http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-27/chained-women-jewish-wives-hostage-in-abusive-
marriages/9464038
By Hayley Gleeson
Illustrations by Rocco Fazzari
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-18/abused-muslim-women-denied-right-to-
divorce/9632772
See also:
p1 19-4-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Exposing the darkness within: Islam and domestic violence
Shattering the Silence: Australians tell their stories of surviving domestic violence in the Church
'Their cross to bear': The Catholic women told to forgive domestic abuse
Raped, tracked, humiliated: Clergy wives speak out about domestic violence
The secret scourge of family violence and murder in Australian Hindu and Sikh communities
Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the subject he
will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken into court
the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the law. It may
be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a common one which
END QUOTE
French J of WA (later French CJ HCA) acknowledged that while the constitution provides that
the Commonwealth can accept a reference of legislative powers Section 51(xxxvii) did not give
this power to the states to do so.
It is a State referendum that is needed to avoid a clash in separation of powers. I will not go into
further details on this as again not wanting to get into reams of paperwork. See my blog!
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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:-
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.
END QUOTE
The Framers of the Constitution did recognise that at times legislation may be needed to be
created and that s116 did not bind the states but only the Commonwealth. And the
commonwealth could legislate within criminal provisions for a matter to be a crime regardless
this was claimed to be a religious exercise. Hence, the Commonwealth could outlaw
circumcision to every extend it deems appropriate as a violation of the rights of the person
regardless if a child or adult. Likewise the Commonwealth could legislate that keeping a person
in a form of imprisonment (religious and/or secular) could be an act of slavery and so unlawful.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
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.
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
p3 19-4-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
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.
END QUOTE
In my view a State can legislate as to non-legal marriages as much as it likes provided it does not
clash with Commonwealth legislative powers.
.
Quite frankly it is beyond me why the States/Territories (as quasi states) have not mastered to
provide for appropriate legislation that any non-legal relationship (marriage or whatever they are
referred to) being religious or secular can be subject to certain procedures.
Within that context the States/Territories could legitimately provide for a certain procedure to be
followed in a similar manner as is used by the FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA in regard of
divorce for a legal marriage.
Hence, the State/Territory can stipulate that where a party in a religious/secular relationship
(non-legal marriage) desires to end this relationship in a formal religious/secular manner than a
formal application is made to a religious person who is authorised to provide for a religious
relationship (non-legal marriage) but regardless of this a person in a religious or secular
relationship (non-legal marriage) may file with a Magistrates Court or other body so provided for
by the State/Territory legislation of a discontinuation of such religious/secular (non-legal
marriage) and the filing of this shall be held to be the initiation of the separation of the parties
albeit a copy shall have to be served upon the other party and evidence of this to be filed
subsequently with the court or other nominated body, after which at the expiry of 30 days the
separation shall be deemed final. If the other party served with the application/notification
objects then this must be filed within 21 days of having been served with the application.
Where no objection is filed then the court or other body may formally rule that the
religious/secular relationship (a non-legal marriage) is terminated.
This can be applied regardless if the persons involved are in a legal marriage, this as the legal
marriage stands apart of a religious/secular relationship (non-legal marriage).
To some effect it might be far more convenient for the FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA if a
religious/secular relationship (non-legal marriage) was at an end before a divorce of a legal
marriage came before the court, this as then the issue of religious bring up might be left to the
custodian parent.
What we would have is that instead of the reported problems of in particular women who were
legally divorced still being subjected to conditions of a religious/secular relationship (non-legal
marriage.
Technically a person can be in a legal marriage with one other person but be in a relationship
(non-legal marriage) with dozens of others. And the fact that Centrelink ac knowledge religious
p4 19-4-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
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
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
relationships (non-legal marriages) to be deemed as a De Facto marriage is causing the problem
for many women that regardless of not being legally married they are held captive, such as that
any monies paid to them by Centrelink nevertheless belongs to the husband. (At least in religious
application). As such a husband can oppose a divorce for his own personal financial interest and
in the process undermines the very purpose Centrelink (welfare payments) are made to a mother
and her children. As such Centrelink is undermining the very legal provisions for which they
were enacted.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"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
It ought to be clear that ‘religion is ever a matter between God and the individual’ should be precisely
kept this meaning and not that a person use religion to terrorise/enslave another person against
his/her will.
It might very well be that an Iman or for that any other religious person may desire a religious
relationship (a non-legal marriage) to be kept intact for whatever reason but then the Iman or
other person must be bound to follow prescribed procedures and if failing to resolve the issue
within 30 days that the application was filed then must provide a declaration to the Court that he
was unable to resolve the matter and it now is for the court to make determination. It means that
an Iman or other religious person must when a person files an application for a dissolution of a
religious relationship (non-religious marriage) must provide the person filing this with a receipt
that is dated with the date of filing and mark the application likewise.
It means that a woman seeking to dissolve the religious relationship (non-legal marriage) can but
doesn’t have to involve an Iman or other religious office holder where the woman feels it
inappropriate to do so. Further the legislation should provide for a man the same procedures so
that a male cannot merely unilaterally make a statement to just like that end a relationship
without any say by the woman.
No woman should be held captive/tormented to a religious/secular relationship (non-legal
marriage) that may also cause her to lose her faith in her religion/secular beliefs.
One the States/Territories enact as a matter of urgency legal procedures for religious/secular
relationships (non-legal marriages) then the amount of intervention orders required may
drastically reduce because men who now maintain their superiority over a woman may then face
reality it is over.
Obviously this PRESS RELEASE cannot deal with every issues of such required legislation but
at least ought to be some guidance of a badly overdue required legislation.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)