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Some clues can be found in two measures: 1. 2. Ten non corrupted peoples from hundreds of thousands of inhabitants could not be found The occupants were rendered blind prior to the annihilation.

The answer is presently amongst us and can be found in plague hot spots such as Africa, Asia and India where

5 millions have contracted HIV/AIDS and cannot be cured but die a slow and painful death. The children are not only
made orphans that generally do not survive but those that do have what could be described as a bleak and miserable life and to make it worse, many are born with the disease. It is my submission that 10 could not be found as the entire population was affected with a deadly disease that the symptoms included blindness. This being the case, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not only doomed but threatened to take all surrounding populations very much like the present dilemma we have with HIV/AIDS. As such, if so, then the creator acted upon an act of compassion and mercy to take the two cities and avoid the long and lingering painful end that earmarked the entire populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now let us scrutinise the passages referred to by Jim: 1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

10

15

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. This is what you are to do, they said. Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin. Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan . The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the

20 rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of
Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel . So the Israelite leaders asked, How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under Gods curse. Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel , along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didnt find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh -gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them. So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

25

30

35

40 Judges 20: 15
"And the children of Benjamin were numbered at that time out of the cities twenty and six thousand men that drew swords, beside the inhabitents of Gibeah which were numbered seven hundred chosen men." Judges 20: 21 p34 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

"And the children of Benjamin came forth out of Gibeah and destroyed down to to teh ground of the Israelites that day twenty and two thousand men." Judges 20: 31 "And the children of Benjamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city: and they began to

5 smite of the people, and kill, as at other times, in the highways, of which one goeth up to the house of God, and the
other to Gibeah in the field, about thirty men of Israel." Judges 20: 32 "And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. But the children of of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways."

10 Without going on and on, it appears to me that Jim has not understood what caused the Israelites to crave for women
especially women that were uncorrupted (virgins) because it appears to me that the foundations can be found in a mindset to imagine the slaughter by the children of Benjamin that wiped out all Israelite women and children and all but caused the extinction of the Isralites. In this, the Israelites, by right of conquest and due to being smitten (murdered etc) had every right to take from the

15 enemy anything from the enemy. Does that sound familiar even in so called modern times?
Jim may also have notice that God did not use his awesome power to determine the battles but rather left it to man's own means. I welcome debate on all issues because I verily believe that the condemnation of the Bible is generally caused by misunderstanding and ignorance.

20 I also say that if anyone was to truly read the Bible then they would never ask "what is the meaning of life" And
"Where and what is heaven" And "What is our role in this world?" For all these questions are answered amply throughout the Bible. I welcome debate John

25 END QUOTE

QUOTE

30 Gerrit,
I think you will find the Salvation Army being a Christian organisation will support the Bible but like many Christian groups, it will differ in its interpretations of certain parts of this book. Christians will also turn a blind eye to biblical contradictions and irrationality and only focus on the parts that is consistent with their ideologies and beliefs. The Bible is not unlike a food menu. It offers a great variety of "dishes" in the form of teachings, lessons, commandments, parables and metaphors, and the Christian "diners" come along and selectively decide which dishes they prefer.

35

40
That is one of the Bible's flaws: it is not written in precise language with precise definitions that reasonably prevents it from being misunderstood, misinterpreted or interpreted with different nuances of meaning. Hypothetically speaking, if God had written the Bible I reason that God would have chosen to use a human language

45 with the most precise capability of communicating the Creator's thoughts and will in human terms. God might have
p35 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

ensured that every significant word, phrase, metaphor and commandment was precisely defined, explained, and interpreted to ensure the least possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpetation. My understanding is that there is currently over 100 different translations of the so-called original Bible. With so

5 many different translations and interpretations of their respective content, how can anyone be reasonably certain of
the original Bible's true meanings and interpretations? You may not believe that marriage has no relationship to religion but the reality is that in many societies and cultures, marriage and religion are closely interrelated. I would not be surprised if the concept of marriage was invented by the same humans who invented religion, with the objective of using both to control the lives of their followers. Modern law has sanitised the practice of marriage by excluding any religion from the marriage process, however in the minds of religious believers, one cannot be separated from the other, and most churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. reinforce the historical doctrine and tradition. Jim END QUOTE

10

15

20

25

QUOTE Today at 4:41 PM Mr Schorel-Hlavka I think that your comments below are apt and that you have accurately hit the nail on the head Your following statement correctly says it all:Religion and/or the practice thereof should be the personal right of a person provided it does not unduly affect the

30 rights of any other person.


As such, what two consenting adults may do in the privacy of their own home may be their right but to expect others to accept this as some kind of marriage I view undermines the purpose of marriage. To me the issue of "de facto" marriage is likewise so.

35 I find it hard to believe that the Salvation Army would condone death to the parents of Homosexual people.
When a political or religious theory becomes an ideology it becomes disgraceful, dangerous and intolerant. Pluralism and freedom of thought become subjugated to the ideologues and to even think differently becomes life threatening. In the West one and three quarters millenia of the church controlling lives was finally done away with the development of the secular society and we have learned the value of freedom (within reason) of thought, speech and action. Sadly our multicultural society has brought amongst us peoples without this cultural and societal background. Religion must never govern us again. It must always be a matter of individual private conscience, respected but knowing its place in the life of secular society.

40

45
David Ashton-Lewis. END QUOTE

50
QUOTE (Michael Borusiewicz) Today at 2:42 PM Hi Mr Gerrit, I enjoy reading your emails so please do not take offence but I just wanted to point out that mass murder in the bible was condoned before Jesus came and issued a new set of guidelines by which people should live so as to be more harmonious. Jesus said to love your enemies, allow them to abuse you, and to do unto others as they do unto you. Before Jesus came we atoned for our sins with sacrifice, but as Jesus offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice, any other sacrifice since would be insult to God as it would insinuate that his own son was not a great enough sacrifice. p36 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

55

60

Thankyou once again for the valuable information you share, kind regards, Michael.

5 END QUOTE (Authors note: No offence taken.)

QUOTE 1.26PM email 10 From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au]


Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:26 PM To: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Subject: Re: The Salvation Army starts War. | News and reviews

As I have published in the past my views extensively about certain issues, I may just quote a 15 copy of an email I received, and wonder if the Salvation Army also support this? After all, if one becomes selective in which parts of the bible one adhere to then I view one is not following the teaching of the Bible but merely apply ones own contemporary views but claiming them to be Bible teaching for no more because they may fit for a particular lifestyle. QUOTE MY 9-12-2003 RESPONSE 20 From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:26 PM To: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. Subject: Re: The Salvation Army starts War. | News and reviews

As I have published in the past my views extensively about certain issues, I may just quote a 25 copy of an email I received, and wonder if the Salvation Army also support this? After all, if one becomes selective in which parts of the bible one adhere to then I view one is not following the teaching of the Bible but merely apply ones own contemporary views but claiming them to be Bible teaching for no more because they may fit for a particular lifestyle. QUOTE 30 He said in the statement that Griffin's decision "contradicts the terms of his teaching contract at our school, which requires all faculty and staff to follow the teachings of the Church as a condition of their employment. END QUOTE As such, as it appears to me, anyone who adheres to the teaching of the Bible must be deemed to 35 support mass murder, rape, killing of innocent babies, etc. As I understand it the Koran has likewise content and so hardly either of them can be deemed to be moral teaching to our children and grandchildren. One has to ask, considering the numerous paedophilia cases within the various different religions if the teaching of the Church is then really what we know it is about or just whatever anyone 40 desires to make out of it to suit his/her own lifestyle. Much is argued about the Jews being Gods chosen people, and for this I deem it appropriate to quote the following article:
p37 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

http://www.vice.com/read/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11 QUOTE

THE CHILD-RAPE ASSEMBLY LINE


In Ritual Bathhouses of the Jewish Orthodoxy, Children Are Systematically Abused

By Christopher Ketcham

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, the lone whistleblower among the Satmar, a powerful Hasidic sect, who recently was the victim of a bleach attack in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. All photos by Christian Storm.

10

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenbergwho is 63 with a long, graying beardrecently sat down with
me to explain what he described as a child-rape assembly line among sects of fundamentalist Jews. He cleared his throat. Im going to be graphic, he said.

A member of Brooklyns Satmar Hasidim fundamentalist branch of Orthodox Judaism, Nuchem designs and repairs mikvahs in compliance with Torah Law. The mikvah is a ritual 15 Jewish bathhouse used for purification. Devout Jews are required to cleanse themselves in the mikvah on a variety of occasions: women must visit following menstruation, and men have to make an appearance before the High Holidays such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Many of the devout also purify themselves before and after the act of sex, and before the Sabbath.

20 On a visit to Jerusalem in 2005, Rabbi Rosenberg entered into a mikvah in one of the holiest neighborhoods in the city, Mea Shearim. I opened a door that entered into a schvitz, he told me. Vapors everywhere, I can barely see. My eyes adjust, and I see an old man, my age, long white beard, a holy-looking man, sitting in the vapors. On his lap, facing away from him, is a boy, maybe seven years old. And the old man is having anal sex with 25 this boy.
Rabbi Rosenberg paused, gathered himself, and went on: This boy was speared on the man like an animal, like a pig, and the boy was saying nothing. But on his face fear. The old man [looked at me] without any fear, as if this was common practice. He didnt stop. I was so angry, I confronted him. He removed the boy from his penis, and I took the boy 30 aside. I told this man, Its a sin before God, a mishkovzucher. What are you doing to this boys soul? Youre destroying this boy! He had a sponge on a stick to clean his back, and
p38 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

he hit me across the face with it. How dare you interrupt me! he said. I had heard of these things for a long time, but now I had seen. The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent 5 Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, unclesfigures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyns Hasidic communitythe largest in the United States and one of the largest in the worldhave been victims of sexual 10 assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. From anecdotal evidence, were looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage. Ultra-Orthodox Jews who speak out about these abuses are ruined and condemned to exile 15 by their own community. Dr. Amy Neustein, a nonfundamentalist Orthodox Jewish sociologist and editor of Tempest in the Temple: Jewish Communities and Child Sex Scandals, told me the story of a series of Hasidic mothers in Brooklyn she got to know who complained that their children were being preyed on by their husbands. In these cases, the accused men very quickly and effectively engage the rabbis, the 20 Orthodox politicians, and powerful Orthodox rabbis who donate handsomely to political clubs. The goal, she told me, is to excise the mother from the childs life. Rabbinical courts cast the mothers aside, and the effects are permanent. The mother is amputated. One woman befriended by Dr. Neustein, a music student at a college outside New York, lost contact with all six of her children, including an infant she was breastfeeding at the time of 25 their separation.

Rabbi Rosenberg inspects a ritual purification bath, known as a mikvah. In 2005, he witnessed a young boy being raped inside a similar bath.

Seven years ago, Rabbi Rosenberg started blogging about sex abuse in his community and 30 opened a New York City hotline to field sex abuse complaints. He has posted appeals on YouTube, appeared on CNN, and given speeches across the US, Canada, Israel, and Australia. Today, he is the lone whistleblower among the Satmar. For this he is reviled, slandered, hated, feared. He receives death threats on a regular basis. In Yiddish and Hebrew newspapers, advertisements taken out by the self-described great rabbis and
p39 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

rabbinical judges of the city of New York have denounced him as a stumbling block for the House of Israel, a public rebuker and preacher of ethics who persists in his rebelliousness and whose voice has been heard among many Jewish families, especially young people in their innocence drawn to listen to his poisonous and revolting speeches. 5 Leaflets distributed in Williamsburg and Borough Park, the centers of ultra-Orthodoxy in Brooklyn, display his bearded face over the body of a writhing snake. "Corrupt Informer," reads one of the leaflets, followed by the declaration that Rabbi Rosenbergs name should rot in hell forever. They should cut him off from all four corners of the earth. When Rabbi Rosenberg wants to bathe at a mikvah in Brooklyn to purify himself, none will 10 have him. When he wants to go to synagogue, none will have him. He is finished in the community, butchered, said a fellow rabbi who would only talk anonymously. No one will look at him, and those who will talk to him, they cant let it be known. The pressure in our community, its incredible. The powerful menand it is worth noting that this community is regulated by men only 15 who govern the world of ultra-Orthodox Judaism would rather their adherents be blind in their faith, their eyes closed to the horrors Rabbi Rosenberg is exposing. Like the Catholic establishment, the rabbinate seeks to cover up the crimes, quiet the victims, protect the abusers, and deflect potential criticism of their institutional practices. Those who speak out are vilified, and the faithful learn to shut their mouths. When the father of the seven-year-old 20 boy whom Rabbi Rosenberg rescued from the Jerusalem bathhouse showed up to collect his son, he couldnt believe his son had been raped. Trembling, terrified, he whisked his son away to get medical help, but was still too scared to raise a formal complaint. According to Ben and Survivors for Justice, The greatest sin is not the abuse, but talking about the abuse. Kids and parents who step forward to complain are crushed.

25 As for Rabbi Rosenberg, when he voiced his concerns to the rabbinate in Israel, he was brought up on charges by the mishmeres hatznuis, the archconservative Orthodox modesty squad, which regulates, often through threats of violence, proper moral conduct and dress in the relations between men and women. The modesty squad is a sort of Jewish Taliban. According to Rabbi Rosenberg, the rapist he caught in the act was a member of the 30 modesty squad, which charged him with the unconscionable offense of having previously been seen walking down a street in Jerusalem with a married woman. But its OK to molest children, he adds.
The abuse and its cover-up are symptoms of wider political dysfunctionor, more precisely, symptoms of socially disastrous political control by religious elites.

35 This isnt a problem about a few aberrant cases or an old-fashioned community reluctant to talk to police about sexual matters, said Michael Lesher, a practicing Jew who has investigated Orthodox sex abuse and represented abuse victims. This is about a political economy that links Orthodox Judaism with other fundamentalist creeds and with aspects of right-wing ideologies generally. Its an economy in which genuine religious values will never 40 really rise to the top, so long as theyre tied to the poisonous priorities that elevate status and power over the basic human needs of the most vulnerable among us.
Michael, who is completing a book on the topic, noted that the infamous Rabbi Elior Chen, convicted in 2010 in what was arguably Israels worst case of serial child abuse, is still defended in public statements by leading ultra-Orthodox rabbis. Among other legal and 45 moral crimes, the rabbi forced his victims to eat feces, claiming that this cruelty was necessary to purify the children he abused.

p40 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

According to Ben, the ultra-Orthodox community has never been as repressive as it is today. The repression, as he describes it, stems from the burden of having too many children. Huge families are encouraged: every child born to a Hasid is seen as a finger in the eye of Hitler. Ben also told me that the average family size among Williamsburg 5 Hasidim is nine, and that some families include more than 15 children.

Mikvah Israel of Boro Park, one of the many mikvahs in Brooklyn that no longer accept Rabbi Rosenberg.

Families saddled with an increasing number of children soon enter into a cycle of poverty. There is simultaneously an extreme separation of the sexes, which is unprecedented in the 10 history of the Hasidim. There is limited general education, to the point that most men in the community are educated only to the third grade, and receive absolutely no sexual education. No secular newspapers are allowed, and internet access is forbidden. The men in the community are undereducated by design, Ben said. You have a community that has been infantilized. They have been trained not to think. Its a sort of totalitarian control.

15 The rabbis, dominating an ignorant and largely poverty-stricken flock, determine the fate of every individual in the community. Nothing is done without the consent of the rabbinical establishment. A man wants to buy a new carhe goes to the rabbi for counsel. A man wants to marrythe rabbi tells him whether or not he should marry a particular bride. As for the women, they dont get to ask the rabbi anything. Their place is beneath contempt. 20 Michael told me that current Orthodox leadership, accruing wealth from the tithes of subservient followers, is drifting to the right, politically as well as religiously. Many rabbis in New York City have taken up the banner of neoliberalism. Every English-language Orthodox publication I know embraced Romney during the 2012 elections, decried national health insurance, blamed liberals for bribing the lower classes, he said. In Orthodox 25 society, just as in America at large, the financial mismatch between the elite and the rest of us is ominously large.
Michael also notes that the problem is not confined to the extremists. The same patterns of victim-blaming, covering up, idealizing the rabbis so that cover-ups arent even acknowledged, are found all across the spectrum of Orthodoxy, he told me. The Orthodox 30 left was shamefully slow to react to Rabbi Baruch Lanners abuse or to the similar case of Rabbi Mordechai Elon. Rabbi Lanner, a former New Jersey yeshiva high school principal, was found guilty in 2000 of sexually abusing dozens of teenage students over the decades of his tenure. Rabbi Elon, who had publicly denounced homosexuality, was convicted last August on two counts of forcible sexual assault on a male minor, following several years of 35 reports of his abuse of young boys. I have children come to me with their parents, and the blood is coming out of the anus, Rabbi Rosenberg told me when we met. These are zombies for life. What are we to do?
p41 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

This of course is the key question, and no answers are forthcoming. Michael holds out little hope that the situation will change. If Orthodox institutions continue on their current trajectory, he said, Id say things could get worse before they get better. A few weeks after our interview, Rabbi Rosenberg was walking through the Williamsburg 5 section of Brooklyn when an unidentified man rushed up behind him, tapped him on the shoulder, and threw a cup of bleach in his face. He went to the hospital with facial burns and was temporarily blinded. Such is the measure of justice among the Satmar that a oncerespected rabbi, now amputated from the community, should find himself chemically burned on a street in a neighborhood considered holy.

10 Later Rabbi Rosenberg told me a story of being surrounded by young boys in Williamsburg. The boys cursed him, laughed at him, threatened him, and spat at him. He wondered how many of them would end up molested.
More from this issue: Thank You

15 Unaccompanied Minors
Twitter Selves
By Christopher Ketcham Nov 12 2013 More from this issue Tags: the world is hopeless, child molestation, orthodox Judaism, Long Read

END QUOTE 20 Religion and/or the practice thereof should be the personal right of a person provided it does not unduly affect the rights of any other person. As such, what two consenting adults may do in the privacy of their own home may be their right but to expect others to accept this as some kind of marriage I view undermines the purpose of 25 marriage. To me the issue of "de facto" marriage is likewise so.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:

Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable that when

30 the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should be compelled by
law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted. END QUOTE

Therefore, in my view, religion has nothing to do with marriage, albeit those who desire to follow their religious faith may have at the same time or thereafter a religious marriage. 35 Bible, and this means the whole of the Bible and not just selective parts that may be desired, or is it really that the teaching of the bible is not suitable in this contemporary life style, and we reject the rape, murder, etc, as part of the teaching of the bible and so the bible becomes no more but some story book to which you may or may not associate a certain religious value.
p42 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

. One cannot so to say have the cake and eat it. Either you accept the entire Bible or you do not! http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/20216039/school-teacher-fired-for-gay-wedding/
QUOTE

5 AP
AP December 9, 2013, 3:24 am A gay teacher at a Catholic high school in The US has been fired after he applied for a marriage licence. Michael Griffin was fired from Holy Ghost Preparatory School after administrators said his obtaining a licence to marry his same-sex partner was a violation of his contract.

10 Father James McCloskey, the school's headmaster, said in a statement that faculty at the school are required to
follow church teachings, NBC Philadelphia reported. He said in the statement that Griffin's decision "contradicts the terms of his teaching contract at our school, which requires all faculty and staff to follow the teachings of the Church as a condition of their employment. In discussion with Mr Griffin, he acknowledged that he was aware of this provision, yet he said that he intended to go ahead with the ceremony." Griffin, who graduated from the school and has taught French and Spanish there for 12 years, said that his relationship with his partner of 12 years wasn't a secret from the school and that his partner had even been to Father McCloskey's house. Griffin lives in New Jersey, which became the 14th state to recognise same-sex marriage in October.

15

20 END QUOTE
QUOTE On Sunday, 8 December 2013 5:37 PM, Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au> wrote: Some Christians may not like reading and contemplating the following information. I would like to know how the Christians would try to explain and justify these excerpts from the Bible. Many have found this book to be full of contradictions, hypocrisy, ambiguity, double standards and inconsistencies, yet it is supposed to be "holy" and the "inspired word of God." In my view the Bible like the Koran is clearly an instrument of mind control written by spiritually unenlightened humans who seeked power and control over others. I cannot imagine God would ever endorse such a ridiculously flawed and primitive book as accurately and truthfully representing the Creator's will and thoughts.

25

30 Ask yourself if it's rational that the Bible, Koran, Jewish Torah, Hindu Vedas or any other human religious text is
the best that God can do in communicating "his" infinite knowledge and wisdom to humanity? Jim Rape In The Bible buyhappiness.net

35 Posted on November 22, 2013 by admin in Parenting, Philosophy


p43 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me. Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible.

5 So grab your Bibles and follow along as I show you all the nasty rapes that your priests and preachers

dont want to tell you about. Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to taking a wife. Dont be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to take these wives. 1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

10

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. This is what you are to do, they said. Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin. Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan . The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the

15 rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of
Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel . So the Israelite leaders asked, How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under Gods curse. Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel , along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didnt find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them. So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

20

25

30

35 2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)


They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel , which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho . Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. Why have you let all the women live? he demanded. These are the very ones who followed Balaams advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor . They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORDs people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins. p44 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery? 4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of

10 silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be
allowed to divorce her. What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God. 5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall

15 bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry
out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. It is clear that God doesnt give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans property. 6) Davids Punishment Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and Gods Forgiveness (2 Samuel 12:11-

20 14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel , and with the sun looking down.

25

Then David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. Nathan answered David: The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die. [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick! 7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captives garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. Once again God approves of forcible rape.

30

35

40 8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)


p45 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Siseras spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB) 9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If

5 she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not
allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girls owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) 10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB) Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:12 NAB) http://www.buyhappiness.net/2013/11/22/rape-in-the-bible/ END QUOTE Gerrit

10

15

Constitutionalist& Consultant 20 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL


Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN (OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN) 107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia Ph (International) 61394577209

25 Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless specifically otherwise stated. If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to consider the content appropriately!

30 A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING CONCERNED TO BE
LABELLED A FOOL.

On Monday, 9 December 2013 11:04 AM, John Abbott <johnabbott9@bigpond.com> wrote: Subject: The Salvation Army starts War. | News and reviews

35 http://tjchase.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/the-salvation-army-starts-war/
p46 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

END QUOTE 9-12-2003 RESPONSE

As I mentioned above people at times seek to use religion in their legal arguments and I for one sought to pursue submissions upon legal basis. However, we have to recognise that no matter how perfect (if that can be done) a accused may place his/her case before the Court 5 reality is that the rot within the judicial system are far too often perverting the course of justice, and get away with it. The conduct of prosecutors are often contrary to the interest of the general public and as OFFICERS OF THE COURT they should be held liable rather than that it corrupts the judiciary in the process. To me would be no honour rather there would be a dishonour to be a member of the bar when it protects the wrongdoers, 10 something that was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution as they intended to have a impartial judiciary, which cannot exist when the court shield dishonest/corrupt prosecutors from the full force of the law. The quotations below are from the USA but we have similar incidents within the Commonwealth of Australia. 15 Just consider that one day the very prosecutor who conceals relevant evidence then may have his/her child raped/murdered by the very criminal let off by this prosecutor then perhaps the prosecutor may just learn a lesson (albeit I wish it to no one) what it is to deliberately have an innocent person convicted and leaving the real criminal left to go free rampaging with 20 rape/murder or whatever.
http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson327.html QUOTE

Tyranny and the Rule of Prosecutors


by William L. Anderson

25
Several years ago, James Bovard wrote that large numbers of Americans working in government positions simply are not subject to obeying laws that other Americans must follow or go to prison. Lest anyone doubt what he says, the recent recommendation by a special prosecutor investigating misconduct by the U.S. Department of Justice in the trial of the late Ted Stevens should provide ample proof that if one is a government lawyer, then one is not subject to the law. The Stevens trial two years ago in which the then-Alaska U.S. Senator was tried and convicted on corruption charges turned out to be a farce. While it is true that Stevens really was the very symbol of "crony capitalism" and pork-barrel spending, nonetheless what federal prosecutors did was reprehensible in gaining the conviction. According to the report, prosecutors knowingly lied, withheld exculpatory evidence, and managed to make sure that the Republican would be tried in D.C. and judged by a jury of Democrats. In other words, the trial was a farce from the beginning, as often is the case in federal criminal law.

30

35

40
In his investigation of the governments conduct (which resulted in the guilty verdict being thrown out), Special Prosecutor Henry F. Schuelke III wrote that the very prosecution was "permeated by systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the governments key witness." In other words, prosecutors knew exactly what they were doing: breaking the law. However, despite the fact that these government agents knowingly and systematically defied the law, the special prosecutor has declared that they should not face any criminal charges becausethe trial judge "did not issue a clear order telling them to properly handle evidence and witnesses." That is correct: because the judge did not remind officers of the court that they were to obey the law, and especially the law as interpreted in the U.S. Supreme Courts 1963 Brady v. Maryland ruling , people who already knew the law and had been trained in the law but deliberately chose to disobey it will not be punished. Furthermore, the courts have ruled on a number of occasions that police and prosecutors cannot be held p47 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

liable when they are ignorant of the law but they make wrongful arrests. (That is, arrest someone who police thought was violating a law, but it turns out the police were wrong about the law.) In other words, for police and prosecutor, ignorance of the law IS an excuse, a get-out-of-jail-for-free card.

5 Contrast this recommendation with how everyone else in American is treated when it comes to alleged
breaking of the law. It turns out that the standard line "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to people who would be most likely not to know the law or even know a particular law or regulation existed. Furthermore, the courts have ruled on a number of occasions that the doctrine of mens rea, once the bedrock of Anglo-American criminal law, no longer applies, as intent now is irrelevant, at least for people who are not employed in the "criminal justice" system. Take the federal prosecutors in the Stevens case, for example. All of them are law school graduates, and Brady is taught in every class on criminal law. Furthermore, they are required to take regular classes throughout the years, and Brady is a staple of that training.

10

15
I will go further. Each prosecutor in the Stevens case knew the Brady requirements and knew them better than the typical layperson or journalist, and I will guarantee that when they were violating Brady during the evidence-gathering stage and during the trial, they knew down to their socks they were violating the law and did it anyway. To make matters worse, they had strong evidence in their possession that their key witness had serious credibility problems, which is a nice way to say that the prosecutors knowingly suborned perjury, which is a felony. Lest one thinks I exaggerate, Schuelkes report declared that his investigators "found evidence of concealment and serious misconduct that was previously unknown and almost certainly would never have been revealed at least to the court and to the public but for their exhaustive investigation." In other words, prosecutors did not just fail to turn over the evidence; they made specific efforts to hide it, which violates statues against obstruction of justice, another felony. Yet, the government investigator then declares that all should be ignored because the trial judge did not

20

25

30 specifically tell prosecutors that they are supposed to both know the law and then obey it. That is not a
privilege given to the rest of us. No, the readers of this article, according to U.S. courts, are supposed to know literally every law that Congress and various state legislatures, not to mention local governments, pass every year, as well as every other law that ever has been placed on the books anywhere in the USA. Forget that we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of statutes; you, dear reader, are supposed to be intimately familiar with the law. If you wish to find a way out of this predicament, however, the solution is before you: find employment as a police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge and you can wallow in lawbreaking and legal ignorance to your hearts content, and the courts will back you. The irony is that Schuelkes investigation and report is being heralded as a triumph of the "ethics" of those who enforce the laws of this country. You see, we are told, no one is above the law. Well, almost no one. The people who more than anyone else should be held to the highest standards of the law are the ones who really are above it. Tyranny exists when certain people are permitted to act in a lawless manner while forcing others to obey ridiculous and oppressive laws. Lest anyone believe that such a situation exists only in faraway countries where soldiers goose-step and dictators have funny moustaches, think again. What Schuelke has done is not to destroy tyranny, but to expand it, giving prosecutors literally a free pass to lie and eviscerate the very laws they claim to enforce, all in the name of "justice." END QUOTE

35

40

45

50

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/special-prosecutor-justice-attorneys-shouldnt-face55 charges-in-stevens-case/2011/11/21/gIQAX7n9iN_story.html
QUOTE Special prosecutor: Justice attorneys shouldnt face charges in Stevens case

p48 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Chris Miller/ASSOCIATED PRESS - Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) funneled billions of dollars to his home state over six terms in office before being convicted in 2008 of seven felonies for failing to disclose campaign gifts. The conviction was later dismissed. By Del Quentin Wilber, Published: November 22

5 Justice Department attorneys should not face criminal charges despite their serious misconduct during the
corruption trial of late senator Ted Stevens, a special prosecutor has recommended. Disclosed in a court order Monday, the recommendation came despite the prosecutors determination that the Justic e Department attorneys had intentionally withheld helpful evidence from Stevenss attorneys during the senators 2008 trial in the Districts federal court.

10 Loading...
View all Items in this Story Stevens, an Alaska Republican who died in a small-plane crash last year, lost his reelection bid shortly after being convicted of seven counts of making false statements on financial disclosure statements to hide about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his Alaska house. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan threw out the guilty verdict in April 2009 after the Justice Department revealed that prosecutors kept key information from defense attorneys. Sullivan, who had reprimanded prosecutors several times during the trial for their handling of witnesses and evidence, also ordered his own investigation by a special prosecutor to investigate the extent of misconduct in the case. The conclusions of that investigation by D.C. defense attorney and former prosecutor Henry F. Schuelke III were made public Monday. In an order, Sullivan wrote that Schuelke submitted a 500-page report that found Stevenss prosecution had been permeated by systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the governments key witness. The judge added that Schuelke and a colleague, William B. Shields, determined that at least some of the concealment was willful and intentional, and related to many of the issues raised by the defense during trial. Even so, the report recommended that the Justice Department attorneys not be prosecuted on criminal contempt charges because the judge did not issue a clear order telling them to properly handle evidence and witnesses, Sullivan wrote. Sullivan did not indicate when he will make a final determination on how to proceed in the case. Although it appears unlikely, Sullivan could still order the prosecutors to be tried on contempt charges. Schuelkes report was submitted under seal and will not be made public at least until it is reviewed by the Just ice Department, attorneys for the prosecutors and Stevenss attorneys, Sullivan wrote. Schuelke investigated prosecutors Brenda Morris, William Welch, Edward Sullivan, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke, as well as Nicholas Marsh, who committed suicide last year. The prosecutors are also the focus of an investigation by the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). That investigation is nearing a conclusion, officials have said. Attorneys for most of the prosecutors either could not be reached or declined to comment. Edward Sullivans attorney, Brian Heberlig, said in a statement that the Justice Departments OPR probe had fully exonerated the prosecutor. Schuelkes report was sparked by the circumstances surrounding a key moment in Stevenss trial the testimony of a star prosecution witness, Bill Allen, a close friend of Stevenss and the former chief executive of a now -defunct oil services company. Allen testified that he gave Stevens gifts and supervised and financed much of the renovation work on Stevenss Alaska home. He also testified that a friend of Stevenss told him to ignore a note the senator sent him requesting a bill for the remodeling work. Bill, dont worry about getting a bill. Ted is just covering himself, Allen testified that the friend told him. The Justice Department later disclosed that prosecutors had taken notes of an interview with Allen before the trial. During that interview, the Veco executive told prosecutors that he did not recall talking to the friend about the bill. The fact that Allen appeared to have changed his story at trial would have buttressed defense attorneys attacks on the witnesss credibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55 Brady v. Maryland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

p49 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Brady v. Maryland

Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 1819, 1963 Decided May 13, 1963

Full case name

Brady v. State of Maryland

Citations

373 U.S. 83 (more) 83 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215; 1963 U. S. LEXIS 1615

Prior history

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland

Holding

Withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. "

Court membership Chief Justice Earl Warren

Associate Justices Hugo Black William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart Byron White Arthur Goldberg Case opinions

Majority

Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg

p50 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Concurrence

White

Dissent

Harlan, joined by Black

Laws applied

U. S. Const. amend. XIV

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only of the question of punishment. The court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling was affirmed. Brady refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.[1] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses[2], and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.[3] Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity.[4] Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness or evidence that a witness was paid to act as an informant.[5] Contents 1 See also 2 Cultural references 3 References 4 Further reading 5 External links [edit] See also

10

15

20

25

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 373 Brady material Jencks Act Jencks v. United States Testilying [edit] Cultural references

30

Casey NovakFictional prosecutor on Law and Order: SVU who was censured for violating the Brady Rules.

p51 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

[edit] References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ^ Strickler v. Greene, 527 U. S. 263, 296 (1999) ^ People v. Johnson, 38 Cal.App.3d 228, 113 Cal.Rptr. 303 (1974) ^ Banks v. Dretke, 540 U. S. 668 (2004) ^ Kamb, Lewis; Nalder, Eric (January 29, 2008). "Cops who lie don't always lose jobs". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349169_lying29.html. ^ Banks v. Dretke, 540 U. S. 668, 694, 698 (2004) [edit] Further reading Clark, Garry (Sep 2005). The Grand Jury: Phase: I The Murder of Marsa Gipson. http://www.govexposed.com. Hochman, Robert (1996). " Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials". The University of Chicago Law Review (The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4) 63 (4): 16731705. doi:10.2307/1600284. JSTOR 1600284. Hooper, Laural L.; Marsh, Jennifer E.; and Yeh, Brian. Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts Rules, Orders, and Policies: Report to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Federal Judicial Center, October 2004. Sundby, Scott E. (2002). "Fallen Superheroes and Constitutional Mirages: The Tale of Brady v. Maryland". McGeorge Law Review 33. doi:10.2139/ssrn.361040. [edit] External links

10

15

20

^ 373 U. S. 83 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/02/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-exc

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse Unless you work in law enforcement Radley Balko | August 2, 2010

25

Listen to Audio Version (MP3)

30

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's the standard line motorists hear when they say they weren't aware of the speed limit, or gun owners hear when they say didn't know about the gun laws in the jurisdiction they happened to get arrested in. Yet that ignorance is pretty understandable in an America where just about everything is being criminalized. At the federal level alone there are now more than 4,500 separate crimes, and that's not counting the massive regulatory code, violations of which also can sometimes be punished with criminal charges. As citizens, we're expected to know and obey all of these laws, in addition to state and local statutes and the relevant court opinions that interpret the breadth and depth of all of those laws.

35 But what happens when law enforcement officials don't know the law? What happens when they

illegally detain, arrest, and charge you even though you've done nothing wrong? Unlike you, their ignorance doesn't result in arrest or jail. And unless the violation is pretty egregious, they're unlikely to be punished for it.

p52 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Consider the case of Brian Kelly. On May 24, 2007, Kelly was riding with a friend in the town of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Officer David Rogers of the Carlisle Police Department pulled Kelly's friend over for speeding. Rogers told the two that the traffic stop was being recorded with a microphone attached to his uniform. Kelly, who had a video camera with him, began recording the stop as well. When Rogers returned from writing a ticket, he noticed Kelly's camera. Rogers demanded Kelly turn the camera off and hand it over to him. Kelly complied. Rogers then returned to his car and called John Birbeck, an assistant district attorney in Cumberland County. Rogers asked Birbeck if Kelly's recording violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping law. Birbeck incorrectly told him it did. Rogers then called in back-up officers and placed Kelly under arrest. During the arrest, Rogers "bumped" (the term Kelly used in his lawsuit) Kelly, causing a staple from a rugby injury to rupture, causing Kelly's leg to bleed. Kelly spent the night in jail. He was eventually charged with a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed would later tell the Patriot-News that while he sympathized with Kelly not being aware that what he did was illegal, and that he might (graciously!) allow Kelly to plead to a misdemeanor, "Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense." Here's the problem: Freed was the one who was ignorant of the law. So was Birbeck. And so was Rogers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that recording on-duty public officials is not a violation of the state's wiretapping law because public officials have no legitimate expectation of privacy while they're on the job. The order for Kelly to stop videotaping was illegal. So was Kelly's arrest and his incarceration. Freed eventually dropped all charges. Kelly filed a civil rights lawsuit against Rogers and the town of Carlisle. In May of last year, Federal District Court Judge Yvette Kane dismissed Kelly's suit. The reason? As a police officer, Rogers is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In order to even get his case in front of a jury, Kelly has to show that Rogers (a) violated Kelly's civil rights, and (b) the rights Rogers violated have been clearly established. Even if Kelly can meet those two burdens, he must also show that Roger's actions in violating Kelly's rights were unreasonable. So it isn't enough that the police are wrong about the law. They have to be very obviously wrong for you to collect any damages from a wrongful arrest. Kane found that because Rogers sought advice from the local prosecutor's office it was reasonable for

10

15

20

25

30 him to act on that advice, even if the advice happened to be wrong on the law. Moreover, Kane found
that because the federal appeals courts have yet to find a specific right to make audio recordings of police, that right is not yet clearly established. Kelly is appealing.

35

Suing Birbeck isn't likely an option for Kelly, either. Prosecutors enjoy an even stronger protection called absolute immunity. Under absolute immunity, there is virtually nothing a prosecutor can do in the course of his job that would subject him to a lawsuit. The contradiction couldn't be starker. Kelly, a citizen who neither works in law enforcement nor has been to law school, was arrested, jailed, and charged with a felony for not knowing that an antiquated law pertaining to wiretapping prevented him from using a wireless video camera to record a traffic stop that the police officer himself was recording. Even if Kelly had broken the law, at worst he made a recording of Rogers without Rogers' consent in addition to the recording Rogers was already making. Rogers wasn't harmed at all. And for that, Kelly could have gone to prison for seven years. On the other hand, Freed, Birbeck and Rogers are all paid by taxpayers to know and enforce the law. Freed and Birbeck presumably went to law school, and presumably passed the Pennsylvania bar exam. Knowing the state's criminal code and the court decisions that affect it is a fairly integral part of their jobs. The harm caused by their ignorance of the law is far from insignificant: A man was wrongly arrested, detained, and jailed. His First Amendment rights were violated. And he was injured in the course of his arrest. Yet they won't be going to jail. In fact, they're unlikely to be sanctioned or punished at all.

40

45

p53 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

And Kelly isn't the only person this has happened to. Last month, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania settled a lawsuit with Elijah Matheny, who was arrested and charged in 2009 for recording the police with a cell phone camera. Part of the settlement requires the Allegheny County DA's office to instruct local police that citizens in Pennsylvania have the right to record on-duty police officers.

5 That's a start. But it's one county, in one state. There have also been recent wiretapping arrests of

10

citizens recording police in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Oregon, despite the fact that all three states have privacy provisions in their wiretapping laws, and that no court in the country has ruled that on-duty cops have an expectation of privacy in public spaces or while performing their official duties. The justification for those arrests is that the citizens of those states should know that antiquated laws covering the tapping of phone lines also make it illegal to record a police officer with a cell phone. But just as in Pennsylvania, it is law enforcement officials themselves who are wrong on the law. And even in the rare case where a wrongful arrest leads to a cash settlement, it's generally paid for by taxpayers, not the law enforcement officials who broke the law in the first place. And the problem goes beyond wiretapping laws. Last month, police in Washington, D.C. detained and

15 threatened to arrest Jerome Vorus, who photographed a traffic stop in Georgetown. D.C. Police Chief
Kathy Lanier subsequently acknowledged on a radio call-in show that there's no law against photographing police in D.C., but then went on to excuse her officers' violation of the photographer's rights, explaining that cops dont like having their photos taken because we can have our pictures end up on all sorts of websites, and that can be dangerous for us." The message to D.C. cops? Citizens are permitted to photograph you, but nothing's going to happen to you if you stop those citizens from exercising their rights.

20

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse Unless you work in law enforcement Radley Balko | August 2, 2010 (Page 2 of 2) Listen to Audio Version (MP3)

25

30

35

Carlos Miller, who has documented dozens of these incidents on his Photography Is Not a Crime blog, has twice been prevented by private security and public police from taking video at a Miami Metrorail station, despite getting assurance from Metrorail Safety and Security Chief Eric Muntan that shooting non-commercial video on the train and in its stations is perfectly legal. Last month, The Washington Post catalogued numerous instances where people were arrested, detained, or warned for taking pictures or video in public despite having the law on their side. The New York Times reported similar incidents, including one where a man was prevented from taking photos at an Amtrak station for a photography competition sponsored by Amtrak. As if all that wasn't bad enough, consider this excerpt from the Post article, describing the Vorus incident in Georgetown: Police say they were justified in stopping him because was taking photos of the inside of the squad car. Vorus, who was 20 feet away, says he "wasn't trying to make a point or cause a scene" but was merely asserting his rights. Second District Cmdr. Matthew Klein said there is no official prohibition against photographing the interior of a squad car. But he said officers acted appropriately because they thought Vorus was escalating the situation. p54 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

"They had a situation developing," Klein said. "They had to make a call." What Klein describes as Vorus "escalating the situation" was Vorus explaining his rights to the cops. Not only are citizens expected to know all of the applicable laws, and to know how the courts have interpreted those laws, they must also know the sometimes tortured way that current law enforcement officials are applying those laws and legal decisions in the field. Police officers, on the other hand, do not have to know any of that. And even when citizens are right on the law, explaining the law and its proper application when confronted by the police can be interpreted as "escalating the situation," which then justifies detainment and possible arrest. For the most part, the old axiom remains true. Ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking it. But there's an exception if you happen to work in law enforcement. Unfortunately for citizens, sometimes even knowledge of the law won't be enough to prevent you from getting arrested. Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine. END QUOTE

10

15 As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my principle concern is the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution! . 20


Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999) Last Updated: 22 September 2000 QUOTE Constitutional interpretation 1. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers[51]. That does not mean a search for their subjective beliefs, hopes or expectations. Constitutional interpretation is not a search for the mental states of those who made, or for that matter approved or enacted, the Constitution. The intention of its makers can only be deduced from the words that they used in the historical context in which they used them[52]. In a paper on constitutional interpretation, presented at Fordham University in 1996, Professor Ronald Dworkin argued, correctly in my opinion[53]: "We must begin, in my view, by asking what - on the best evidence available - the authors of the text in question intended to say. That is an exercise in what I have called constructive interpretation[54]. It does not mean peeking inside the skulls of people dead for centuries. It means trying to make the best sense we can of an historical event someone, or a social group with particular responsibilities, speaking or writing in a particular way on a particular occasion." The application which this Court has given to some words and phrases of the Constitution would almost certainly

25

30

35 have surprised most of those who participated in the making of the Constitution. Most of them could not have
foreseen the extent to which the application of those words and phrases would enable the Commonwealth to dominate the federation and reduce the power of the States to control their domestic affairs. But that does not mean that this Court's interpretation of our Constitution has lacked fidelity to the intentions of those who made the Constitution. END QUOTE Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE
.

40

45

50

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates Australasian Convention), QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-

(Official Record of the Debates of the National

p55 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion; END QUOTE
.

5 Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on terms that are just to both.

10

END QUOTE

What is JUST when the courts are in Victoria registered as corporations and as Business unit 19? Where Registrars flaunt the legal requirements under the constitution and people are destroyed if in the process a professional driver loses his/her driver licence in defiance of what is constitutionally permissible and appropriate. 15 What kind of Almighty God presides over the racketeering by governments? And it is generally know that people can end up being convicted before the trial was finished (Family Court of Australia), where the orders may be signed and issued days before the hearing is concluded. While the High Court of Australia in January 1995 held that the issue of orders days before the trail was finished, albeit unbeknown at the time to the accused, was an error, 20 nevertheless this to me was a very serious error, in particular where a person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The orders were therefore invalid as it were pre-determined orders, and the orders issued at the conclusion of the trail then repeated the term of imprisonment but not some of the other parts. The Family court of Australia despite the prohibition of s116 nevertheless is dealing with 25 religious matters. How then can it be deemed impartial where it has set itself to be operating outside the rule of law.
.

How indeed can any law be valid that requires an accused to consult a lawyer for legal advice, where the lawyer does no more but rightly or wrongly gives his own perception/interpretation of 30 the law, where in fact the Framers of the constitution held:
.

35

Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE

Therefore any subordinate law enacted within the provisions of the constitution should also be that unlettered person be able to understand without the need of having to consult a lawyer who 40 again may misinterpret/misconceive what the law is about. As such if lawyers themselves can be wrong how then can such a law be deemed constitutional valid where it is beyond the understanding/comprehension of the unlettered person? Where if there are 100 cases litigated in the courts and each party has a set of lawyers, then where the court adjudicates in each and every case then 1100 sets of lawyers will be in the wrong 45 and 100 sets of lawyers will be in the right. But the poor litigants nevertheless ends up paying for the cost. A 50% success rate would be deemed for doctors to be charlatans!
.

50

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html QUOTE R v Davison [1954] HCA 46; (1954) 90 CLR 353 (10 September 1954) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA THE QUEEN v. DAVISON [1954] HCA 46; (1954) 90 CLR 353 p56 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Bankruptcy High Court of Australia Dixon C.J.(1), McTiernan(1), Webb(2), Fullagar(3), Kitto(4) and Taylor(5) JJ. CATCHWORDS

5 Bankruptcy - Constitutional law (Cth.) - Powers of Federal Parliament - Powers conferred upon registrar - Deputy
registrar - Direction by Attorney-General - Debtor's petition - Sequestration order - Power of registrar or deputy registrar to make - Judicial power of Commonwealth - Order - Statutory provisions - Validity - Offences "Bankrupt" - The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), ss. 71, 72, 76, 77 (iii) - Bankruptcy Act 1924-1950, ss. 4, 12 (2) (5) (6), 18, 20 (3), 24 (1) (a), 52 (i), 54, 57, 119, 209 (g), 214 (1), 217 (1). END QUOTE
.

10

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html QUOTE The Rule Making Power, 12 American Bar Ass. 599, by Dean Pound, whose thesis is that historically and even

15 analytically it is the function of the courts to regulate their procedure. The learned writer places more reliance in
all matters of judicial power upon history than upon juristic analysis: "In doubtful cases, however, we employ a historical criterion. We ask whether, at the time our constitutions were adopted, the power in question was exercised by the Crown, by Parliament, or by the judges. Unless analysis compels us to say in a given case that there is a historical anomaly, we are guided chiefly by the historical criterion" . Nevertheless it is clear enough that making rules of procedure may in one point of view be regarded as a legislative function, though in another point of view it may be considered as an incident of judicial power. The truth is that the ascertainment of existing rights by the judicial determination of issues of fact or law falls exclusively within judicial power so that the Parliament cannot confide the function to any person or body but a court constituted under ss. 71 and 72 of the Constitution and this may be true also of some duties or powers hitherto invariably discharged by courts under our system of jurisprudence but not exactly of the foregoing description. But there are many functions or duties that are not necessarily of a judicial character but may be performed judicially, whether because they are incidental to the exercise of judicial power or because they are proper subjects of its exercise. How a particular act or thing of this kind is treated by legislation may determine its character. If the legislature prescribes a judicial process, it may mean that an exercise of the judicial power is indispensable. It is at that point that the character of the proceeding or of the thing to be done becomes all important. Where the difficulty is to distinguish between a legislative and a judicial proceeding, the end accomplished may be decisive. This was the point made by Holmes J. in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. [1908] USSC 160; (1908) 211 US 210 (53 Law Ed 150) : "A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist. That is its purpose and end. Legislation on the other hand looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power . . . And it does not matter what inquiries may have been made as a preliminary to the legislative act. Most legislation is preceded by hearings and investigations. But the effect of the inquiry, and of the decision upon it is determined by the nature of the act to which the inquiry and decision lead up . . . The nature of the final act determines the nature of the previous inquiry. As the judge is bound to declare the law he must know or discover the facts that establish the law. So when the final act is legislative the decision which induces it cannot be judicial in the practical sense, although the questions considered might be the same that would arise in the trial of a case" [1908] USSC 160; [1908] USSC 160; (1908) 211 US 210, at pp 226-227 (53 Law Ed 150, at pp 158, 159) . Though the purpose to which this test was put by Holmes J. was to distinguish a judicial from a legislative function it may usefully be applied by analogy to ascertain whether a thing is done administratively or as an exercise of judicial power. (at p370) 12. In the present case the thing done is the making of an order characteristic of courts. The primary power to make the very order is entrusted to the court established under ss. 71 and 72. The power of the registrar is secondary and in a sense derivative. Further by the definition of the expression "the Court" the legislature has made it clear that for certain purposes he is to enjoy the very powers conferred upon the court and is to act exactly as the court. This he is to do, although under the peculiar arrangements adopted to meet the decision in Le Mesurier v. Connor [1929] HCA 41; (1929) 42 CLR 481, the registrar is no part of the court and is not an officer of the court. It is clear that s. 24(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act confers upon the registrar a power which is also exercisable by the court and a power to be exercised by him in the same way and by the same form of instrument as would be used by the judge. He is, in other words, the substitute for the judge. Within the p57 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

10

meaning of s. 54 he is by definition "the Court". By definition also he is the court within the meaning of s. 57. It is therefore his function to decide whether good and sufficient cause exists for refusing to make a sequestration order. Although no doubt it is exceptional for difficulties to arise under this heading, they are by no means unknown; see Re Bachelor (1855) 25 TL (OS) 248 ; Re Betts; Ex parte Official Receiver (1901) 2 KB 39 ; Re Hancock (1904) 1 KB 585 . When s. 24 (1) is construed with the definition of "the Court" and applied to ss. 54 and 57, it becomes clear that the function of making an order of sequestration is treated as judicial and is confided to the registrar in the same character as it is confided to the court. In other words it is the intention of the legislature that the registrar should make an order operating as an order of the court. That is exactly what in fact he did in the present case. For upon its face the order is one which could not be made except by a court constituted as it is in conformity with s. 71 and s. 72 of the Constitution. (at p371) 13. It follows that what has been done is an attempt to authorize a person not constituting a court under ss. 71 and 72 of the Constitution to exercise part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth and is not authorized by the Constitution. The order of sequestration so made is void. END QUOTE http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html QUOTE But the fact that the statute makes the function judicial is of great importance in Australia. For it means that it can only be validly entrusted to a court constituted in the manner provided by Chapter III of the Constitution. The registrar is not a court so constituted. Section 24(1)(a), therefore, which purports to empower the registrar "to hear debtors' petitions and to make sequestration orders thereon" is unconstitutional and invalid. It follows that a similar power cannot be conferred by the Attorney-General upon a deputy registrar under s. 12(6). (at p378) END QUOTE http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1954/46.html QUOTE In Le Mesurier v. Connor (1929) 42 CLR 481 , it was held in this Court that s. 77(iii) of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to make a commonwealth officer a functionary of a state court and to authorize him to act on its behalf and administer part of its jurisdiction and that s. 51 (xxxix) does not authorize the reconstitution of a state court invested with federal jurisdiction under s. 77(iii) or of the organization through which its powers and jurisdiction are exercised. END QUOTE

15

20

25

30

35 Yet, being it the Victorian purported Infringement Court or other tribunals with their own kind of court orders and CONTEMPT OF COURT.
.

For the decades I assisted litigants in litigation I came to the conclusion we have really nothing but a corrupt legal system where lawyers have taken over the Courts, the Parliament and the 40 Executive and are playing with the language as they deem fit to suit themselves rather then that laws are enacted for the interest of the general community.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. END QUOTE
.

45

50 How can they be deemed agents when their conduct is to create legal provisions that excludes themselves from the rule of law but allows them to be the terrorist/dictators from within?
.

As I indicated the Infringement Court is a clear unconstitutional set up where a purported court headed by a registrar issues court orders/warrants without the accused being notified by this 55 purported court of any proceedings, of what evidence, if any, was placed before this purported court, etc, etc.
.

p58 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/presumption-of-innocence.html QUOTE Definition Save to Favorites

5 Fundamental principle under which every defendant who enters a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent under
common-law system (prevalent in the UK, USA, British Commonwealth, and some other countries). This presumption remains valid until he or she is proven guilty in the due process of law. It is the prosecutor's (government's) burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his or her innocence except in the rebuttal of the evidence presented. END QUOTE

10

DUE PROCESS OF LAW


HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

15 QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).It is not something separate from the other portion, and of this Dr. Burgess says, at page 217 of the first volume of his work:The phrase "equal protection of the laws" has been defined by the court to mean exemption from legal discrimination on account of race or colour. This provision would probably, therefore, not be held to cover discriminations in legal standing made for other reasons; as, for example, on account of age or sex, or mental, or even property qualifications. The court distinctly affirms that the history of the provision shows it to have been made to meet only the unnatural discriminations springing from race and colour. If a discrimination should arise from any previous condition of servitude, I think the court would regard this as falling under the inhibition. The language of the provision implies this certainly, if it does not exactly express it. END QUOTE Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those 150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act, which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us. Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the Commonwealth in this connexion. p59 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55 END QUOTE

And then when a citizens seeks to act appropriately such as to challenge the unconstitutionality of such legislation then the courts will pounce upon such a person with making all kinds of orders for cost, and generally too often seeking to railroad the case upon a legal technicality, 5 even if just a fabricated one, and this nevertheless is supposed to be an impartial court?
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS: I think it is advisable that private people should not be put to the expense of having important questions of constitutional law decided out of their own pockets. END QUOTE

10

As the Framers of the Constitution stated:


HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE

15

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten , END QUOTE

20

25

30

35

That is why a CONSTITUTIONALIST like myself research not how lawyers like to manipulate the written constitution but rather how the true meaning and application of the constitution is. When you have so to say corrupt legal system, where then can one turn to as to have once grievance heard and determined according to DUE PROCESS OF LAW? hen we allow people to come into the Commonwealth of Australia allegedly for humanitarian reasons because they are claiming to be prosecuted in their native country, but not in the subsequent country they moved to, why then do we not stipulate that we will not accept them to then seek to pervert our own community as to their demands how we should govern the Commonwealth of Australia. No one could rightly in their mind claim that the religious and other abuses are all because of those migrating into Australia, but why add to an existing problem as we are doing? The Koran as I understand it promote paedophilia but then it appears to me the Bible promotes the kidnaping and taking of virgins then this also may have related to small girls even before they were teenagers. How then can we deplore one set of religious practices when we somehow seem to accept or even support another religious practice doing the same? As I understand it there was a Pope who accepted paedophilia to be ramped (in about 700AC) and so we are faced with different set of values where our contemporary values may differ considerably from those held centuries or even decades ago. When you bring up a child in a sexual abuse situation then the child may be indoctrinated that this is normal and so when this victim of abuse becomes an adult then may follow the path of his/her abusers.

40 We must all accept that we cannot change the world. We can only give our best intentions to get rid of what is done wrong within certain limits and hope that others will follow suit. We therefore are to sow the seed for changing the world to a better place.
.

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

45 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: Then I would say to this assembly, do not be led away by the idea that the nomination of governor is the only tie that binds us to Great Britain. If we send home a great portion of our laws for the Queen's assent is not that to bind us to Great Britain in the most solemn way? Is not that to say that the sovereign of Great Britain is as absolutely at member of our legislature here as she is of the legislature at home? Her representative, who p60 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

50

would be chosen by the people, would in her name open and close the parliaments and perform all those functions, but he would be a man chosen by ourselves, and our own people would be educated in the highest possible manner to discharge their duty to their country. END QUOTE Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: I apprehend that they would probably only fill the office for two or three years. There would be a constant change, and I believe that in that way a large proportion of your population would be again educated in the best possible manner. These must seem almost too daring speculations; but, in point of fact, we are marching on to an altogether new epoch, to new times, and the very essence of the constitution must be this: I heard one hon. gentleman here state that we must remember that we are legislating for the future; and I agree with him if he meant that we are legislating in such a manner as to enable the future to legislate for itself-that it is our object that freedom in every respect shall be given, so that as each generation comes on they shall say, "Blessed be those ancestors of ours who have left us this freedom, so that nothing can take place-no changes in the state of the world-but we possess all powers to define the measures most necessary to bring peace and tranquillity at every epoch it comes on." That is the real duty which we should aim to fulfil; and it is only by allowing the people to speak, and at all times to declare [start page 140] their views and their wishes, and to have them carefully considered, that we can insure peace, tranquillity, and prosperity to each country in each successive epoch of time as it arrives. END QUOTE Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

10

15

20

25 Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Sir GEORGE GREY: In my youth it was said that men of different religious faiths could not sit in the same legislature together, and they were excluded-Jews, Catholics, Nonconformists-nobody it was thought but members of the Church of England could form a legislative body that was of any use at all. To leaven them with other material was to spoil the whole thing. But it was found that that was a great mistake; that men of different religious faiths could sit side by side in the same legislature; that talent and ability call be drawn forth from any religious opinions whatever. The nation has progressed more than ever it has done before in so short a period of time; and its happiness and tranquillity are greater. END QUOTE Hansard 10-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE I recognise, too, that the potency and the extent of the consequences of any proposal may be its strongest recommendation. But there is one test which, as practical men concerned with the affairs of State, we ought to apply to every proposal, and one only that I know of. 'Does it suit the people on whose behalf it is proposed? Is it in accord with the circumstances, the history, the traditions, and the requirements of the Australian people?' A good form of government is not the product of conscious effort; it cannot be suddenly constructed even by the planks of a labour caucus, but is the result of a national and healthy development. It should fit the people easily, as the bark of a tree fits its trunk and branches in every stage of growth. END QUOTE

30

35

40

45

Yet, for all I know when we have people to migrate into the Commonwealth of Australia it seems that there are no special requirements for them to have a certain education in Australian values as 50 a pre requisite to be able to obtain a visa of permanent stay. It seems to the government more important for new arrivals to know who played cricked decades ago then to lean about Australian values, whatever they might be. As after all Australian values are different from person to person. Some hold a BBQ is a religious conduct of an Australian whereas others have absolutely no interest in BBQ being held but nevertheless can be outstanding Australians. 55 The following quotation ought to be considered not just for telecommunication but also in regard of religion:
.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Serratore Nos. Ca 40642/95 and Crd 72680/95 Criminal Law and Procedure -

60 Statutes - Human Rights - Telecommunications - Law Reform [1995] NSWSC 154 (14 November 1995)
p61 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

QUOTE "It is well established that the Court should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights, freedoms or immunities; such an intention must be clearly manifested by clear and unmistakable language: Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436-437. ... The close link between the fundamental right to be secure against trespass and the right to privacy is illustrated by the observations by Lord Scarman in Morris v Beardmore (1981) AC 446 ... Parliament itself has ... recognised, in the context of telecommunications, the fundamental importance of protecting individual privacy, although also recognising that the value of privacy can be over-ridden where it conflicts with other significant community values, provided that detailed safeguards are observed. The recognition and protection of privacy in the Intercept Act, in my view, justifies a restrictive approach to the construction of the statutory exceptions to the prohibitions on interception. ... where there is a genuine doubt as to whether the statutory language authorises the use of intercept information for a particular purpose, that doubt should be resolved in favour of a narrow, rather than a broad construction of the statutory authorisation." END QUOTE
.

10

15

The protection of religious belief must be provided for as long as they are and remain within the confines of the law. 20 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) QUOTE Clause 109-A state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-An amendment of this clause, which has hitherto been passed without discussion, has

25 been standing in my name for some time. I do not think the clause goes far enough. I should prefer the matter to be
in other hands, but it is one which has excited a great deal of interest among a great many people, and it becomes all the more important because a strong effort has been made to have a reference to the Almighty inserted in the preamble of the Constitution. In the American Constitution they have gone further, and the first amendment of that Constitution contains these words:-

30

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Some people will think that it is idle at this time of day to pass a law to prevent the prohibition of the establishment of a religion; but it is not idle in the eyes of a number of people whose votes we should like to secure for the Constitution. The history of the American provision is very curious. I find that in Massachusetts, which was the home of the Puritans, there was a great discussion at the time of the Philadelphia Convention as to whether there should be a recognition of God in the Constitution. If, as seems likely, an knowledgment of the existence of the Almighty is inserted in the preamble of our Constitution, it will be necessary to re-assure a large number of good people that their rights with respect to religion will not be interfered with. Mr. GORDON.-What is the honorable member's amendment? Mr. HIGGINS.-It has been circulated for several days, and is to the effect that neither a state nor the

35

40 Commonwealth shall make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion or imposing any religious test or
observance. Of course, we all know that a great effort has been made to have an acknowledgment of the Almighty inserted in the preamble. This is a very difficult subject to speak about in mixed assembly; but I must speak plainly, or not at all. This recognition of God was not proposed merely out of reverence; it was proposed for distinct political purposes under the influence of debates which have taken place in the United States of America. At the time of the Massachusetts Convention there was a long discussion as to whether the Constitution should not be rejected, inasmuch as it did not contain any reference to the existence of God, and Professor Fiske, in his work upon The Critical Period of American History, pp. 321 and 322, writesNext came the complaint that the Convention did not recognise the existence of God, and provided no religious tests for candidates for federal offices. But, strange to say, this objection did not come from the clergy. It was urged by some of the country members, but the ministers in the convention were nearly unanimous in opposing it. There had been a remarkable change of sentiment among the clergy of this state, which had begun its existence as a theocracy, in which none but church members could vote or hold office. The seeds of modern liberalism had been implanted in their minds. When Amos Singletary of Sutton declared it to be scandalous that a Papist or infidel p62 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

45

50

should be as eligible to office as a Christian-a remark which naively assumed that Roman Catholics were not Christians-the Rev. Daniel Shute, of Hingham, [start page 655] replied that no conceivable advantage could result from a religious test. "Yes," said the Rev. Phillip Payson, of Chelsea, "human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God. A religious test as a qualification for office would have been a, great blemish." "In reason and in the Holy Scripture," said the Rev. Isaac Backus, of Middleborough, "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world." With this liberal stand firmly taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily over-ruled. And now, sir, it will be observed that in the Constitution of the United States of America there was not any such

10 recognition in the preamble, and it is proposed that there shall be in our preamble. I am very sorry that those who
first propounded this addition to the preamble did not tell the people with what object it was to be put in. They, no doubt, were perfectly fair and honest in their object, but they had read more than most people as to what had happened in the state of America, and I think, in all frankness, the people ought to have been told that there was a direct object and purpose in view. Now, in 1892 there was a decision in regard to the New York difficulty which has put all the fat in the fire. It was this: There was a law passed by the state of New York, which was to the effect that there should be no labour imported from abroad for the purpose of employers in the state of New York. There happened to be a clergyman imported from England to fill the pulpit of a church in Broadway, in New York, and it was urged that this clergyman was a labourer imported from abroad. Mr. SYMON.-A labourer from the vine-yard.

15

20

25

30

Mr. HIGGINS.-The vineyard idea strikes the honorable member forcibly, no doubt, after his experience as a vigneron. The result was that the question as to whether this clergyman had not been imported against the laws of the state of New York was brought up before several courts and gravely discussed. One court held that it was a breach of the Act to import the clergy-man from abroad, but the Supreme Court of the states, when the question was referred to it, held that it was not a breach of the law, and they also went on to say that Congress never meant to interfere with the importation of clergy-men, because that was a Christian country. And for the purposes of establishing that it was a Christian country all through the states of America they went into elaborate charters and documents to show that from the first it had been a Christian country, and of course they were able to show that most of the states had been founded by denominations for the sake of their own adherents. But what happened in consequence of that decision? There has been a recrudescence of religious strifes throughout the United States, which I could never have believed would have happened-a lifting of banners of those who wish to impose, for instance, a compulsory sabbath all through, in, and upon every state, and a lifting of the banner of those who oppose that movement. Mr. FRASER.-Which side are you on? Mr. HIGGINS.-I think the honorable member's interjection is beside the question, and wholly unfair. This matter

35 may be put upon broad grounds, and not upon the matter of differences between us. I think that our feeling is that we
ought not to do anything under this Constitution which will alienate from giving an earnest "Aye" to this Bill a large body of honest and good people, if we can avoid that without at the same time inflicting irreparable harm on the Constitution. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the Federal Parliament are limited under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power to do anything except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary . But, although that was the case when this clause was put in, if there is inserted in the preamble an express recognition of the Almighty in [start page 656] the Constitution, the position which met the draftsmen of this clause will no longer be applicable, inasmuch as there will be in the preamble of this Constitution a declaration of a religious character, from which, as experience shows, a number of corollaries will be deduced, and upon which attempts will be made, from time to time, to pass legislation of a character which I do not think we intend to give the Federal Commonwealth power to pass. I think that, whatever is done in this matter, if anything is done, ought to be done by the states. I do not think we ought to interfere with the right of the states to do anything they choose, if they think fit to do anything; but I do think that in establishing this Federal Commonwealth we ought to take care to reassure people that there will be no interference with them. There is, I understand, in America, a large body of people called Seventh Day Adventists. There are a few here. Rightly or wrongly, it is not for us to judge, they hold a theory that they are not obliged to keep Sunday. They cannot afford two holidays in the week, and, therefore, they keep Saturday. Well, these people in America are excited beyond bounds at the attempts which have been made since 1892 to establish a compulsory Sunday in the United States. Here, these people are few in number, I believe-I do not know much about them-but I understand that they are exceedingly troubled over the fact that through putting the words in question in the preamble there may be an attempt to enforce the observance of Sunday upon them, whereas they observe Saturday. p63 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

50

55

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why not leave the words out of the preamble? Mr. HIGGINS.-Well, as far as I am concerned, in order to gain for the Federal Constitution the votes of a vast number of good people, I am willing to support a proposal for the insertion of appropriate words in the preamble. An HONORABLE MEMBER.-But how many votes will you lose by doing so?

10

Mr. HIGGINS.-I cannot tell. Honorable members will see that in taking this course I am quite consistent. I want to do what is, at the worst, harmless, with a view to secure a great number of votes in favour of the Constitution. I say that, on the one hand, there has been, rightly or wrongly, a strong pressure brought to bear throughout these colonies in favour of the insertion of some suitable words in the preamble. At the same time, I feel that if we put these words into the preamble, without a safeguard in the Constitution itself, we shall be very likely to alienate a large force against us. Mr. DOUGLAS.-I do not think so. Mr. HIGGINS.-I am not sure whether the activity of mind in Tasmania is like the activity of mind that is sometimes manifested in large cities, but I can assure the honorable member that there is a good deal more of hostility which will be displayed to this Constitution, unless there is a safeguard inserted, than he thinks for. There is a tendency in these days to interfere more and more with a man's actions in all sorts of directions, to have rules of all kinds with regard to his economical relations. Well, it is not at all clear as to where the line will be drawn. If we interfere with a man's actions in his economical relations, it will be very hard to draw the line and say that he is not bound to act in a certain way with regard to religious observances. The question is an old question. Honorable members have thought it over very much, no doubt; but all I say is that we ought to put in the Bill words that will, at all events, reassure those who object to some of the words in the preamble of this Constitution. There is, however, I am bound to admit, a defect in the amendment I have suggested. My amendment, as printed, is as follows:After word "not" insert "nor shall the Commonwealth"; and after word "religion" insert "or imposing any religious test or observance." I think we must qualify that in some way, because it has been said that it would [start page 657] void our imposing

15

20

25 of the ordinary oaths in the courts and elsewhere.


Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice. Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-

30

35

But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth. The leader of the Convention is, I believe, in a hurry to conclude the evening's proceedings. I will leave the amendment with him, in the hope that he will be able to make something of it. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-The Finance Committee arranged to meet at five o'clock to-day. As we have

40 reached our usual hour, I beg to move Mr. Chairman, that you report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The motion was agreed to. END QUOTE p64 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE

[Continue page 657] TUESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY, 1898. Paper: Money Bills-Printing of Amendments-Commonwealth of Australia Bill-Order of Business. The PRESIDENT took the chair at half-past ten o'clock a.m. MONEY BILLS.

10

Sir RICHARD BAKER (South Australia).-I ask leave to lay on the table a paper on the powers and practices of the two Houses of Parliament (South Australia) in reference to Money Bills. It was prepared for the Constitutional Committee in Adelaide and printed, but, as that committee have never brought up their minutes before the Convention, it would not be bound with the Convention papers. In order that it may be included, I beg leave to move that it be printed. The motion was agreed to. PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS. Sir JOHN FORREST (Western Australia).-In Sydney I gave notice of a new clause which has been printed on a separate paper, but it does not appear in the list of amendments. Would it not be [start page 658] better to insert it among the other amendments for the information of honorable members?

15

20

The PRESIDENT.-As attention has been called to the matter, no doubt it will be attended to. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA BILL. The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole for the further consideration of the Commonwealth of Australia Bill. Discussion (adjourned from the previous day) was resumed on clause 109-

25

A state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. The CHAIRMAN.-No amendment has yet been moved. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I spoke on this clause Yesterday evening. I now want to say that, after careful deliberation, I think the wording of my amendment ought to be rectified before it is submitted to the Convention. The existing clause is-

30

A state shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. There is no application to the Federal Parliament at all in the clause as it stands. I intend to propose amendments which, if adopted, will make the clause read as follows:A state shall not, nor shall the Commonwealth, make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, or for the establishment of any religion, or imposing any religious observance.

35

Mr. OCONNOR.-The Commonwealth will have no power to do that.

p65 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

Mr. HIGGINS.-I explained yesterday evening that, in the Constitution of the United States, there is a prohibition on Congress making any law for this purpose. Mr. SYMON-No. Mr. HIGGINS.-With all respect to the honorable member, there is.

Mr. SYMON.-Prohibiting religion? Mr. HIGGINS.-Yes. If you look at the first amendment of the Constitution you will find that there is no prohibition on a state doing this thing, but there is a prohibition on Congress against either making a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, or for the establishment of a religion. I add, here, "or imposing any religious observance." It is quite true, as Mr. O'Connor says, one would have thought that in the absence of an express power given to Congress to do these things, there would not be power to do them, but I had the opportunity yesterday afternoon of indicating the course of the decisions of the courts to the leader of the Convention, and he knows how very largely from single expressions used in the Constitution there have been inferential powers deduced. In consequence, for instance, merely of a decision of the Supreme Court that that country was a Christian country, there was a law passed and carried into effect prohibiting the opening of the Chicago Exhibition on Sunday, so that there is no doubt this will provide against a real subsisting danger, and I am moving this amendment with the view of reassuring a number of honest people here who, having regard to the experience of America, are gravely objecting to the insertion of any words in the preamble of the Constitution. I can foresee that that preamble will be carried, and I wish to provide against having a number of people voting against the Constitution on the ground that it will introduce a number of difficulties which, in this new country, ought to be laid for ever. I beg to move my first amendmentThat the words "nor shall the Commonwealth" be inserted after the word "not." Mr. GORDON (South Australia).-I think there was a good deal of force in the remarks that fell from the Right Hon. Sir Edward Braddon yesterday afternoon, shortly before the Convention adjourned. So long as this prohibition only extends to the mere mental exercise of faith, I am with Mr. Higgins; but I do not think that the prohibition should extend to interference with the exercises of faiths that are carried to lengths which are objectionable from a sociological point of view. I do not know whether any such [start page 659] extreme cases as those mentioned by Sir Edward Braddon would occur in this community, but it is quite likely that the faith healers who have been punished in England for failing to provide medical attendance and medicines for their sick might come here, and I would like to know whether a prohibition of this sort will interfere with faith healers who think that the cure of their sick should be made, not a matter of medical advice and medicine, but a matter of faith and prayer? Mr. OCONNOR.-They are subject to the English law. Mr. GORDON.-Yes, they are; but whether they are subject to the common law or the statute law of England, I do not know. What I would like to know is will this provision prevent such people, if they come here and act in the same way as they have acted in England, being prosecuted here?

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mr. SYMON.-It might do so. Mr. GORDON.-Then I think we ought to safeguard it to this extent, directly the exercise of religious observances injures the community or any person in the community, I think that both the state and the Commonwealth ought to have the right to interfere. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I agree with the honorable member. Of course, what we want in these times is to

40 protect every citizen in the absolute and free exercise of his own faith, to take care that his religious belief shall in no
way be interfered with; but one would think from reading this clause, which appears to me objectionable in every possible way Mr. HIGGINS.-Do you mean the clause in the Bill? Mr. SYMON.-Yes, I am with my honorable friend in desiring to have the clause amended. The idea of the clause

45 is good enough-that is, the preservation of absolute freedom of religious belief, but the mode in which it is carried
out in this clause seems to me to be obnoxious. The clause is either a great deal too wide, or it is not wide enough. It p66 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

is a great deal too wide in saying that no law shall be enacted. I am not referring merely to the state, in what I am now saying, because undoubtedly it ought to be the Commonwealth rather than the state. However, it seems to be, prima facie, an interference with the legislative authority of the state itself. But putting it both ways-a prohibition against the state and against the Commonwealth making any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religious faith is, I think, a little beyond what any of us is prepared to go. Would it, for example, prevent or raise doubts as to whether the Commonwealth could pass a law prohibiting the exercise of such a religious creed as that mentioned by Mr. Gordon? We know what took place in Wales, in connexion with the faith healers, where most abominable cruelties were practised in the name of religion, and whilst no one ought to be allowed to interfere with the faith of these people-the creed they profess-still, the law, in the the interests of the community and of humanity, ought to put a stop to the exercise of that faith in such a way as it was exercised in those cases. We are living in a very advanced age, not in medieval times, and there is no necessity for a prohibition of this kind, but if there be a prohibition there should also be a provision showing what is meant by religion, and what is meant by free exercise. Then again, whilst this is to be a prohibition against the state or the Commonwealth enacting a law interfering with the free exercise of religion, is it to be implied that the state or the Commonweath may pass a law interfering with persons of no religion-Agnostics, Atheists, and Deists? Mr. GORDON.-A Deist has a religion. Mr. SYMON.-Some people would not admit that a Deist has a religion. Mr. GORDON.-A Jew is a Deist. Mr. SYMON.-Well, I am not skilled in the refinements of theology, but I ask the leader of the Convention

20 whether it is necessary that the present clause should remain in the Bill at all? The [start page 660] points referred to
by Sir Edward Braddon last night are of the very highest importance. We may be willing to admit people professing Oriental faiths, but unwilling to permit the exercise of those faiths as those people would wish to exercise them in this country, detrimental in every possible way to the cause of religion and of freedom itself. I would suggest to Mr. Higgins whether it would not be better to do away with this clause altogether, and limit the prohibition to the imposition of any religious test? Mr. HIGGINS.-Say "observance." Mr. SYMON.-I do not know whether "observance" does not go too far. Mr. HIGGINS.-"Test" might include oaths administered in our courts and elsewhere. Mr. OCONNOR-"Observance" might include Sunday observance laws.

25

30

35

Mr. SYMON.-I do not like the word observance it seems to me to go a little too far. I think that the object we have in view will be sufficiently met if we prohibit the imposition of any religious test as a qualification for any public office of trust. That is as it existed in the original Constitution of the United States. If we do that, I think we are giving a sufficient assertion in this Constitution to the principle that religion or no religion is not to be a bar in any way to the full rights of citizenship, and that everybody is to be free to profess and hold any faith he likes but the Commonwealth must be the judges of when it is proper to interfere with its open exercise. Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-I do not think that either the clause or the amendment should occupy the attention of the Convention very long. I consider the whole clause an anachronism, and that it applies to a state of things that can never occur in these days. At the time the American Constitution was framed, the framers of that Constitution had in mind certain events which they wished never to be repeated, and which never will be repeated in our civilization. I do not see why the states should not have the same rights of self-preservation under a Federal Constitution as they have at the present time. There is no atrocity which the human mind can devise which has not at some time or another been perpetrated under the name of religion, and the states should have the power to prevent such occurrences as those referred to by the right honorable member (Sir Edward Braddon) and others which might be mentioned ad libitum. There are a number of sects in different parts of the world whose religious observances embrace every form of horror one can imagine. I think that the clause should be struck out, and that the states should be allowed to retain the right to do what they think necessary to preserve and maintain their civilization. With regard to the amendment of the honorable member (Mr. Higgins), I think the honorable gentleman himself admitted yesterday that it would prevent a state from making laws against Sunday trading for example. p67 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

Mr. HIGGINS.-No; it would only prevent the making of laws for a religious reason. Dr. COCKBURN.-Who could determine the intention of the state? The amendment would simply prohibit the enactment of these laws. Mr. HIGGINS.-My desire is to prevent the Federal Parliament from dictating to the states in these matters.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Are we not getting on very well as we are? Dr. COCKBURN.-I think so. I think that we should recognise that the clause is an anachronism, and should leave it out of the Constitution. Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I am rather doubtful about the amendment, because, notwithstanding the American decisions to which the honorable member (Mr. Higgins)has referred, I can scarcely conceive it possible that the insertion of a provision in the preamble acknowledging the existence of the power of the Deity [start page 661] could ever induce the High Court or the Court of Appeal in the old country to hold that that imported a power to make laws regarding religion. I think it is, quite clear that the Commonwealth will have no power to make any law regarding religion, even if no amendment such as that which has been suggested is agreed to The Commonwealth will have no powers except such as are given to it either expressly or by, necessary intendment. It will have only such powers as are given to it in so many words, or as are necessary for the exercise of these powers. If we apply this principle, we must see that the Commonwealth will have no power to make laws regarding religion. The reason why the prohibition in the first draft of the Bill which, was prepared in 1891 was confined to the states was that it could not, by any possibility, be concluded that it was necessary to extend such a provision to the Commonwealth, because no power was given to the Commonwealth to deal with the matter of religion. The position is the same now, and I do not think it will be substantially altered if the blessing of Divine Providence is invoked in the preamble. A preamble does not give power to anybody. The decision of the United States Court which has been referred to was something to this effect. Congress had passed a law prohibiting the importation of any person for labour or service. Of course, that law was really intended to prohibit the importation of manual labourers; but a religious corporation made an agreement under which a preacher was brought over, and a question was raised as to the legality of the agreement. The Supreme Court in the United States decided that the arrangement was legal, because the prohibition of the Act of Congress only applied to manual labourers; but it further decided, because of expressions in various charters given to plantations which afterwards became states, and in grants such as those given to Sir Walter Raleigh and others for the encouragement of colonization, that the United States was a Christian and a religious nation. Having decided this matter to their satisfaction, the Judges proceeded to say that upon that ground also the arrangement was a lawful one. The latter part of the decision was what lawyers call an obiter dictum. Mr. HIGGINS.-But that decision has been acted upon. Mr. BARTON.-Yes, since then, as is pointed out in a little handbook which my honorable friend lent me. But the question for us to consider is whether a court like the Federal High Court or the Privy Council would ever come to such a conclusion. One would think it highly improbable. The real question that may arise under this Constitution is whether the Commonwealth can make a law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. I take it that in the absence of a provision in the Constitution conferring that power upon the Commonwealth it will be impossible for the Commonwealth to do so. For this reason I think we need scarcely trouble ourselves to impose any restrictions. Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power. If the amendment of the honorable member were adopted, the clause would read:A state shall not, nor shall the Commonwealth, make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, or imposing any religious test or observance. Mr. ISAACS.-Would that prevent the Commonwealth from insisting upon Sunday being kept as a day of

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 rest?
Mr. BARTON.-The honorable and learned member (Mr. O'Connor) pointed out that it might prevent the passing of a law for Sunday observance. The real question for-as to decide is whether the clause should or should not remains. The only difficulty I have upon the point is this: I do not anticipate any trouble from the want of a prohibition upon the states forbidding them from dealing with religious questions, but we must always p68 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

[start page 662] recollect that humanity has a habit of throwing back to its old practices. Since a couple of hundred years ago we have been tolerably free from sumptuary laws. But there is in many quarters a great disposition to take to these laws again, and we may before many years have passed be overwhelmed with them.

Dr. COCKBURN.-And it might be a good thing. Mr. BARTON.-It may be a good thing. Who knows that there may not be a similar throwing back in regard to religious laws? Dr. COCKBURN.-That may be a good thing, too. Mr. BARTON.-Yes; those who say that the people are always right might say that it was a good thing. My

10 honorable and learned friend will have many successors, and so shall I. But if the enlightenment of this day supposes
itself to be right in saying that the free exercise of religion should not be prohibited, the question arises, should not a provision to that effect be placed in the Constitution? The trouble arises when you try to insert a proviso modifying this prohibition. For instance, if it were desired to prevent the application of the clause to any fiendish or demoralizing rite, that might be done by inserting the words "so long as these observances are inconsistent with the criminal laws of the state," because if there were no criminal law in existence at the time with which these observances were inconsistent, it would be possible for the state to pass such a law, and so, to use a common expression, euchre the whole business. I think, however, that we can do remarkably well without the clause at all. Sir JOHN DOWNER (South Australia).-I agree with the honorable and learned member (Dr. Cockburn) that the clause is an anachronism, and it is inconsistent with federation. The principle of federation is that the states shall retain all such powers as they do not hand over to the Commonwealth, but this clause attempts to legislate for the states. Still they have not hitherto required any law of this kind. The Commonwealth cannot exercise any authority in the matter, because you have not bestowed it upon the federal authority. Mr. HIGGINS.-Clause 109 commences-"A state shall not make any law." I agree with the honorable member that that provision should not be there. I am willing that the prohibition should extend only to the Commonwealth.

15

20

25

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think that is necessary, because the Commonwealth will have only such powers as are expressly bestowed upon it, and by no straining of construction can you find that the Commonwealth has been given any power to legislate with regard to religion. Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I would like to ask my honorable friend (Mr. Higgins) if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment with a view to striking out the clause, and inserting a declaration of this sort:-

30

No religious test shall be imposed as a qualification for any public office or trust in the Commonwealth or in a state? I think that a declaration of that sort will be necessary if we insert the words that it is proposed to insert in the preamble. Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-Although I moved an amendment yesterday with a view to making the

35 clause reasonably safe in regard to so called religious practices, I confess that I should prefer to see it struck out
altogether. Even with the qualification suggested by me, I do not know whether some occurrence which we should all deprecate might not take place and make us regret that the clause was ever put into the Bill. Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I am very glad that I have called attention to this clause. I thoroughly agree that as it stands it is an anomaly, and that there should not be a prohibition upon the states. All I said was that if you prohibited the states from making laws respecting religious observance, and if you inserted in the preamble a recognition of the Almighty, [start page 663] it was fit that you should extend a similar prohibition to the Commonwealth. It would answer my purpose absolutely if the clause only enacted that the Commonwealth should be prohibited from passing a law of this kind. A number of honest people will have a great deal of difficulty about voting aye for the Constitution if there is no prohibition against the making of laws affecting religion by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. What they ask is-"Why cannot we follow the example of the United States of America?" They point out that there is far more reason for a prohibition in our Constitution, because it is proposed to insert in the preamble a recognition of the Almighty. p69 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

Dr. COCKBURN.-But the Almighty does not belong to any special religion. Mr. HIGGINS.-I do not want to argue that question. I admit that there is a great deal of force in what the honorable gentleman says, but I have to speak most delicately on this subject, and I cannot go any further. Although it is quite true that a reference to the Almighty does not refer to any particular religion, still a reference to the Almighty in the preamble involves a recognition of Him, and it involves to a certain extent a religion. It has been found in the United States that, even though there is no reference to the Almighty in the preamble, yet it has been held that it is a Christian country, and, therefore, there was a federal law which prevented the opening of the Chicago Exhibition on Sunday. Honorable members will understand that it is not a question whether it is proper to open exhibitions on Sunday but that law was framed and enforced, and people were compelled to obey it on account of the dictum of the Supreme Court that it was a Christian country. Now, if you can enforce a good thing you can also enforce a bad thing made by the same power. All that I want to put to the Convention is this: That although I should have thought in the absence of express powers that the Commonwealth could not legislate on this subject, still I cannot but see, having regard to the decisions in the United States Court, that there is danger in an implied power. In the preamble of the United States Constitution they sayWe, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain, &c., &c. Under the head of "general welfare," coupled with the statutory powers, they have extended the power of the Commonwealth hugely. If you are going to confer absolute power to promote the general welfare you do not know how far that will extend. First of all, the plea was to promote the general welfare; then there is power to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government or proper officers of the states. Then, if you have coupled with that a declaration by the Supreme Court that this is a Christian nation, there is power to enforce Christian observances. The leader of the Convention has urged what I knew would be the chief objection to what I propose, that is, that there is no express power given; but I say that, in the face of the decisions given in the United States, it is not safe for us to assume that there may not be an inferential power in this preamble. There are hosts of people in Australia looking at that preamble to see it any safeguard will be put in. As far as I am concerned, I shall be willing to take out all this provision prohibiting the states from doing what they think fair. I think that the importance of preserving to the state the residuary powers is overwhelming; but I say that we ought to do at least the same as was done in the United States. There they provided that the Federation shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, or for the establishment of any religion; then I want to add "or imposing any religious observance." In [start page 664] conclusion, it has been said that this would prevent the imposing of a day of rest. My amendment would not. Dr. COCKBURN.-A general day of rest. Mr. HIGGINS.-It would not; it would simply prevent the imposing of a day of rest for religious reasons.

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dr. COCKBURN.-You want to break down religious sanction. Mr. HIGGINS.-A number of laws have been held to be unconstitutional in America because of their reasons and because of their motives. There was a funny case in San Francisco, where a law was passed by the state that every prisoner, within one hour of his coming into the prison, was to have his hair cut within one inch of his head. That looked very harmless, but a Chinaman brought an action to have it declared unconstitutional, and it turned out that the law was actually passed by the Legislature for the express purpose of persecuting Chinamen. Mr. BARTON.-That took place under the next clause in this Bill, which is a similar enactment. Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive. All I want is, that there should be no imposition of any observance because of its being religious. Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT (New South Wales).-The honorable member has stated that there are host of people who are anxiously watching what is being done with this preamble, because it may lead to certain laws being passed; He has not stated of whom the host is composed, or where it exists; but I gathered from his remarks yesterday that he was referring to the Seventh Day Adventists, a very powerful body in America, who have recently set up here and in p70 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

40

45

10

New South Wales. That body denies the right of the State to impose any law whatever which will prevent them from working on any particular day. I believe they are earnest good people, but, in defiance of our laws, they persist in working on the day which we set aside and call Sunday. They set aside another day, Saturday, and call it the Sabbath. If that is to be allowed throughout the whole community, how can there be a uniform day of rest? And what greater harm can befall the people than to say that any sect can set themselves up and defy the State to set apart any particular day as a day of rest, whether for religious purposes or otherwise? Take the case of the Jews. Whilst they observe their own Sabbath on Saturday they never in any shape or form attempt to interfere with the recognised Sabbath of the rest of the community. The Seventh Day Adventists have defied the law in that respect. If we allow one body to do that, instead of having any uniform and universal Sabbath or day of rest, we may have six or seven such days established. Mr. Higgins' amendment was negatived. END QUOTE

I am well aware that there will be ample of people who will not agree with my set outs, and that 15 is their right, provided they accept this for others likewise.
.

20

25

30

35

40

As I indicated judges do also make oaths of office but far too often are more interested in their corporate structure and advancement in the job then to hand down decisions which are truly in accordance with the true meaning and application of the constitution. Ask one selves, when was there a judge who threw out charges against a defendant because the legislation was not which an unlettered person could understand? It is only then, when a judge stands up and demands that legislation should be in a simplified text so that any person can understand it without the need of consulting a lawyer, who may or may not himself/herself be unable to understand the text of the legislation, that we move towards democracy where judges will be really and truly impartial and not merely so to say the lapdog for the government. How indeed can a judge having made an oath of office then hold someone accountable for perjury, etc, where he/she himself/herself is guilty of the same when failing to comply with the oath of office. Perhaps we ought to proceed towards judges being elected by the people so that they must have a proven track record that indeed they serve the people to provide JUSTICE in accordance with the true meaning and application of the constitution and not the politicians judgements to suit their political mates/masters so they may expect some kind of promotion. When (after the proceedings had concluded) then I discovered (2003) that the 7 judges of the High Court of Australia had fraternized with the first defendant, I was utterly disgusted that the judges of the highest court in the Commonwealth of Australia preaching so much in the end themselves ignored appropriate conduct and obviously by this their subsequent judgment in favour of the first defendant was null and void. To me using the Lords prayer at commencement of a sitting of parliament is utter and sheer nonsense where politicians are robbing us blind and legislate with a disregard to what is constitutionally permissible. They are hypocrites in their conduct!

One of my long term friends (2 decades), originally from a Muslim country, sent me another Christmas card, and as always it is a standard Australian Christmas card without any Islamic references. He obviously respect my views, as I show him his right to follow his religion. And this is how I view we all should conduct ourselves. We may just find that tolerance and 45 understanding may resolve more than to pounce upon a persons religion. Give religion a break! Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL


50
(

Our name is our motto!)

p71 10-12-2013 INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati