20150520-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Fair Work Australia - Re Scott McIntyre - Etc

1
Fair Work Australia
Cc:
10
15
20-5-2015
C/o complaints@fwc.gov.au
Maurice Blackburn mail@mauriceblackburn.com.au
Mr Tony Abbott PM josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au
Bill Shorten Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au
Malcolm Turnbull Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
Senator Xenophon senator.xenophon@aph.gov.au
Ref; 20150520-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Fair Work Australia- Re Scott McIntyre - etc
Sir/Madam,
20
25
30
35
I hereby as a CONSTITUTIONALIST desire to express my concerns as to the

sacking of Scott McIntyre by SBS broadcasting service (TV) at I understand of various articles
published on the internet, to which I will quote below one of them and my view why Scott
McIntry expressed a political view regarding war matters, and so entitled to do so as I did set
out in my posts.
As it is a pure Government (in this case the Commonwealth of Australia) political decision to
order Australian soldiers to enter into a war conflict, and a clear example is also Iraq invasion
this even so a Prime Minister has no constitutional powers to authorise an armed invasion, as
while Cabinet can vote ion authorising to go to war, in the end the Minister of Defence then must
obtain permission from the Governor-General by way of a DELCARATION OF WAR naming
the particular state and this has to be published in the Gazette. As such, where this never
eventuated in regard of the Iraq invasion then this was an unconstitutional armed invasion that
effectively resulted that those involved may have committed war c rimes, crimes against
humanity, etc.
I underline that I comprehensively canvassed this on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of
Victoria (invoking federal jurisdiction) as a ground why I refused to vote in federal elections.
The matter was a constitutional issue and a s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
was served upon all Attorney-Generals. I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth of
Australia in both appeals, unchallenged, and as such rely upon the courts decision to uphold
both appeals. Besides the fact that I submitted that compulsory voting is unconstitutional I also
refused to vote for anyone either directly or indirectly who I view committed/supported hideous
war crimes.
40
This is relevant as to that I understand Scott McIntyre made comments about past wars and I
view nit is essential that the truth should be known. Even if he had been in error (albeit I do not
seek to imply he was) it is still a political opinion I view not only was he entitled upon this to
make but in fact essential that Australians are alerted to the truth of matters.
45
QUOTE ARTICLE AND COMMENTS POSTED
p1
20-5-2015
Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by E-mail INSPECTORRIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
2
https://newmatilda.com//2015/05/18/its-scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-after-broadcaster-sacked-him-his-politicalopinions
50
BREAKING NEWS
18 May 2015
It's On: Scott McIntyre Sues SBS After Broadcaster Sacked Him For His 'Political Opinions'
By Max Chalmers
(image not included)
55
Keywords:
scott mcintyre
sbs
maurice blackburn
Scott McIntyre may have been sacked for his opinions, but he hasn't been silenced. Max Chalmers reports on
60
a lawsuit filed with the Fair Work Commission this morning.

SBS is facing legal action over its decision to fire sports reporter Scott McIntyre after the journalist tweeted a
series of comments about Anzac day and Australian war atrocities.
Legal firm Maurice Blackburn today confirmed it has filed a discrimination claim on behalf of McIntyre with
the Fair Work Commission under Section 351 of the Fair Work Act, which prevents employers taking
65
adverse actions against an employee on a number of grounds, including for the expression of a political
opinion.
The case is not about whether Mr McIntyres opinions are correct or not. It will focus on whether the views
expressed by Mr McIntyre constituted political opinion and whether SBS terminated his employment for
expressing these views, a statement issued by Maurice Blackburn said.
70
It is alleged SBS took action without a proper investigation and consideration of all relevant issues. It will be
contended that Mr McIntyre had an unblemished work record and if a proper process had been followed, he
would still be employed in his chosen career.
The firm also allege that SBS breached its own policies, including its Code of Conduct, and did not follow
due process.
75
An SBS spokesperson said the network was unable to provide comment as this is now a legal matter.
[STORY CONTINUES AFTER TWEETS]
McIntyres sacking came after his tweets caught the attention of Communications Minister Malcolm
Turnbull, who expressed disgust at the messages and contacted SBS about the incident. He denied asking
SBS to sack McIntyre.
80
SBS subsequently issued a statement claiming McIntyres comments were disrespectful and had caused
his on-air position at SBS to become untenable.
Mr McIntyres actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy and as a result, SBS
has taken decisive action to terminate Mr McIntyres position at SBS, with immediate effect, it said.
85
Despite the controversy the tweets caused, some historians and public commentators have backed their
accuracy.
p2
20-5-2015
3
Within a week of McIntyres dismissal, New Matilda revealed another long-serving SBS journalist was fired
the day after she shared an article from her Facebook page that was critical of SBS, and which attracted
immediate comment from her boss on her wall.
While refusing to comment at the time, the network has subsequently denied the two matters were linked.
90
(image not included)

The decision to dump McIntyre provoked journalists union the MEAA to express concern about the gagging
of employees opinions with heavy-handed social media policies.
These policies are becoming an industrial issue and MEAA has expressed these concerns before, the union
said.
Increasingly, media employees are being required to use social media platforms to promote their work, and
95
those accounts are then being used as a marketing tool benefitting media employers.
The policies have begun to infringe on the private lives of media professionals, dictating what they can and
cant say in a private capacity, outside of their work."
McIntyre has not made public comment since the incident.
100
- See more at: https://newmatilda.com//2015/05/18/its-scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-after-broadcaster-sacked-himhis-political-opinions#sthash.BXkib5BM.dpuf

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Bilal
Posted Monday, May 18, 2015 - 13:08
105
Those who vomit up vile opinions which accord with those of the NCC, the IPA, Murdoch and the Reclaim
Australia lovelies get rewarded. Those who address power with the truth get smashed. That is Abbott's view
of paradise, the haunt of the heresy hunters and the bigots.
Maurice Blackburn has a long history of fighting for justice. May it succeed in righting this wrong.
110
lindsayb
I expect that Scott will be offered a large sum of cash for a confidential settlement - one that is too large to
refuse, unless of course the government/SBS think that they can bankrupt him with repeated appeals if the
initial finding goes against them.
115
This user is a New Matilda supporter. Tim Macknay

This is good news. I thought at the time that Scott McIntyre would surely have a discrimination and/or unfair
dismissal claim given the circumstances under which he was sacked.
120
p3
20-5-2015
4
CJ
I thought it was great news until I saw the forum in which his lawyers have chosen to have this complaint
125
heard.
I lodged a similar though unrelated form with Fair Work Australia on the advice of my union's lawyers and
the result was devastating.
It went to conciliation - which could basically be described as "whatever the employer wants to employer
gets". Meanwhile my employer was able to destroy my professional reputation and imply I was some sort of
130
challenged incompetent in a public forum like Fair Work while I was unable to say anything in response to
defend myself.
The icing on the cake was forcing me to sign a confidentiality agreement so I couldn't warn anyone else how
foul my ex employer was, how badly I had been treated or even talk about what happened to anyone outside
my family.
135
Fair Work Australia, even though it was set up by the ALP, is I am sure stacked with RW toadies and
"commissioners" intent on one thing and one thing only: to further the interests of employers at the expense
of employees.
A thoroughly horrible experience.
I wish Mr McIntyre all the luck in the world because he is going to need it.
140
This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ

What has changed at SBS that could explain this bizarre behaviour by a famously permissive organisation?
Sacking someone for expressing 'disrespect' is new for SBS, and now two in one year. Something/someone
145
has changed drastically for the worse. Hopefully this will emerge during proceedings, but if CJ is right,
McIntyre may be walking into a trap.
IAIN HALL
150
I feel rather sure that McIntyre will not win any case he tries to bring against SBS because despite the
rabbiting on in this and previous articles about how defensible the opinions expressed in the tweets may be,
any case will turn on the terms of his employment contract that he so very clearly violated. On top of that you
can bet that SBS was very sure that they crossed all of their legal "ts" and dotted their legal "i"s when he was
155
dismissed. McIntyre was also given the opportunity to delete the offending tweets and retain his position an
offer he declined.
Now while those from the far left see him as a "hero" of sorts to most people he is just a silly sanctimonious
idiot who killed his own media career stone dead.
p4
20-5-2015
5
GraemeF
160

Lots of luck to him.
No doubt if he had claimed that global warming was a socialist hoax he would have the complete support of
the right wing 'free speech' mob. They have completely written him off on the basis that if you are paid a
wage then you no longer are allowed to have an opinion that differs from your boss. Mental slavery.
165
Unemployment is freedom to say whatever you like so his rights are protected.
Jagger1
Timing - terrible, truth - some, harm - none. Scott McIntyre is entitled to his opinions the same as those who
170
sent these brave men to war and didn't have to suffer the consequences.
macida
I'm afraid that SBS has 'gone over to the other side'... perhaps it's started watching Al Jazeera, or the other
175
foreign english language programs like DW german news and France 24 that it broadcasts. The gulf between
the reality and the news we get from these media is now so great that SBS can't allow chinks in the armour...
bladeofgrass
Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - 06:27
180
Good on you Scott for making these issues a matter for public debate. "Lest we forget" that whilst Japan is
still criticised for its war record, we were on the side that chose to incinerate their civilians.
xfretensis
185
I found nothing wrong, offensive, or incorrect about Scott McIntyre's 'tweets' on the nonsense that has
become Anzac day. Seen objectively, Australia has always provided a ready pool of mercenary soldiers for
the 'empire'.
Any objective study of military history shows that all soldiers are brave and resourceful to some degree. If
one goes to a subjective study, it could be argued that the 'bravest' and best led troops of WWII, were the
190
Japanese. It can also be shown that if a book detailing WWII were exactly one hundred pages long, ninety of
those pages would be about Germany and the USSR.
Australians did their bit in the empire wars, all Australians paid the price, and still do. Scott has as much
right as any of us to comment - but he is being pilloried for attacking our 'sacred cow'. Britain too has its
p5
20-5-2015
6
sacred cow - the Battle of Britain - which has been described as a myth that you could 'drive a horse and cart
through'.
195
War and politics combined gives us two sets of notorious and pathological liars, Generals and politicians.
Gallipoli was an example of craven subservience by Australian officers, who blindly followed orders, no
matter how ridiculous or contradictory. To paraphrase Lenin, workers were on both ends of the bayonet.
200
DrGideonPolya
Good on truth-teller Scott McIntyre. Some key observations:
1. SBS, like other Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI) subverted Western and Australian
205
Mainstream media, has an appalling record of censorship, false reportage and lying by omission, most
appallingly by ignoring numerous genocide and holocaust atrocities, noting that holocaust ignored yields
holocaust repeated, genocide ignored yields genocide repeated, and genocide ignoring and holocaust
ignoring are far, far worse than repugnant genocide denial and holocaust denial because the latter can at
least admit the possibility of debate (for a lengthy and detailed analysis see Censorship by SBS:
https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-sbs-australia ).
210
2. Now the genocide-ignoring SBS has trashed free speech in Australia and threatened free speech around the
world by sacking a courageous, ethical and truth-telling journalist, Scott McIntyre, for tweeting some antiwar truths on Anzac Day SBS felt was diminishing its corporate brand.
3. All of Scott McIntyre's comments were historically correct (for detailed, documented analysis see
Gideon Polya, Australia Trashes Free Speech SBS Sacks Journalist Scott McIntyre Over Anti-War
Tweets, Countercurrents, 4 April, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya040515.htm ).
215
4. Apparently none of Scott McIntyre's SBS colleagues have spoken up over his sacking and the trashing of
free speech in Australia in a comprehensive illustration of the term presstitute.
5. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties states in relation to the Scott McIntyre affair: The
220
pressure on media professionals - indeed, many modern professionals - to limit expression of their personal
views on social media as a requirement of their employment amounts to a demand for self-censorship that
should be roundly rejected.
6. Free speech is vital for scholarship, democracy and for rational risk management that is crucial for societal
safety (for amplification see Gideon Polya: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home ). Decent
225
people must speak up for free speech, inform everyone they can, and urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment
and Sanctions (BDS) against all those people and organizations involved in censorship, lying by omission,
lying by commission and attacks on free speech.
Decent Australians who understand the vital importance of free speech and truth-telling will utterly reject the
cowardly, perverted, anti-free speech, Australia-betraying stance of the Lib-Labs (Coalition and Labor
Right) on this matter, vote 1 Green and put the Coalition last.
230
p6
20-5-2015
7
This user is a New Matilda supporter. paul walter
Good on him.. hope he slits their gullets. Then the young woman sacked also can have a go.
235
Homerjunior
He deserved the sack unless he claimed he was experiencing an episode of mental stress. His opinions were
provocative and offensive.
240
billgale
where do I donate something (albeit small) to help Scot fund his case.
I'd like to if for nothing else but to make him feel supported and indirectly saying stuff Turnbull and his
devious ways
245
antinationalist
250
MattQ, i'm afraid that SBS has a long history of threatening and harassing staff who say things that
management don't like. but it has been extreme since Shaun Brown began and he entrenched that culture.
and those who think Scott breached his employment contract should think again. the Social Media policy
there is a relatively new document. it's buried in an inaccessible place on the intranet, and existing staff were
never informed of its existence. it cannot, by law, be deemed a part of the employment contract under those
255
circumstances. SBS management, in seeking to be as obsequious as possible to their overlord, have hopefully
screwed up big time on this one...
INSPECTOR-RIKATI
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - 00:31 new
I repeat an earlier post (at
260
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/04/26/sbs-journo-sacked-despicable-anzac-tweets/
SBS journo sacked for despicable Anzac tweets

)
QUOTE POST
265
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
p7
20-5-2015
8
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST it appears that he (Scott McIntyre) may have to some degree overstepped the
boundaries on the other hand he is entitled to his constitutional rights.
HANSARD 17-3-1898
270
Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is
embraced within this Bill-of political liberty
and religious liberty-the
275
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
280
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898
Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South
285
Australia).- We who are assembled in

this Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are
about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation,
and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the
peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the
290
peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a
reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to
themselves.
END QUOTE
Consider also what the High Court of Australia stated in
295
Having read through the

entire reason of judgments it seems that most judges rely upon:
(at 2) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27
February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
300
The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to

impose burdens on freedom of communication on government and political
matters. No Australian parliament can
validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about
p8
20-5-2015
9
those matters unless the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a
305
legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the

constitutionally prescribed system of [government in Australia.
END QUOTE
(at 61) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27
February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
310
QUOTE
The term "implied freedom of communication concerning government and
political matters" has been well established in Australian
constitutional discourse since the implication was first posited in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills[1]
315
and in Australian Capital Television Pty

Ltd v The Commonwealth[2].
QUOTE
(at 102-103) Monis v The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27
February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012,
QUOTE
320
Applicable
principles
102 The
Constitution provides for a system of representative and responsible
government. Sections 7 and 24 of
325
the Constitution provide that the two Houses of the Parliament must be
"directly chosen by the people".
Section 64 requires that no Minister of State hold office "for a
longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member
of the House of Representatives".
330
Those who are elected as members of the Parliament and those who are
appointed as Ministers of State are necessarily accountable to "the
people" referred to in ss 7 and 24. Additionally, s 128 provides that the
Constitution shall not be altered except in the manner provided in that
section; in particular, only "if in a majority of the States a majority of
335
the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the
electors voting also approve the proposed law". As the whole Court said in Lange[4], it follows from
these and other provisions that "[f]reedom of communication on matters of
government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of representative
government which the Constitution creates".
340
103
Because
freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable
incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government, that freedom
p9
20-5-2015
10
cannot be curtailed by the exercise of legislative or executive power[5]
345
and the common law cannot be inconsistent with it. But the freedom is not absolute and it
follows that the limit on legislative power is also not absolute.
QUOTE
It is not if I may or may not agree with what he stated but that I recognise the man is as much entitled to state
what his views are as any other person.
350
At times I consider comments made at SBS or other programs offensive but do not take it any further because
I recognise it is as much entitled (rightly or wrongly) to express views that may or may not correspond with
that of my own, as I am to express my views.
It appears to me that he used a personal account to make his comments and in my view should not have
suffered the loss of his job for outing his comments.
355
We should avoid being so to say a Nanny state where people are prevented to cast their views, regardless if
we may not agree with them.
If anything SBS by the sacking has I view has drawn more attention to his comments, as I for one never heard
before about Scott.
Perhaps Scott may sue SBS for wrongful dismissal and he might just succeed.
360
.
In my view if you are going to remember any event then the good as well as the bad should be allowed to be
known. If Scott held that his statements were justified, even if untimely for some, then his comments should
never have been used against him. After all not SBS but the federal government was providing the services
and if he sought to criticise the federal government for creating so much about the ANZAC's but concealing
365
the bad then as a journalist it was perhaps his duty to express his opinion as such.
Many may never have been aware of certain atrocious conduct by soldiers that happened and why certain
people may have taken against Australian soldiers. then for Scott to reveal some of the background is in my
view important to be fully aware or at least as much as possible to the true historical events that took place,
including the bad.
370
END QUOTE POST
It is essential that a journalist who expresses his/her personal political views can do so without reprisals.
No matter what code of conduct SBS or any other company may have it never can nor should it be accepted
to override once constitutional rights.
375
Anzacs is celebrated by many, and many do not, All however should be entitled to know what precisely
eventuated to the best of our knowledge. Indeed, I view it would be a disgrace upon fair dinkum Aussie
soldiers who died, in fighting the then enemy, if those who committed crimes while serving overseas (and
may have been court marshalled and executed for it) then are celebrated as to have fallen in battle.
380
385
- See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/18/its-scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-after-broadcaster-sacked-himhis-political-opinions#comment-105557

END QUOTE ARTICLE AND COMMENTS POSTED
Again, the issue of war is a pure political matter as I have also extensively canvassed in my
books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal
issues. Albeit I am now retired, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST and Professional Advocate I also
p10
20-5-2015
11
represented solicitors and barristers in legal proceedings, and comprehensively defeating the
Commonwealth of Australia on 19 July 2006 was, so to say, not a fluke.
390
395
400
405
410
415
In my view the issue first of all is to establish if authorising Australian soldiers to go to war
against another country is a political decision or is so to say a private company decision.
If it is a political decision then comments regarding it must be accepted as being expression of
political views and this is a constitutional embedded legal principle of political liberty to be
the right of Australians.
Actually, religious liberty includes also to criticise a religion or a non-religion (atheist) practice.
See also the Welsh decision which I rfeliedf upon also on 19 July 2006.
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
QUOTE
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
And;
420
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
QUOTE
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and
support materials provided in the following link:
425
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
430
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.
END QUOTE
And
435
440
QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
And
p11
20-5-2015
12
445
450
455
460
465
QUOTE
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.
END QUOTE
What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and
neither can be as this would in fact offend FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Likewise, any person
objecting under the religious objection neither can be required to be a religious person as this
would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies
as much to non-religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her
personal reasons TO ALLOW IMMUNISATION OR NOT clearly is entitled to do so regardless
of having any specific religion mentioned.
As such, any employer who were to discriminate against a person on basis of vaccination or the
lack thereof could be in violation of a persons constitutional rights. I would by this also include
the Commonwealth of Australia to deny financial benefits to an employee on basis if a child is
not vaccinated. This includes the refusal by the Commonwealth of Australia to accept
religious/non-religious objections as this would violate s116 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
What effectively Scott McIntyre has achieved is to expose the denial of a persons constitutional
rights embedded as legal principle in the constitution.
470
475
Regardless if Scott McIntyre acted in his private capacity or as an employee of SBS I view that
SBS Code of Conduct cannot override the political liberty an employee is entitled upon and is
enshrined in the constitution.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Our name is our motto!)
(
Awaiting your response,
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
p12
20-5-2015

20150520-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Fair Work Australia - Re Scott McIntyre - Etc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

20150520-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Fair Work Australia - Re Scott McIntyre - Etc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Fair Work Australia

I hereby as a CONSTITUTIONALIST desire to express my concerns as to the

a lawsuit filed with the Fair Work Commission this morning.

(image not included)

- See more at: https://newmatilda.com//2015/05/18/its-scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-after-broadcaster-sacked-himhis-political-opinions#sthash.BXkib5BM.dpuf

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Tim Macknay

This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ

Posted Monday, May 18, 2015 - 17:09

SBS journo sacked for despicable Anzac tweets

Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National

Australia).- We who are assembled in

Having read through the

The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to

legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the

and in Australian Capital Television Pty

END QUOTE POST

- See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/18/its-scott-mcintyre-sues-sbs-after-broadcaster-sacked-himhis-political-opinions#comment-105557

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

Вам также может понравиться