Posted on 09/21/2021 2:12:04 PM PDT by Ozguy1945
In his maiden speech (first speech) to parliament in 2008, current Australian Prime Minister (PM) responded to the modern stigmatisation of socially active Christian faith by saying, "Australia is not a secular country - it is a free country."
That freedom is now under attack from lockdowns imposed by state governments which don't see, as ScoMo does and Donald Trump does ("Don't let it dominate you. Don't be afraid of it." 5 October 2020) that people and nations have to learn to live with the Coronavirus.
Most importantly I ask ScoMo to use the resources of his office to address the question of how many people lockdowns kill. I personally have heard credible stories of three suicide caused by lockdowns and two nursing home residents who stopped eating and died out of despair when visits from loved ones were prohibited by lockdown.
Who are the American Heroes now also insisting that we do not ignore deaths caused by lockdowns?
“In his maiden speech (first speech)”
Are there really people who needed that explained? Wow.
Yup! Stupid down under!
The US...Canada...Australia...and Britain are,IMO,suffering needlessly under authoritarian Governors,Presidents,Prime Ministers and Premiers.
Maybe a few. Probably not many.
But the important question is how many people are lockdowns killing?
Most commonwealth constitutions do not protect individual right. England could pass a law and start up concentration camps. It would be perfectly legal.
Per naturalman1975 the PM has no authority to stop the violations committed by states, or whatever Australia calls their states.
“Australia is not a secular country - it is a free country.”
+1
G’day Naturalman and GSC, the Australian Constitution guarantees free trade between the states and freedom of religion. The High Court of Australia has found the there is an implied right in the constitution to freedom of speech. But these rights are easily over ridden.
Australia was among the first nations to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since there is no comprehensive Bill Of Right, UDHR becomes symbolically important. But legally it has no teeth. Perhaps that’s OK because I don’t want the UN to govern the world. But faced with tyranny, the rights declared after WW2 are an option.
“I made Australia my home in 1982, and I still recall with pride the passing of the Human Rights Commission Act in 1986, just four years later. At that moment I was deeply proud to call Australia home. If I may draw your attention to the seminal document on which the Act is based, i.e. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This document is included as Schedule 2 in the aforementioned Act.”
...
“I do not understand how the New South Wales Government is able to require participation in medical experimentation as a condition of employment for workers in any industry without violating Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, unless the inclusion of this document as Schedule 2 in the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 is merely decorative.”
And isn’t that just like a leftist would do?
Included to be decorative. A Fig Leaf. Almost.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-nsw-premier-minister-health-medical-research-mckay/
REF: The Siracusa Principles
https://www.icj.org/siracusa-principles-on-the-limitation-and-derogation-provisions-in-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/
[Copy of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is incorporated following the Principles.]
From Article 7: “...no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
All of the various injections deployed for use against COVID19 lack the typically necessary long-term trials designed to prove both effectiveness and safety. Manifestly, therefore, everyone in the world has become a participant in a global clinical trial of new pharmaceutical products heretofore unavailable, and having no prior track record. Against the all-encompassing backdrop of this inescapable reality, an FDA Certification that technically removes from one or more of these products the legal “experimental” classification scarcely qualifies even as a metaphorical fig leaf. Clearly the use of these various injections remains a worldwide medical experiment, with clinical trial data continuing to be gathered (except contrary data, which we have recently learned is being actively suppressed), and the demand that an individual must be subjected to this experiment or face grievous potential personal economic losses crushes free consent and it is forbidden.
A bit too milquetoast. He should be calling for the PM to resign and for new elections. I would even advocate for a general strike until new elections are called. Time for the Aussies to grow a pair.
I'm not sure how much Australian constitutional law you've actually studied - I've had to study quite a bit of it over the years in various roles. I've also had to study the British constitution in detail, and the American constitution in passing (because so much gets compared to it in current literature on constitutional law), and have a fair understanding of some of the other Commonwealth countries too.
Section 92 (which guarantees free intercourse among the states) and Section 116 (which guarantees freedom of religion) only apply to actions by the Commonwealth government. They don't inhibit the state governments.
The Commonwealth government can't close state borders - but the state governments can close their own which is what has been happening during this pandemic.
The High Court of Australia has found the there is an implied right in the constitution to freedom of speech.
Yes, but that implied right is actually weaker than our Common law right to freedom of speech, and shows the dangers inherent in relying on Australian courts to intervene even in rights cases - in making a ruling they may actually limit rights they are supposedly protecting. It's somewhat unclear in Australia now how far freedom of speech goes - personally I (and more importantly a great many constitutional lawyers) believe the common law right still applies - the High Court, though, didn't need to go that far in making its ruling, so it didn't.
It is likely that if a similar free speech case came up to a State Supreme Court, they'd rule in a similar way to the High Court, but it hasn't really happened, so in those cases, common law would still currently prevail. Common law can be overturned by a court, but it's unusual.
But these rights are easily over ridden.
I don't agree - not when it comes to actions by the Commonwealth which is what they apply to. The only time the High Court has ever made a significant freedom of religion ruling, they ruled very heavily in favour of freedom of religion. On freedom of intercourse, I'm less familiar with the case law but in general, while exceptions have been carved out they are limited. Freedom of speech is still an open issue - I have concerns about that, but at the moment, they are still largely future concerns.
But again, it's only the actions of the Commonwealth that are limited by these provisions.
Australia was among the first nations to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since there is no comprehensive Bill Of Right, UDHR becomes symbolically important. But legally it has no teeth. Perhaps that’s OK because I don’t want the UN to govern the world. But faced with tyranny, the rights declared after WW2 are an option.
The UDHR (and other UN human rights declarations to which Australia has assented) only has relevance here if the rights contained within are broader than rights Australians already have (which isn't the case - but it isn't impossible that in some future case it might be), but again, would only restrain the Commonwealth government - the states did not sign it. We have the somewhat odd situation in Australia that in some matters, the states are still sovereign - it's only the limited sovereignty they had in 1900, not full sovereignty - but it still has a big impact in some areas.
The simple fact is the article linked in the original post here, ask the Prime Minister to do things he cannot do constitutionally.
But the comment attached here - "Most importantly I ask ScoMo to use the resources of his office to address the question of how many people lockdowns kill."
I certainly can't see any constitutional reason he couldn't do this - that would seem to be covered under Section 51.xi of the constitution:
(51) "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
.....
(xi) census and statistics;"
And regrettably, only proof by assertion was offered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.