Father Tony Abbot S.J our prime minister and his cabinet also mentored by and/or educated by Jesuits (theaustralian.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/swings-to-jesuit-educated-mps-across-the-country/story-fn59nqgy-1225908773382) passed a bill to end Due Process this year. (this link is from Jesuit publication New Matilda, I chose it just to show how they play both ends against the middle-- https://newmatilda/2014/09/23/abbotts-anti-terror-laws-are-real-danger-australia) Australians can be held without charge indefinitely on the assumption that they are involved in terror. This is what the Jeuits did in Germany through their front the Nazi Party and what followed was modern Inquistions. (heres Hitlers inspirational speech when passing the Enabling Act in 1933..Tony Abbot is claiming parliamentary soverignty by the way.Which in essence makes parliament our dictator, worldfuturefund.org/Reports2013/hitlerenablingact.htm They ended due process, But to the Nazis credit they were decent enough to have an overt dictatorship , and not carry out he pretense it was anything but. NAturally as the opposition leader Bill Shorten is also mentored by Jesuits they waved through these Bills unopposed,. (smh.au/federal-politics/political-news/in-canberra-as-it-is-in-rome-here-come-the-jesuits-20130405-2hc2j.html) Which is peculiar in that parliament hasnt got the power to infringe our rights. But that matters not of course because surely the excecutive would do its job and refuse royal assent. Nope.Didnt happen, we have a papist queen waving the Jesuits on towards tyranny. The Australian people dont care of course because the T.V keeps them sedated.And the bill was time to coincide with the football grandfinals The media now face prison sentences for exposing any government terror operation,, but I dont see that as a major change, since they havent printed anything controversial in decades.But giving open internet warrants? Oh EmGee, thats where i do my best terror ( smh.au/digital-life/consumer-security/new-laws-could-give-asio-a-warrant-for-the-entire-internet-jail-journalists-and-whistleblowers-20140923-10kzjz.html ) But luckily the peoples champions the Civli Liberties Council has come to the rescue to make a robust challenge to unlawful administrative policy which endangers the very fabric of our society. t.co/7cMys7MkSI The crux of their speech? abandon common law and embrace human rights.But goodness isnt that in the interests of the Jesuit world governance agenda under the United Nations? I thought why noy write to Professor Ben Saul the peoples champion of the civil liberties council ,and Sydney University Law professor re=educated in London etc etc. And by jove a public servant actually responded to a query from the public .It was such a nice surprise , reminded me of the days when we had lawful government. And here is our correspondence t.co/7cMys7MkSI Hi Ben, I read your recent speech on Human Rights The Ideological War on Human Rights. And was motivated to contact you as history shows us that the current destruction of due process might well be a forerunner of the Inquisition I have some serious questions having at first been pleased by the tone of your speech only to be bitterly disappointed by its spinelessness. : What about our common law rights Ben? Not worth a mention? Better to have rights bestowed from up on high than by the people themselves? Why dont lawyers or professors such as yourself mention that commonwealth parliaments claim of soverignty is undermining the Westminster system? Surely this claim is treason by admission. A functioning excecutive would curb unlawful administrative policy. and we would not have to concern ourselves with government tyranny, would we ? Is that not the simple point to make Ben? But do you make it? No Is that because you are simply pretending to represent the other side of tyranny? The other Hegellian goalpost to shepherd us foolish peasants into totalitarianism? Or are you actually intellectually deficient? Would you find it helpful if I came to university as a plumber and taught the law for you? How can you be oblivious of the Bill of rights? Why do you not mention that papists are the very enemy of our law,written in our foundational law and the Jesuits- that very enemy- are now controlling parliament? Are you scared to? Or do you work for them? I am genuinely curious. I have time on my hands if you need my assisatnce in understanding some extremely simple principles of law which seem beyond your grasp. Id welcome the opportunity to lecture your students or speak to the Civil Liberites council Yours sincerely Dave protestant(unlicensed plumber) Dear Dave Thanks for your message and feedback. The difficulty with common law rights is that they can be overridden by legislation of the parliament, so cannot provide as much protection as a bill of rights. I agree with you that parliaments view of sovereignty is infringing on Australians rights and say so in my speech. The executive in turn is infringing rights because the parliament has legislated to give it power to do so. Im sorry I do not understand your point about papists. Best wishes Ben Professor Ben Saul Professor of International Law Australian Research Council Future Fellow Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney and I responded thus Hi Ben surprised you returned by email. I was giving you the stick but since you did, I wont be fobbed off with nonsense that whole reasoning re:legislation is putting the cart before the horse. Parliament needs to be soverign in the first place to be able to write legislation that increases its own power. Blind Freddy can see thats a spurious justification. Its not confusing to me. Its really simple. And parliament hasnt been Soverign since Cromwells day Why is our bill of rights called a Bill Ben? A bill seems on the surface a very weak name to call your foundational law after a revolution. A bill is just a proposal is it not? Is it possible that the men who made that law , and who had personally lived through tyranny of parliamentary sovereignty were making the point that it was law made by the people? That it was not subject to enactment by parliament? I can see no other reason. And this same point was made by the Americans prior to their revolution (I read it in a book by Elizabeth Beaumont on gun rights) And the Americans were proved correct by victory at arms. The whole freaking point of having an excecutive is stop parliament from passing laws that break the queens oath. An oath to protect our freaking rights. Therefore common law rights are all we should need. And because theyre continuously refined and tested by the people via jury , rather than bestowed from the mysterious powers-that-be they are true rights for a free protestant (opposite of a papist) people. The very idea of parliament bestowing a bill of rights upon us is contrary to the spirit of using the term bill. And when you read the original from 1688 and then see Frank Brennan S.J (Jesuits are papists) heading the committee to bestow what are protestant freedoms , it is a sick joke. These characters ran the Inquisitions for goodness sake (papist beaurocratic mass murder) perhaps if law professors taught that parliament does not have the power to write policy giving them powers to destroy the Westminster system, then when these galoots get elected 20 years later they wont break the law so readily when the Jesuits (papists) pressure them to do so, behind the scenes. And perhaps ordinary unlearned people like me wouldnt be confused by legal mumbo jumbo when I see my rights for everything I need as a man to live a decent life, being stripped wholesale. Id know damn well who, what ,where and why. And stand up to the bastards. How on earth can any man, like you, who reads the law -Who Understands history.and the blood and genius and spirit that went into creating the Westminster system - not cry from the roof tops your disgust as this precious machine is dismantled? I How can you not love it and not want to fight tooth and nail for its retension? A machine that gets stronger the more you use its mechanisms defies the law of entropy. I cannot think of any man made machine that does that. Surely it is gods machine. And surely men who find themselves in your position, at the time in history when the Westminster system needs a champion- should stand up for it. Without confusion.without fear. As boldly as the men who created it. I wish I was in your position to do so. All I can do is fight in court and since theyre hopelessly corrupt today. Its a waste of freaking time. my invitation stands. your sincerely dave protestant ----ive skipped out to the letterbox each day since but yet to receive an invitation to lecture law students on our real law. By the way I havent actually read the legislation in question. Im allergic to legalese
Posted on: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:05:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015