The great human rights debate...
It is with good reason that Australia is often called the "frozen continent" - a reference to the micro-climate of conservatism that surrounds its constitution.
It is over 30 years since the constitution was last amended, the longest that it has gone without revision, and there are many legal scholars and lawyers who believe that it is in urgent need of an overhaul.
Yet as George Williams of the University of New South Wales has put it, the country's preoccupation with renovation "stops at the front door", and is not extended to its constitutional arrangements.
The last change to the constitution amounted to little more than a bit of house-keeping or spring cleaning: a referendum which set, among other things, a retirement age of 70 for High Court judges.
It is against this backdrop that the push for an Australian bill of rights or human rights act has to be considered.
Back in the December, the Rudd government announced a process of national consultation on human rights - a team is presently touring the country canvassing opinions which you can read about here
On Thursday, Amnesty International brought out a survey showing that 81% of Australians support a human rights act, which would bring it into line with every other Western, common law democracy, and offer a legal safety net.
Many supporters of a bill of rights think it should come about as an act of parliament rather than be put to a referendum, which are notoriously difficult to pass. The Labor Party has had a singular lack of success in advancing constitutional change, and has not won support for a single referendum since 1946.
Under the constitution, a successful referendum needs absolute majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, and a "yes" vote from a majority of the people in a majority of the states. As this blog has noted before, only eight out of 44 referenda have been successful.
So why this constitutional conservatism?
There's the argument that rights for white Australians, at least, came early, fairly easily and largely without bloodshed. There is not the tradition of struggle for democratic rights in Australia which characterised the European and American experience.
By 1860, all non-indigenous adult males had been given the vote in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales. By contrast, it was not until 1918 that Britain caught up, by eliminating property qualifications.
Similarly, Australia granted women the vote in 1902, more than a quarter of a century before the UK.
Supporters of the bill of rights or human rights act want Australians to reclaim this spirit of democratic adventure, but have also been forced to accept there is no rousing tradition of democratic struggle which they can draw upon to help propel their campaign.
Michael Coper of the Australian National University has suggested that this constitutional sluggishness is partly due to the contrariness of the Australian people, and can be traced back to the country's convict origins.
(I should add here, perhaps, that there was a Bryant on the First Fleet who hailed from the Cotswolds, not far from my West Country home). Australians love saying "no", says Coper.
Others would argue it has more to do with modern Australia's conservatism and complacency - what Alfred Deakin, Australia's first attorney general and its second prime minister, called "the inexhaustible inertia of our populace".
On that note, the Amnesty International survey revealed that 84% of respondents thought that their rights were adequately protected already.
Human rights is such a lively area for legal, ethical and constitutional debate - whether it be the treatment of asylum seekers, terror suspects or Aboriginal Australians.
Is it time to spell out precisely what those rights are with an Australian bill of rights or human rights act?
UPDATES:
Staying with human rights, the Rudd government has announced it will reverse one of the contentious aspects of the Northern Territory intervention, by reinstating the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, one of the landmark reforms of the Whitlam era.
Thanks for all your lively contributions to the great Australian character debate, and apologies for breaking my no animal story doctrine to cover the frisky kangaroo story from Canberra earlier this week (in my defence, I did think that three shark attacks in and around Sydney in three weeks was genuinely newsworthy).
I can now confirm the change in the southern seasons. It's not the nip in the air or the turn of the leaves falling gently from the trees. Instead, we are seeing that other great autumnal staple: the sight of rugby league players on the front pages of the newspapers as well as the back.
And lest I be accused of only writing about the bad things about Australian cricket, Ricky Ponting's men secured an impressive series victory in South Africa this week, helped by the new Boy Wonder of Aussie cricket, the exceptionable Phillip Hughes.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Please change that last adjective to "exceptional" or explain yourself.
Complain about this comment
Any such law would have to be worded very carefully. The Human Rights Act in the UK has been very good in some ways, but very bad in others, and has been abused time and time again by people and rather unscrupulous lawyers.
Complain about this comment
Yes you've used exceptionable incorrectly, Nick. It means to object or take exception to something.
Complain about this comment
There's a long long history to introducing a bill of rights to Australia going back to the lead up to federation in the 1890s, I'm not sure I have the full picture in fact, so I'm happy to be corrected.
Firstly, though, we're talking at national level, as both the ACT and Victoria have introduced a Human Rights Act through their respective territory and state parliaments. We're also talking about something different to the acts of parliament to introduce rights as exist currently in the UK and NZ
What is envisaged is a referendum, for the people to decide a Constitutional amendment.
I dunno. Maybe we are conservative. I think many people are wary because they think it will become fodder for the lawyers
Complain about this comment
I am wary of a "Bill of Rights". I believe they could be used to silence people who think differently, and to actually reduce my rights.
Secondly I don't see a need for such. I believe our existing laws are adequate, and can be changed when needed, whereas a "Bill of Rights" is probably forever.
Complain about this comment
The main reason for the emancipation of electors in Australia prior to the the UK was of course in no small part due to the transportation of the "Levellers" and the "Diggers" both groups were consider to be dangerous because they did not recognise a King and were forerunners to Communes.
Added to this the emigration of many UK citizens who were tired of being treated as second class citizens and you have a potent brew of of a large group of people wanting a new way.
Interestingly, we could do with the reverse happening now.
Complain about this comment
At the moment a lot of the rights we take for granted aren't 'granted' at all. They exist often only at the whims of politicians and judges and how they interpret the law and the general feeling of the public. This situation should be fixed so that no one can compromise the basic human rights of Australians.
Complain about this comment
Good old Australia, the last bastion of common sense.
Their concept of human rights is the correct one, individuals must earn the right to their civil rights.
If the rights of a prisoner are to be considered, without considering the human rights and safety of the law-abiding public, this is NOT political correctness, it is political lunacy !
PS A good photo of Billy Connolly playing a thingummyjig.
Complain about this comment
Its so so sad to see Australia beginning to go down the same road to ruin as the UK 10 years ago.
I hope they will have the sense to look at the UK and see the mess the human rights act/culture has caused here.
One good thing to note though, is that they make laws only for themselves- no EU to dictate. Therefore if it is a disaster, a future coalition government should be able to repeal it.
I just hope they will look at us and think twice.
Complain about this comment
I suspect the current status quo suits white Anglo-Celtic Australia very well. Enshrining concepts such as habeus corpus and land rights on paper might give 'other Australians' too much actual power. David Hicks, Mabo ... too hard basket.
Complain about this comment
Australia must never lapse into the PC mindset of the UK. Pandering to ethnic minorities in the name of free speech. We are all Australian first and foremost!
Complain about this comment
Rossco,
You're absolutely right when you say we're all Australian. We are...but part of adopting that identity has to mean feeling safe and accepted as an Australian, regardless of what colour your skin is, what faith - or lack of faith - position you like best, what language you speak at home with your family or any of that stuff.
Right now, if you asked someone from overseas to explain what their 'mental Australian' looked like...they'd probably say white, English as a first language and at least nominally Christian. There are AUSTRALIANS - think of the people who wrapped themselves in the flag at Cronulla - who would use those attributes as the framework for their definition, and chase out anyone who doesn't quite fit.
That's a load of garbage. Australia is my home and I love it with all my heart, but I don't want to live in a society where people who are different from me have no formal legal protection if some idiot - at work, at school, in a shop or on a tram or in Parliament or in a newspaper article or whatever - decides they don't deserve a fair go.
We've got to have something in place. I don't know exactly what that something is yet - it probably won't be the same as the UK model, for one thing - but it's got to be there.
Complain about this comment
Australian apathy toward personal freedom worries me. After the Howard Government, I am steadfast in my belief that we must enshrine our right to freedom of speech in our constitution. Do we want cartoonists left naked to the potential of being charged with sedition? Do we want the federal government banning films and film critics being arrested for showing the banned films, as happened under Howard? Do we want the international media being physically bullied for reporting on our detention centres? These actions happened in our country less than 10 years ago, but before they did, I would never have believed that they could have happened in the 21st century in Australia. I had faith that the 'fair go' attitude would prevail, and we didn't need the formalities of the US constitution. Now, I understand the importance of our constitution more than ever and hope that my fellow Australians can also see that it needs to be updated so that our individual rights to speak and seek the truth are not threatened again.
Complain about this comment
Nick Nick Nick - dear oh dear. You have to be so sure of what you report when it goes across a board like this. I remember being on a train in England on a holiday and asking innocently if joining the EU was a good thing well - you can imagine the response all in good fairness as I was young and had no clue. So I say to you - you have a responsibility to report on Australia try to curve away from issues that well, most of us would say - that the fact that things havent changed would be we dont want them to. And things do change to move with the times come on, family law, everyday living, mistresses getting a cut of what the man gets these are radical reforms. We do go state by state each state can and does have different laws/rules to the next. So if you want to get some respect from us every day generation after generation Aussies try like others do and report or comment and ask for comments on things that are common. And relevent to Australia not for the British BBC so that mostly expats or non Australian Citizens comment. The laws do change, and as you said we were ahead in change, more importantly ask for help for our hospitals do some good with you column. Get help for our health system. Instead of stiring people up so they need a hospital and there are no beds.
Complain about this comment
Polynya #13. I cant even think of a comment for what you have written. We do have right of speech and from the dribble you wrote - proves it. I just cant fathom some of these comments. what are we coming to, what I bet some of the great men of the past are turning in their graves. Lets get back to reality. get a book and read our history, get on the internet and read. I just cannot believe what some have written to get a point or opnion across which is fine all are entitled to that, its in the constitution. PS we are apart of the commonwealth. We dont have a.............educate yourselves. #13, if you could see me now I am shaking my head but will soon burst into laughter.
Complain about this comment
I am just wondering what is human right. No one seems clear on it, specially to those who are in power. They do not understand it as such they misbehave and misuse their authority and power. Unfortunaely there is no mechanism to control such misues of power and misbehavior of these people. Because they have "high voltage power", no one can touch them. There is no check and balance mechanism even in developped and civilized societies.
Complain about this comment
AustGirl, you are flat out wrong. The Australian Constitution does not make any explicit mention of the right of freedom of speech (see Parliament Research Note no. 42 2001-02). The Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech by passing laws. By comparison, the US constitution does make explicit mention of the right to freedom of speech under the first amendment. So long as a right to freedom of speech is only in law and not in the constitution, it can be changed by the government of the day without a referendum. If you wish to rip into me again, may I suggest you quote the exact part of the Australian constitution that explicitly mentions the right to freedom of speech, or else tone down you rhetoric. I suggest you listen to your own advice about reading a book since it is clear you haven't read the the the US constitution.
Complain about this comment
AustGirl, one thing more. I believe you meant drivel, not dribble.
Complain about this comment
Drivel or Dribble both get the meaning across to me. Mentioning peoples poor grammar and spelling is a low blow, and wins you no friends on blogs. Sticking to their arguments (as you did in your original post) will make your points, for better or worse, have more impact.
I personally don't think we as a country need it. Everyone is pointing to the fact that the US Constitution has the right to Freedom of Speech in it. They also don't have compulsory voting, and they have a popularly elected President.
The question is more of does Australia, independently of other countries, require a 'bill of rights'. Given that the majority of people (as indicated by the survey) believe their rights are adequately protected under commonwealth law, the answer is no. It's up to those people who believe we do need it, to convince the majority of Australians that it is needed.
Complain about this comment
"Given that the majority of people (as indicated by the survey) believe their rights are adequately protected under commonwealth law, the answer is no. It's up to those people who believe we do need it, to convince the majority of Australians that it is needed."
But that's the whole problem - the majority of Australian's believe something that's completely untrue. These rights people think we have either don't exist or are not protected, only there by whim of politicians or judges.
By definition Human Rights are a given, they apply to everyone regardless of who they are, where they live or whether they've 'earned' them according to some arbitrary criteria or not. It's therefore up to the opponents of this to prove why human rights in Australia *do not* need protection and guarantees.
Complain about this comment
Try again - Polynya. No I meant dribble like a bub. Protection of Rights. Read up. Plus Im too busy for this. But I will say again. The men who created this great nations laws and all, would be rolling in their graves. Your are so wound up, struth. Calm down its an opinion column. Read by quite a few I add.
Complain about this comment
AustGirl, Protection of Right. The men of the day decided we were covered by the laws which laws and how. And all this constitution chatter. We are not the US, we are apart of the Commonwealth. Our laws etc - constitution are covered or originally covered by the "mother land". We do have freedom of speech, we are a free country. Lets leave all this Republican talk behind us. Its a sensitive issue and I for one couldnt give a hoot about the monarchy except that being a caring person I wouldnt wish anyone harm or illness. But as for a Republic lets leave well enough alone. It was voted on - voting is compulsory and its was not voted for so lets move on. We have bigger issues with the state of affairs today not worrying about past voted out issues. I coudl bring up that Waltzing Matilda was voted not to be our National Anthem do we want that to be dug up again - no. Yes there was a referendum on this.
Complain about this comment
HappySkeptic. #20. Well said. Well done.Hip hip hooray.
Complain about this comment
@HappySkeptic
The point is that we don't see the need for it to be enshrined in a bill of rights. We have faith that a government democratically elected by the citizens of Australia will not abuse our expectations of what laws they will pass. And if they do, we will have the opportunity to elect a fairer government.
There's my proof. Where's yours?
Complain about this comment
Nick Bryant:
Is it time to spell out precisely what those rights are with an Australian bill of rights or human rights act?
I think that Australia could have a bill of rights and also, human rights act...Since, it is revolving around the society needs....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
Nick:
To the Update in the blog....
Thanks for all your lively contributions to the great Australian character debate, and apologies for breaking my no animal story doctrine to cover the frisky kangaroo story from Canberra earlier this week (in my defence, I did think that three shark attacks in and around Sydney in three weeks was genuinely newsworthy).
You are forgiven for breaking your own rules regarding stories about animals...But, these stories are sometimes newsworthy....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
BRISBEN - I was being sarcastic with @Happy Skeptic as it was such a dobule messaged comment - but not you. Thank you. What you wrote is so very very correct and true and too the point.
Complain about this comment
Eliza NSW, I take exception to being told to move on from the republic debate. It is still important to me and can I point out it was never voted on. We voted on the type of republic we would prefer. Thanks to Howard the question was asked in such a way as to ensure a no vote. I and many people I know feel ripped off and now we have a more forward thinking government we would like to see the republic issue raised again but in a fair way... maybe just a yes or no answer.
Complain about this comment
@BrisbaneBen
While it's true we have a very democratic system of government this does not guarantee that human rights are respected. Democracy is the rule of the majority and it's perfectly possible that it will lead to abuses of the rights of minorities (and I'm not really talking about ethnic minorities here but the most vulnerable minority there is - the individual). This is why the Americans drafted their constitution as a way of limiting the powers of the government to infringe on people's rights.
It may comfort you but the idea that I as an individual who happened to have my rights infringed would have to wait an entire electoral cycle and then still be reliant on a majority of caring enough about my individual problem to change their vote is not at all comforting for me. This is why every other Western democracy as well as 2 of our own states/territories have a bill of rights/human rights act.
@AustGirl
If you can't string together a coherent argument of your own why even bother posting here?
Complain about this comment
I notice that Rudd is using laws that he claimed were to protect people against things like pornography to block the Wikileaks website [http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/australia-issues-wikileaks-linking-fine-warning-585894].
So much for human rights.
Complain about this comment
@HappySkeptic (who is the same as HappySkeptic3, if you go through their previous posts)
1) Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. It makes you look like a prat, regardless of what type of person you are. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously by all readers, stick to the topic and attack the persons ideas, not the person.
2) My point I'm arguing is that the current laws respect our human rights. You have yet to provide an example dis-proving that.
3) Your counter-argument jumps over the step of having your rights infringed, appealing to the courts, having that appeal rejected. That then leaves a change of government and a subsequent change in the laws as your next redress of the infringement on your rights.
4) I never said it guaranteed it, and I agree with your point. I'm saying that in this particular case (Australia circa 2009) they are.
Basically, to disprove my argument, what you need to do is provide an example, based on the current laws of Australia (which I am by no means an expert on), how human rights can be infringed on, with no way through the legal system for any appeal. That would leave a change of government as the only alternative.
Providing examples where it may be possible one day for them to be infringed, isn't what is needed here.
If that can be proved to me, not only am I wrong but that means that the current laws do not adequately protect our human rights. That's the first part of what this debate is about (assuming we agree on what human rights are); are human rights in Australia adequately protected by current law?
The second part of the debate, is how to protect those rights. There are 2 sides to this argument, whether to protect the rights through laws, or through a bill of rights. Obviously, I'm on the side of protecting through law, as to me it provides the best solution for Australia.
@TheFirstRalph
What right is infringed? The information is still out there, if you know how to get there. I'm not aware of all information needing to be linked to as a basic fundamental human right?
I thought the laws were (ideally) designed to protect people from illegal stuff, most of which happens to be child pornography (not just pornography)? Banning pages (not the entire site) of wikileaks that linked to illegal sites is the point of this law?
For what it matters, I'm dead set against mandatory internet filtering though. But that's a topic for a different day, and there are already plenty of very good opinion articles (both for and against) out there.
Complain about this comment
"1) Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. It makes you look like a prat, regardless of what type of person you are. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously by all readers, stick to the topic and attack the persons ideas, not the person."
Hang on a minute, I was responding to someone who instead of replying to my posts spent 2 whole posts attacking me personally. I told her bluntly that if she couldn't string a proper argument together she shouldn't post here, which is a perfectly justified comment.
"(who is the same as HappySkeptic3, if you go through their previous posts)"
The similar usernames deliberately make it obvious I'm the same person, I'm not trying to sock-puppet. (it's due to me not having the happyskeptic password saved on the work computer yet)
"2) My point I'm arguing is that the current laws respect our human rights. You have yet to provide an example dis-proving that. "
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm
'The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech....There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116)'
http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/about-a-hr-act/#15
That's a pretty threadbare set of rights that get legal protection.
Compare it to the UN Universal Declaration of rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or the US Constitution + Bill of Rights.
"3) Your counter-argument jumps over the step of having your rights infringed, appealing to the courts, having that appeal rejected. That then leaves a change of government and a subsequent change in the laws as your next redress of the infringement on your rights."
Not really, the point I was making is that human rights are inadequately or incompletely protected in the law thus leaving no means for appeal to the courts if your rights had been infringed.
"Basically, to disprove my argument, what you need to do is provide an example, based on the current laws of Australia (which I am by no means an expert on), how human rights can be infringed on, with no way through the legal system for any appeal. That would leave a change of government as the only alternative."
And to prove your argument you need to show that the current laws we have protect all basic human rights, especially since Australia is a signatory to most international human rights treaties, and moreso because the general public believes their rights are protected when they really are only de facto at best.
Some examples showing things aren't ok can be found in Amnesty internationals annual reports (about page 65 in the 2008 one) detailing arbitrary detention of Australian terror suspects for example
Or Reporters without borders' various reports:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24544868-26103,00.html
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25611
"Providing examples where it may be possible one day for them to be infringed, isn't what is needed here."
I disagree, the parliamentry research note lists some of the types of infringements of free speach rights which have happened to date, and which could happen in future too. The main purpose of any human rights act would be to stop human rights infringements that are currently legally possible even if there's no specific case where it's occured.
"The second part of the debate, is how to protect those rights."
I agree this is something that'd have to be worked out.
Complain about this comment
Who what are going on about Scrap the Jack. No one said forget about it, I did say it was an emotional issue. As well youve shown. what was the question on the referendum?. And struth if we have another how much of the deficit will be added to to pay for it - as for the comment of a forward thinking Govt Dudd wont be the one thinking of how to pay back the deficit. usually its the Coaliton with that problem. But do you realise what you wrote about being ripped off, there are just as many who dont want a Republic - which I think you will notice in my prior comment I did NOT enter into which way I voted. So in effect dont tell me what to do - right back at ya........
Complain about this comment
We don't know how many are for and against an Australian republic until there is a referendum asking that straightforward question. That did not occur last time
Complain about this comment
Well I will put something together - why are you also, so wound up. Go BrisBen. And what you wrote did have a mixed meaning. Dont be a bully - thats naughty.
Complain about this comment
sheesh eliza, can you point out to me where in my post I am telling you what to do? You stated that we had already had a referendum on the republic question and I pointed out that we had not. Neither did I say you said for us to forget about it. You asked us all to move on and I am not prepared to until we do have a FAIR vote on this issue. Can you also please point out how you know there are just as many people against the republic as for it. As wollemi states without an actual vote no one knows the exact figures. Also why worry about the cost of a referendum when little jonny howard spent millions on the last one even though he knew the result was fixed*
*Thats what the head of the republican movement said in 1999 "fixed" that was Malcolm Turnbull by the way.
Complain about this comment
Question A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Answered voted on NO.
Wasnt this the Quesiton and the answer was NO - Where is the confusion. But enough is enough. The reason for the last referendum was that people wanted it - how is John Howard blamed - we voted yah or nay - but till next time why worry. As I said there are more pressing issues, Jack - the hospitals, the education the recession. I admire your bravo but for now I am worried about here and now am my job. And yes how useless Labor is.
Complain about this comment
State/Territory Republic 'Yes' vote
New South Wales 46.43% Victoria 49.84%
Queensland 37.44%
Western Australia 41.48%
South Australia 43.57%
Tasmania 40.37%
Australian Capital Territory* 63.27%
Northern Territory* 48.77%
National total 45.13%
As I said this was the quesiton voted on - isnt this plain - The no's won. But I didnt want to get this far into this issue but I have shown the facts and these are the facts.So as I requested before can we leave it alone for now - now. I do admire your passion though - good luck with it all - all the best - Eliza
Complain about this comment
@AustGirl
I tried to stick to the topic only but felt like I had to defend myself here. Also, what do you mean by 'mixed meaning'?
Complain about this comment
Being a non-Australian, it is surprising to me that the republic issue is so hotly debated, considering how insignificant it is to people's lives, even more so in the present economic climate. I understand the arguments for and against, but it still surprises me that people get so wound up about it, particuarly as it is such a non issue in Canada and New Zealand.
Complain about this comment
@HappySkeptic
That comment was so other readers who may have questioned it knew what was going on. I'm a bit busy over the next couple of days so can't have a good read over the information you've provided, but I will respond once I've got the time.
Complain about this comment
BrisbaneBen: there's nothing wrong with pointing out that some people cannot string words together in a coherent fashion. It is a rather vital skill in debating; if you can't express your ideas clearly, what do you have to offer? It is also a skill in serious decline, so I absolutely support people's right to make such criticisms - they do *not* qualify as ad hominem arguments.
Complain about this comment
@HappySkeptic
I take back the ad hominem bit, on review I'd agree that it's not correct.
Also, you've convinced me. My original argument was that you had to provide proof to people that what we have isn't adequate, and that's definitely been proven to me by the links you provided. I was going to reply, but there is nothing to add. If anybody else is curious, definitely have a look at the links provided.
Complain about this comment
@BrisbaneBen
Thanks and good on ya' for being straight-up enough to say what you think.
Complain about this comment
Ben,
In this case they aren't filtering access to dubious websites, but rather a list of sites that the Australian Government see as dubious. If a government does block access to certain sites then the public should be allowed to know which ones so they can judge the validity of any block.
Stopping the voters ability to judge the conduct of the government is wrong.
Complain about this comment
I think governments established bills and amendments to destroy tyranny and feuds
Complain about this comment
I think Governments incorporated Bills and Amendments to destroy Tyranny and feuds
Complain about this comment
the australian constitution is a complete joke ,even worse is the qld constitution [rewritten into an act , act 70 of 2002], but the fed constitution has conditions in it [like legal tender shall only be coin [gold and silver] ,making no provision for the fed reserve fiat notes now deemed legal tender ,[after the 66 decimil-isation process completed the thefdt of our silver coin-age, now our coin is nickle [not silver]
read the con stitution it declares the pay rates for gg and ministers of a few pounds [of gold] ,not set by govt vote, [and no super, and no right of tax on wages,the constitution is in reality an act from britan parliment , we are yet a british coleny, the queen is not a defacto sovreign ,but the legal [cause we are still brit subjects ,under the law of commerce ,there is so much wrong with the con it isnt even in use in the courts
the courts run under the law of contract [civil law]not constitutional law, but let the lies of the past lie in the past, lets get to the real point of this post
not that you will do [or can do anything about it [lol]
#
YOU HEARD ABOUT THE NEW GLOBAL currency?...
google the words of geitner ; [us fed reserve /treasury dude
[pre the g20] he said some throw away line about a new global currency
well its the carbon credit,the neo age virtual global reserve currency,
that soon globally put its global tax[mark]on all anyone tries to barter or sell,evrything will have its carbon footprint[either owed in the past or into the future[for eternity]add the neo con global carbon tax
the neo tax[the carbon tax]is brought to you by the same think-tank that gave us equity/debt swaps and derivitives[and enron etc]via the cfr,the world bank,imf
environ min garrot[au] and the other greenie g-20 ministers are slipping the neo currency/carbontax deal through in the usa now
*the new reserve currency*[courtesy of those fraudsters ;derivatives traitors][and environment minesters/greenies]..are in usa right now sealing the deal
but timming is everything...[as we speak the red herring headline is being released, rudds fibre to the node, folowed by web 2
just watch as the libs [opposition] melts ...as they do a turn arround in record time,and before you know what went down the derivitives speculators have got their new global carbon credit,[the NEO RESERVE CURRENCY ;see]
that the enron-esq derivitives traitors /speculators will speculate their neo-reserve carbon credit..[reserve currency][and you will be tied into paying the car-bon tax at whatever the market will bear],!
as the web gets censored into web 2
whatever these banker traitors /traders can set the neo con monetary global order tax at what it will globally be the car-bon credit currency will be set at the biggest bonus value by what the market deems fair..lol
the neo new carbon credit..[their latest derivitive scam is nearly a done deal]...and you will be paying for the neo con bull [all you [or'the market'can bear]
...aint the free-mark[et]a free for fee for them[not free for-all but fee for them],
you just pay your new tax,..while the derivitives traitors speculate it into their latest[next]bubble
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS