Constitutionalist: Who We Are As A People-The Syrian Refugee Question

ISSUE Religious doctrine issues-aliens, etc & the constitution?
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution.
Below my response to Who We Are As a PeopleThe Syrian Refugee Question
October 2016 Volume 45, Number 10 Edward J. Erler at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-we-are-as-a-peoplethe-syrian-refugee-question/4/ (see also part 1, 2 and 3)
No doubt Edward J. Erler raises issues that are of concern but as I understand it from his
writings he didnt set out relevant details. As such, as a (self-educated)
CONSTITUTIONALIST in the Commonwealth of Australia and having the benefit of Hansard
records of what the Framers of the constitution actually stated in regard of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and considering that our s116 of the constitution was
copied from the US constitution and I successfully in 2006 appealed against compulsory voting
citing also (in regard of religious exemption that therefore non-religious exemptions also were
applicable.
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
QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
p1
1-11-2016
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
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious
observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a
qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Again, the benefit for me is that our Framers of the Constitution had recorded what they debated
and whole Quick & Garran was to later write about it all, the High Court of Australia itself
acknowledge that at times they had it wrong. I rather rely upon what the Framers of the
Constitution actually stated and the legal principles they embedded in the constitution, even so
not actually written in the constitution.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
MR. DEAKIN.- IN THIS CONSTITUTION , ALTHOUGH MUCH IS WRITTEN MUCH REMAINS UNWRITTEN,
END QUOTE
By this, politicians/lawyers/judges cannot alter what was stated, whereas what is the wording of
the constitution to often is perverted and twisted.
I below will give my set out and I view that this too can apply to the US constitution and so the
USA as a whole. One has to consider who is the constitution for?
Is it to serve politicians as they like to increase their power base?
Is it for unelected judges to change whatever to suit their own contemporary views?
Is it for the People?
HANSARD 28-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-What is the meaning of the statement that the state cannot legislate for the whole general
community?
Mr. BARTON.-That is by way of description. A law made by the state does not apply to the general
community.
QUOTE
While I understand the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision that where a
majority of States provided for homosexual marriages then it must apply to all states, clearly this
cannot be correct in that States legislate within their own legislative sphere and regardless what a
majority may or may not legislate upon it can never be used to somehow force States who have
different legislative intentions to be forced to so to say fall in line. Only if the commonwealth
(The Federal Legislator of the US) (congress) has the powers to legislate and does so then it must
be uniform throughout the USA. It cannot legislate for part of the USA.
p2
1-11-2016
Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).In the next sub-section it is provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.
An income tax or a property tax raised under any federal law must be uniform "throughout the
Commonwealth." That is, in every part of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. MCMILLAN: I think the reading of the sub-section is clear.
The reductions may be on a sliding scale, but they must always be uniform.
END QUOTE
Meaning that for example different levels of taxation can be applied but it must be for all people
with the same level of income the same but can vary as to different levels of income.
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.But it is a fair corollary to the provision for dealing with the revenue for the first five years after the
imposition of uniform duties of customs, and further reflection has led me to the conclusion that, on the
whole, it will be a useful and beneficial provision.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.On the other hand, the power of the Commonwealth to impose duties of customs and of excise such as it
may determine, which insures that these duties of customs and excise would represent something like the
average opinion of the Commonwealth-that power, and the provision that bounties are to be uniform
throughout the Commonwealth, might, I am willing to concede, be found to work with some hardship upon
the states for some years, unless their own rights to give bounties were to some extent preserved.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page
1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is
provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as
indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states;
that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the
p3
1-11-2016
Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax
of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property,
wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very
careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax
sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not
absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-What I am going to say may be a little out of order, but I would like to draw the
Drafting Committee's attention to the fact that in clause 52, sub-section (2), there has been [start page
1856] a considerable change. Two matters in that sub-section seem to me to deserve attention. First, it is
provided that all taxation shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That means direct as well as
indirect taxation, and the object I apprehend is that there shall be no discrimination between the states;
that an income tax or land tax shall not be made higher in one state than in another. I should like the
Drafting Committee to consider whether saying the tax shall be uniform would not prevent a graduated tax
of any kind? A tax is said to be uniform that falls with the same weight on the same class of property,
wherever it is found. It affects all kinds of direct taxation. I am extremely afraid, that if we are not very
careful, we shall get into a difficulty. It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax
sought to be imposed might be held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not
absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
Again;
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).It might not touch the question of exemption; but any direct tax sought to be imposed might be held to be
unconstitutional, or, in other words, illegal, if it were not absolutely uniform.
END QUOTE
As such, it should be understood that state laws cannot be used to compel other states to fall in
line with what certain number of states have provided legislation for. However the
Commonwealth (in this case the congress of the USA) can provide for Federal UNIFORM
legislation, where it has been provided with legislative powers to do so.
Much has also been argued about executive orders issued by a President. My view is that the
President is under the constitution and as such has no powers to suspend the constitution or any
part thereof nor can issue that is validly executive orders which would undermine the benefits of
the People to their constitutional rights.
p4
1-11-2016
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which
is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution.
Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the
British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the
power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute
freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from
interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the
question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution.
There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen.
How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. Having provided
in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of
maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with
all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to
decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It
is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no
citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the
instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the
masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you,
after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its
provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away
in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in
the highest sense, the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution,
will be such a tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any
pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from
usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention
has done well.
END QUOTE
We have often judges who use foreign Authorities for their judgments and that is perfectly all
right provided the authorities of foreign jurisdiction are handed down upon identical legislative
provisions and such authorities compliment: any constitutional interpretation. It cannot be used
to somehow alter the constitutional meaning of constitutional provisions.
After all the constitution must be understood in the language as existed at the time the
constitution was created and understood by the Framers of the Constitution and not what some
200 years or later some foreign jurisdiction may decide.
p5
1-11-2016
QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put in
words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton has
described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to this,
not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to
understand clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole
time of the existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is
commended to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be
appreciated by the people.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no Constitution is required at all;
it can simply be provided that a certain number of gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and,
p6
1-11-2016
without limitation, do what they like. Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very
life-blood of the Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would
give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most important part of
the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances before, in matters that have been
much debated-adhere to the decision we have already arrived at.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of
the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE
Ok, so far I addressed matters as to the application of the constitution and to be within the
concept of ordinary Americans, not what some judges fancy to make out of it by their own
contemporary views and/or political views.
We now may consider as to the issue of religion, in regard of which I have written numerous
articles that can be located also at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and in my books published in
the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
Obviously the issue of aliens being it refugees or otherwise will briefly be addressed.
The Commonwealth of Australia as like the USA was setup to prevent religious wars amongst its
citizens and to represent the commonwealth to legislate in favour of and/or adverse to religions.
However, it doesnt mean the commonwealth (USA and/or the Commonwealth of Australia)
cannot legislate that may interfere with the religious practices of certain people.
Firstly, often is talked about concurrent legislative powers, which is a much misunderstood and
misconceived issue within the commonwealth of Australia.
Constitutionally when the Federal Parliament has the legislative powers on an issue but fails to
legislate and/or doesnt desire to legislate then the States can legislate on this subject matter.
However, once the commonwealth commences to exercise it legislative e powers then the States
no longer possesses the concurrent legislative powers.
QUOTE
p7
1-11-2016
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth
legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will
nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however,
remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be
all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
My only desire is to give power to the Federal Parliament to achieve a scheme for old-age pensions if it be
practicable, and if the people require it. No power would be taken away from the states. The sub-section
would not interfere with the right of any state to act in the meantime until the Federal Parliament took
the matter in hand.
END QUOTE
As to aliens (refugees, etc)

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We are going to suggest that it should read as follows:the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make any laws not applicable to the general
community; but so that this power shall not extend to authorize legislation with respect to the affairs of
the aboriginal race in any state.
Mr. ISAACS.-My observations were extended much further than that. The term general community" I
understand to mean the general community of the whole Commonwealth. If it means the general
community of the whole Commonwealth, I do not see the meaning of saying that the Parliament of the
Commonwealth shall have the exclusive authority to do that, because any single state would have the right
to do it under any circumstances. If it means less than that-if it means the general community of a state-I do
not see why it should not be left to the state. We should be placed in a very awkward position indeed if any
particular state is forbidden to pass any distinctive legislation in certain well-known instances. For instance,
if Victoria should choose to enact that Afghans shall only get hawkers' licences under certain conditions
which are not [start page 228] applicable to Europeans she may be debarred by this sub-section from doing
p8
1-11-2016
so. I do not know how it will affect our factory law in regard to the Chinese which does not operate beyond
the confines of Victoria at all.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Why single out the Afghans?
Mr. ISAACS.-If any other race possess the same characteristic as the Afghans I will put them in the same
class. At all events, the expression general community" means the whole community of the Commonwealth.
I do not think that this has any application. If it is to have any application at all, it seems to me to be
intended to debar the state from passing legislation-necessary legislation, but purely confined to that state. I
do not think that that sub-section ought to be there at all if that is the meaning of it.
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-I think the original intention of this sub-section was to deal with the
affairs of such persons of other races-what are generally called inferior races, though I do not know with
how much warrant sometimes-who may be in the Commonwealth at the time it is brought into existence,
or who may under the laws of the Commonwealth regulating aliens come into it. We have made the
dealing with aliens, which includes a certain degree of coloured immigration, a power of the
Commonwealth, and we have made the dealing with immigration a power of the Commonwealth, so that
all those of the races who come into the community after the establishment of the Commonwealth will
not only enter subject to laws made in respect to their immigration, but will remain subject to any laws
which the Commonwealth may specially devise for them. There is no reason why the Commonwealth
should not have power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-An exclusive power?
Mr. BARTON.-It ought to have an exclusive power to devise such laws.
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-If it does not exercise it can the state exercise it?
Mr. BARTON.-Once the Commonwealth legislates with reference to the question of aliens and
immigration, its legislation displaces the state law.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-I respectfully submit in connexion with this clause that the necessity for
legislation in regard to aliens differs in the various colonies, and to give to the Federal Parliament exclusive
powers to legislate would produce inconvenience. This is obviously so, for the reason that what is necessary
in one state in connexion with the treatment of aliens may be altogether unnecessary and perhaps
inconvenient in another state. Assuming that such contingencies may arise, any uniform legislation must
work to the detriment of some state; whereas if, as suggested by Sir George Turner, it is made optional on
the part of the Federal Parliament, wherever any great pressure arises, or a necessity for uniform legislation
occurs, to legislate, then the Federal Parliament will undoubtedly take the question up and by its act
achieve exclusive control in that connexion so far as it chooses to legislate. But even then it may leave to
local autonomy to deal with the question in some connexion in a manner which may be [start page 236]
necessitated by the different circumstances of different localities. Take the colony of Victoria. We have
legislation in the form of a new Factories and Shops Act, which affects the Chinese in a manner such as no
other colony has yet thought it necessary to affect them. It may happen that no other colony will think it
necessary to legislate in that way. But there can be no reason why the legislation which is thought necessary
by the Victorian people should not be permitted to continue in Victoria. I have given this illustration because
p9
1-11-2016
it appears to me that the circumstances of different localities may involve different necessities in connexion
with the treatment of aliens. It maybe possible that in South Australia, or in New South Wales, or Tasmania,
it may be necessary to take some action with reference to aliens that may be extremely beneficial to those
colonies, and inconvenient or possibly irksome in Victoria. If the sub-section is, as suggested, taken from its
present position and placed in clause 52, it will leave power for the states to legislate as they think proper
until the Federal Parliament sees the necessity for bringing about some degree of uniformity. I would submit
to honorable members that the whole of our work points to the necessity for giving nothing to the Federal
Parliament to do that can be as well done in the interests of the states by the States themselves. What we
are endeavouring to do is to constitute a new power which shall do some things which we cannot do as well
as separate states. But we wish to avoid handing over to the new power anything that will take from us that
sovereignty we now possess, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. It does not seem to me to be
necessary to make it imperative in the Constitution that the sovereignty of the states or their local
autonomy in this connexion shall be removed. If the Federal Parliament does not wish to legislate on the
subject the local Parliaments should have the power to legislate as their local requirements dictate.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-They do not require to get authority from home, for this reason: That the local
Constitutions empower the colonies separately to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the community, and that is without restriction, except such small restrictions as are imposed by the
Constitutions themselves, and, of course, the necessary restriction that they can only legislate for their
own territory. The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that
which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
start page 1020] I think that we ought to be satisfied on these points, and satisfied that if we leave the
clause as it now stands there will, at any rate, be some proviso inserted which will safeguard the states in
the carrying out of any of their state laws over which the states are to be supreme even under federation.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
It appears to me that the representatives of the less populous States decline to distinguish sufficiently
between the money powers and the general powers to be conferred by a Constitution. Now the distinction
is no mere fantasy. It should be recognised in the forefront of the Constitution. In the exercise of both
powers there are instances in which it is possible that State interests may be put in jeopardy. State rights
cannot be put in. such jeopardy; they are enshrined and preserved under the Constitution and protected by
the courts to be established under that Constitution.
END QUOTE
p10
1-11-2016
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There must be some body which deems it necessary, and the only body to which the
words can refer is the Commonwealth Parliament. What very substantial difference does it make whether
we leave the provision as it stands or put it into clause 52? True, if the provision is left where it stands, the
Federal Parliament will have exclusive power in connexion with this matter; but that body will only have
exclusive power when it chooses to exercise it. It is only when the Federal Parliament has passed
legislation dealing with the people about whom regulations are to be made that this exclusive power will
have arisen.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-I desire to call the attention of the leader of the Convention to an
apparent vagueness in the word "exclusive," to which reference has not yet been made. The word
"exclusive," no matter at what time the power arises, whether on the coming into being of the
Commonwealth, or the exercise of the power by the Federal Parliament, may mean, and I believe does
mean, that the power of the state to legislate ceases. On the question of whether the exclusive power
under this provision comes into being with the establishment of the Commonwealth, I would call the
attention of the leader of the Convention to clause 84. That clause seems to indicate that this exclusive
power arises the moment an Act is passed. It speaks of the exclusive power of enforcing customs duties
being vested in the Federal Parliament, but the second paragraph saysBut this exclusive power shall not come into force until uniform duties of customs have been imposed by
the Parliament.
It would appear that without that limitation the exclusive power would come into force at once, and the
position would be as stated by the Victorian representatives. If you pass this clause as it [start page 255]
stands the state could no longer legislate with regard to Chinese.
Mr. BARTON.-If the exclusive power is given without any restriction, I think it would arise immediately on
the establishment of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. GLYNN.-There seems to be some doubt as to whether the exclusive power arises upon the
establishment of the Commonwealth or on the exercise of the power of legislation. The doubt seems to
be removed by clause 84. It is said that if we put this provision in clause 52 the exclusive power may be
postponed until legislation takes place. But may you not then have a concurrent power, and may not the
competence of the local Legislature to legislate in the matter be continued as long as the legislation is not in
contradiction of federal legislation?
Mr. DEAKIN.-That is the point.
Mr. GLYNN.-Yes, and there is still a vagueness in the word "exclusive." If it is doubtful whether the
exclusive power commences with the foundation of the Commonwealth, and if it is possible that it may only
p11
1-11-2016
come into being on the passing of legislation, may it not still be said that on the passing of exclusive
legislation the power of the local Parliaments to legislate is extinguished, but that on the passing of
concurrent legislation that power does not cease?
Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I think that enough has now been said on this subject by honorable
members both sides of the chamber, and I have only a very few remarks to offer. It appears that if the
sub-section remains where it is state laws will be valid until federal legislation, but the states will not be
able to alter or improve those laws during the possibly long interval between federation and federal
legislation. Under these circumstances, as we leave to the states for an indefinite time the power of
maintaining the laws they have, we should grant to them the power of improving those laws. It would
recommend the Constitution more to a large number of persons if we put the sub-section in clause 52,
thus enabling each state to legislate on this matter until the Federal Parliament comes in and legislates
for all.
END QUOTE
It should be understood that any nation has the inheret right to deny an alien to enter its
jurisdiction.
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine
who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
Again:
QUOTE
p12
1-11-2016
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine
who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is coextensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any
disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
This means that if the commonwealth (USA and/or Commonwealth of Australia) were to
legislate as to a certain race then this person loses the ordinary rights as a citizen normally is
entitled upon. This is obvious as to prevent them to use their voting powers to overturn
legislation against them.
Much is argued about religion and various so called religions uses barbaric conduct. They might
be against national security and/or against public common grounds as expressed in criminal
legislation, etc.
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers
which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind
of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
p13
1-11-2016
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers
which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind
of social and religious power over us. We are going into a Federation for certain specific subjects. Each state
at present has the power to impose religious laws. I want to leave that power with the state; I will not
disturb that power; but I object to give to the Federation of Australia a tyrannous and over-riding power
over the whole of the people of Australia as to what day they shall observe for religious reasons, and
what day they shall not observe for that purpose. The state of Victoria will be able to pass any Sunday law
it likes under my scheme.
END QUOTE
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
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.
END QUOTE
It therefore should be understood that while religious freedom is provided for it can however not
be in violation with ordinary criminal legal provisions.
Any religion that say promotes the rape of a woman walking on her own would fall foul upon
ordinary criminal laws protecting womens rights to have safe passage on the streets and any
alleged religious doctrine cannot be used to violate without sanction such legal provisions.
Likewise, any religion that promotes to kill unbelievers, etc, is not a religion of peace and would
fall foul on ordinary criminal law as it clearly promotes violence and hatred.
p14
1-11-2016
Politicians/lawyers/judges cannot undermine the constitutional rights of any citizen in the

commonwealth (USA and/or Commonwealth of Australia) by allowing so called refugees in
which follow a doctrine that one can kill unbelievers. I view that it would violate the USA and/or
Commonwealth of Australia constitutions to allow those promoting or following a doctrine of
violence into the country.
QUOTE MR. DEAKIN.WHAT A CHARTER OF LIBERTY IS EMBRACED WITHIN THIS BILL-OF POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY -THE LIBERTY
AND THE MEANS TO ACHIEVE ALL TO WHICH MEN IN THESE DAYS CAN REASONABLY ASPIRE . A CHARTER OF LIBERTY IS
ENSHRINED IN THIS C ONSTITUTION , 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
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South 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 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
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an Executive
which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can
only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
Therefore the Executive (including the President/Prime Minister/Governor-General is bound to

ensure that citizens are protected against any would be killer and if such would be killer follows
a certain religious doctrine then this cannot excuse the would be killer because the protection of
religious freedom is bound to be that of existing citizens above those of aliens who desire to
come and reside in the midst of those already residing in the commonwealth.
Consider also the followings:
QUOTE 9-4-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
Kevin Rudd PM
9-4-2010
p15
1-11-2016
C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc: Tony Abbott MP
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Kevin,
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST my issue with any legal issue is the constitutional validity of any action by the
government, and likewise by the parliament. If it aint constitutionally permissible then no matter the purpose it
must be abandoned because the moment we allow the constitution to be defied we have lost the plot and permit
terrorism and dictatorship, as there will always be those who find excuses to disregard constitutional limitations.
In my view the Federal Government has at hand to avoid this ongoing refugee problem but so far failed to take
appropriate action and as result is incurring a reported $80,000.00 plus cost per refugee that could be better used
for the sick, the elderly, etc. Before setting out the solution to this, as I did in the past lets I now direct myself to
articles such as some of the following;
QUOTE
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7040914/govt-gets-tough-with-asylum-seekers/
Govt gets tough with asylum seekers
By Julian Drape, AAP April 9, 2010, 5:21 pm
The federal government has toughened its policy on asylum seekers by immediately suspending the
processing of all new refugee claims by Sri Lankans and Afghanis.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans on Friday denied the new regime meant asylum seekers could be detained
indefinitely on Christmas Island or in mainland detention centres.
"People aren't being denied their right to seek asylum but it's been suspended," he told reporters in
Canberra.
"It's humane because people will still have access to consideration of their refugee status.
"They will still be treated with dignity and treated as human beings."
The government says the new policy is a response to changing circumstances in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is presently reviewing conditions in both countries and
UN protection guidelines.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/united-nations-warns-australia-about-indoneisan-peoplesmuggling/story-e6frf7l61225851645243?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
Last Updated: April 09, 2010
p16
1-11-2016
TONY ABBOTT MOCKS GOVERNMENT SUSPENSION OF ASYLUM SEEKER CLAIMS , SAYING IT 'S A FAILURE OF ORIGINAL
IMMIGRATION POLICY
END QUOTE
QUOTE
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Rudd panics: now says boat people may be fleeing peace
A NDREW B OLT F RIDAY , A PRIL 09, 10 (12:10 PM )
Another boat, and nearly more deaths, forces the Rudd Government to announce that these poor refugees
are probably not fleeing danger, after all:
All new asylum seeker claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are being suspended, as news
emerges that 70 people were rescued from a sinking asylum boat off Christmas Island
early this morning.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans says the Government has decided to implement the processing
suspension due to changing conditions in both countries
This means any new asylum seekers now arriving in Australian waters from those two countries
will not have their refugee applications processed until the suspension is lifted.
The suspension comes as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reviews the
international protection guidelines for both countries.
But, but, but werent they fleeing genocide Wasnt this flood of boats caused by new conflicts and
overseas push factors?
It seems to me from this that Immigration Minister Chris Evans is now admitting the Government lied all
along in denying its policies had lured so many thousands here in boats:
The changes were announcing today send a strong message to people smugglers
that they cannot guarantee a visa outcome for their clients.
So it really was the guaranteed visa outcome that people smugglers were advertising that drew so many
boats here? Then why didnt Rudd just say so a few dozen boats ago?
Liars and incompetents.
END QUOTE
The Framers of the Constitution well aware that International law can often be used to override local law decided
to ensure that The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) would be as such structured that
International law could not interfere with Australian law but could be used in aid of australian law.
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the
common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
p17
1-11-2016

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-The right honorable member, with all respect, is begging the question. The real question
now is, not whether the people want it, but whether the power should be given to the Commonwealth, that
is to say, the whole of the Commonwealth, to enforce the compulsory reference of disputes in one
particular state.
END QUOTE
For purpose of legislation any Commonwealth law must be for the whole of the Commonwealth and for the
HANSARD 13x-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-The Parliament has by clause 52 full power and authority to make laws for the peace,
order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to a large number of matters that are
set out. This is a power that is without limitation.
END QUOTE
It should be understood that while it was stated
This is a power that is without limitation.
It is within the limits of being for for the peace, order, and good government!
As such as long as it is within the scope of for the peace, order, and good government the legislative powers is
unlimited.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.. In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the 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.
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I wish to say one word or two before we part. I do not intend to enter into
any detailed examination of, or any elaborate apology for, the Constitution which we have been engaged in
framing. But, sir, no man can remain unmoved upon this momentous occasion. 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
p18
1-11-2016
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 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
When then we have people arriving by plane or by boat we should use the same legal principles for all of them. We
cannot sent back those who come by plane while not using the same rules for those coming by boat.
We have an obligation to ensure that people smuggling is not financially viable.
The sinking of Siev X on 19 October 2001 with 363 dead (including 146 children) must always be a reminder as to
the tragedy of all those who drowned.
Yet, no known (to me) prosecution ever eventuated in regard of those 363 people who died within the
Commonwealth of Australia as to hold the organisers and others who participated legally responsible for their
deaths. In my view anyone involved with the transporting of people for unlawful means should have to face a
Commonwealth criminal prosecution for causing and/or participating in regard of any death during the voyage or
subsequent to a voyage.
When some say 100 people each pay say $10,000.00 each then the people smuggler stands to earn about $1
million and then a paltry $3,000.00 fine isnt going to deter this person. As such a greater emphasis must be on
deterrent.
But it would be far better, as I indicated in the past, and so also in my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI
series on certain constitutional and other legal issues that the entire refugee or unlawful arrivals is wrongly dealt
with.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth of Australia has the legislative powers regarding immigration and aliens and as
such, provided it is a general power against all, can regulate arrivals and aliens.
The Framers of the Constitution separated the powers as to Immigration and Aliens because Immigration is in
regard of those migrating into Australia and aliens in regard of those already in Australia.
Because the framers of the constitution were pursuing a white Australia they didnt want as they refer to
inferior coloured races to flood Australia and in view that India was under British rule and as such its inhabitants
were British nationals the Framers of the constitution held that the commonwealth could do a test on immigrants
such as to be entitled to enter the commonwealth of Australia.
Also after arrival to control their conduct and knowing the problems with International law the Framers of the
constitution decided to insert s.51(xxvi) regarding inferior coloured race or race so that the Commonwealth
could limit their movements, employment, etc, of each law in which were to be within the Commonwealth of
Australia but deemed of a race that required special legislation. Any such special legislation then would apply to all
persons of that race regardless their position in society.
Whit the new rules to postpone refugee applications of Afghans and Sri Lankas then this can only be used within
S.51(xxvi) as under special legislation as under migration laws it would not be applicable in that any immigration
law must apply to all persons in the same manner, regardless of their country of origin. As such a ban on all people
seeking a visa or none at all!
As for s.51(xxvi) the problem then lies with that it can only be a legislation in regard of all people of that race.
Meaning that a ban cannot be only applied to Afghans arriving by boat but must be applied to all Afghans no
matter their way of entry and regardless they might be skilled person being doctors, etc. hence the
Commonwealth cannot issue visas to an Afghan to come by plane while not allowing Afghans in a Commonwealth
Detention Centre to obtain a visa.
p19
1-11-2016
There is however a much better alternative in place that would avoid any clashes in law.
It must be recognised that the United nations is the governing body regarding refugee issues, regardless it cannot
overrule thconstitutional provisions.
Now lets take an example of two persons both leaving say Afghanistan for refugee status. We call them X and Y.
Mr X travels to a nearby United Nations camp in Pakistan and register, say, on 19 April 2010 there as a refugee. Mr
Y however pays a people smuggler to take him the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr Y arrives at Australia without a
visa.
The Commonwealth of Australia recognising that the United Nation is the covering body about refugees has set
aside a portion of land that is as like any embassy deemed to be foreign land, exclusive under the jurisdiction of the
United Nations. Mr Y who arrives therefore is transported directly to the United Nations facilities and so placed
under United Nations authority. The United nations give Mr Y the registration number commencing with the date
of arrival being, say, 6 may 2010 and this means that while Mr X had his registration number commencing with
20100409 Mr Y has his registration commencing with 20100506. what this means is that Mr X will be well before
Mr Y up for consideration of any refugee status because the United Nations will deal with people as to their date of
registration.
As such Mr Y travelling to Australia minimised his own opportunities to be considered for refugee status.
When a person arrives at a United Nations compound and given a registration number then the United nations will
pursue the status of this person and history to determine if this person is considered a refugee.
Once the United Nations has considered a person to be a refugee then the United Nations request member states
to consider to accept a number of refugees. Each member State is given a copy of the files relevant to each refugee
and each member State then can,, if it desires to do so, do its own investigation as to if it find a refugee suitable for
acceptance or not.
What this means is that Mr Y even when finally approved by the United Nations as being considered to be a
genuine refugee may still end up being accepted by a country on the other side of the world, being it in Siberia, or
whatever. As such, this system takes away the advantage of travelling to Australia to basically being secured to be
accepted by Australia because no longer the Commonwealth of Australia but the United nations is who conduct
refugee matters initially.
It also means that those longest held in United Nations camps/compounds are the first to be considered to be
accepted. The so called que-jumping will be avoided all together because every refugee will try to get to the
nearest United Nations refugee camp/compound rather then waste weeks or even years to travel to Australia and
then having to start from the date of registration.
Why indeed would a person travel from Afghanistan at huge cost to Australia and then find that the United Nations
may cause him to be transported to another United Nations camp in say Siberia or wherever?
The entire incentive to force one selfs upon Australia and to perhaps blackmail a government such as refusing to
leave a ship will be counter acted by making clear that any person who refuses to leave a ship will jeopardize his
own status by being later registered.
Say, that there are so many arrivals that the United Nations finds it has not sufficient places in its Australian
compound then it can transfer people to other United Nations compound wherever located in the world or simply
have them transported to their own country of heritage.
.
p20
1-11-2016
What we therefore would achieve is that any refugee or so called refugee would upon arrival in Australian waters,
etc, immediately be transported to a United Nations compound and then the United Nations provide all the
humane services required. It would then create a worldwide United Nations compound facilities without all the
different governments trying to find solutions.
Likewise those who arrived by plane and are not accepted as lawful arrivals they too can be transported to a
United Nations compound and then the United Nations can determine what is best to do with such a person.
Perhaps an island might be a perfect way to have a United Nations compound.
We must show concern for human rights including those who arrive hear at times with huge risk to life and limb
but on the other hand we must also guard out own security and not have others dictating us that we must accept
them.
Fancy a person residing, in say, England seeking a visa having to wait for approval while a person from a war torn
country, regardless the person himself really was not in any danger, can force himself upon the Australian
government but the Englishman cannot, yet might be better qualified for a visa.
Why indeed should say a widow with children waiting in a United Nations camp for year but not having monies to
pay a people smuggler be yet again denied entry because others who can get money to pay a people smuggler can
jump the que? We must build a system that those registered the longest are not robbed of the right to enter
merely because they peacefully waited for their number to come up! We must rewards those who pursue lawful
entree.
Also, to avoid clashed of culture those who desire to come to Australia must first undergo a course in regard of
Australian customs, etc, so that we do not get people entering who for example have the view that honour killing
is acceptable because it was done it the country they came from. As such, remove the opportunity of them
dictating any government and make compulsory that a course in English and in Australian customs is required to be
passed. We now see too often that people are practicing their own cultural ways of conduct regardless of how it is
in conflict with australian law and this is a major problem to the security of Australians where the Federal
government fails to compel a proper course to be followed about Australian customs, etc. (not something who is a
cricketer!)
In my view the Federal government must cancel its announced rules regarding Afghans and Sri Lankas as it fails to
be constitutionally valid but should place a moratorium upon all applications while in the meantime seek to
establish a United Nations compound who the can in principle deal with all unlawful arrivals and/or persons
unlawfully being in the Commonwealth of Australia. Politically, I view, it is the most sensible solution also because
any human rights issues then is within a United Nations compound!
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
END QUOTE 9-4-2010 CORRESPONDENCE
Clearly, what Mr Donald Trump reportedly suggest is more to what I all along have promoted,
albeit I have explained it in more details
Essentially, the United Nations will check those claiming to be refugees and provide to a country
it recommends settlement of a refugee with the file of this refugee. The Country so asked will
then do its own investigation as to determine if the person for security or other reasons may be
undesirable. As such should not be permitted to settle in its country.
QUOTE 22-9-2016
Legally either everyone or no one can be exempted from revealing their identity that is equality!
p21
1-11-2016
The documents can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/324869383/20160922-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-BISSUE-Banning-Islamic-Headdress-The-Niqab-and-Burka-Etc-the-Constitution
ISSUE - Banning Islamic Headdress, the Niqab and Burka, etc & the constitution?
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
No one question the fact that s116 of the constitution prohibits the banning of religious headgear, but what should
be understood is that this doesnt mean that the Commonwealth and for that any State/Territory cannot ban
Banning Islamic Headdress, the Niqab and Burka!
Let me explain: HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the
honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by contrast to put me on the very lowest. At
all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to obtain his rights and liberties, would have to
go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which
occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed
against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in regard to their pig-tails, which they regard with
exceptional reverence. That law was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. END QUOTE
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under
this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am
trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had
another motive. END QUOTE. Then considering that ordinary numerous legal provisions require a person to
remove head cover, hoodies, etc, for security reasons such as banks, swearing/affirming an Affidavit/Declaration
then it would be a violation of s116 not to demand the same for people claiming to have religious objections to do
so. Page 78 Justice of the Peace NSW Handbook 2014 Appendix E: Accommodating religious or cultural beliefs Re
Seeing the persons face statutory declarations and affidavits QUOTE You must see the face of the person making
the statutory declaration of affidavit (see Step 2 of Section 2.1 on page 9 or Section 2.3 on page 23, as applicable).
Religious beliefs or cultural practices are not a special justification for a person not removing he/her face covering.
However, if possible, you should make reasonable efforts to accommodate the persons beliefs, such as: END
QUOTE
As such the petition by Senator Malcolm Roberts at, Leon.ashby@aph.gov.au The Petition Link is,
https://www.change.org/p/senate-and-government-of-australia-immediately-ban-the-wearing-of-the-islamicheaddress-the-niqab-and-burka-in-australia in my view is within the provisions of s116 permissible and indeed
appropriate. One cannot selectively deny a person to have a face cover based upon religion, as if national or other
security requirements demands that one has to remove a helmet, etc, when entering a bank or other facilities
then the same should apply for any who claim religious exemptions that the religious exemption cannot apply.
Unlike the pig tail incident this is where for many years one has to remove facial coverings to enter a bank, etc, and
as such it is a security issue and not a interference to a persons religious or non-religious beliefs and practices.
The fact that some people may not desire to remove their facial coverings cannot excuse them.
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 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. END QUOTE
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 !)

END QUOTE 22-9-2016
QUOTE 15-7-2016
Cowards hiding behind security while leaving the public at risk for their warmongering.
p22
1-11-2016
The documents can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/318379891/20160715-Press-Release-Mr-g-h-Schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-Issue-Rethe-Failure-in-National-Security-Etc-the-Constitution
ISSUE: 20160715 - Re THE FAILURE IN NATIONAL SECURITY, etc & the constitution
AS A CONSTITUTIONALIST MY CONCERN IS THE TRUE MEANING AND

APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION .
Seeing the pictures beamed from Nice, France about the carnage one obviously wonder how on earth could this
have happened. Why were there no road blocks in place to prevent this? I understood some decades ago a person
making known how easy it would be to drive a gas tanker into Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne, and blow it up,
causing huge casualties. It was not a person who had any terrorist connections. What we have done is politicians
like John Howard, Tony Abbott, Julie bishop Senator George Brandis, and heaps others including the then General
Peter Cosgrove defying constitutional limitations/prohibitions as I view it, going out bigtime onto mass murder,
crimes against humanity, terrorism, war crimes, etc in Iraq and well nothing was done to hold them legally
accountable. Little wonder that there are elements who then hold it they will pursue their reign of terror in
response. Politicians will tell people to go on normally, while they DONT because they are hiding behind a curtain
of security so that they are safe and let the innocent citizen suffer the horrors inflicted upon them. Politicians are
the cowards who claimed to make the world a safer place while in fact making it far worse.
Nice clearly lacked proper security as to prevent a truck to enter where people had their festivities. Then one has
to look upon any major city and wonder is the same possible in Australia, and regretfully this is possible. Take
Bourke Street, Melbourne, where it is a pedestrian mall but the trams are going through it and so delivery
vans/trucks. Instead of warmongering politicians hiding behind a security curtain the monies of this security curtain
would be better spend such as road buffers to be fitted into the ground. For example to prevent a truck to enter a
mall using the tram tracks a heavy duty buffer is coming up after a tram has passed through preventing any vehicle
to enter using the tram tack. This steel buffer can be raised and lowered into the ground as to allow safe passage
for trams and emergency vehicles but not for other vehicles unless someone with security clearance were to
manually let the buffer to sink into the ground for any delivery vehicle to enter. It means that in times of public
celebrations those buffers can be raised above ground and so become a security for those celeb rating in the area.
Such kind of devices could be fitted on any road where at times it requires to be closed of regarding sporting
events, parades, etc. A proper system would facilitate such buffers to prevent motorist to use tram tracks while the
tram can engage the buffer to be lowered when it comes nearby so the tram can pass through. This is the kind of
security system that should exist at the very least. To expect a police officer facing a truck coming towards him to
stop it is lunacy. There must be a system of buffer that can be sufficient to stop a heavy truck in its tracks and
prevent what eventuated in Nice to eventuate in Australia. Instead of having bollard or other material transported
to and from the area, by building buffers that can drop down into the ground when not needed or obstructing
otherwise a tram from passing, this would be a far better manner. I understand that in some countries they use
massive kind of buffers to redirect the sea flow to avoid floodings. The shape is like that of a sliced of an orange
hinging at the thinner edge. Also, we had this media report that some person allegedly heavily involve in preaching
jihad or at least promoting issue to it nevertheless continue to do so. I view that any person doing so should be
deemed to place national security of citizens at risk and by this should be charged accordingly.
No excuses as a purported religious freedom, because s116 was never for this to be used!
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
p23
1-11-2016
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 . I T IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS MIGHT MAKE LAWFULL PRACTICES WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED . TAKE , FOR INSTANCE , THE H INDOOS . O NE 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 time for religious excuses are over. Religion is as the Framers of the Constitution made clear:
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
Therefore, as long as a person practice religion privately without causing any disturbance to another person then
this can be tolerated, however if the person seeks to do it in a manner that can or will be harmful to anyone else
then it no longer can be deemed to be protected by s116 of the constitution. We have a so called Western society
where women are equal to men and we must not under the guise of any religious excuse tolerate any women to
be denied the equality. Being it to be denied freely to move about as any other woman, to be covered up in public,
etc.
END QUOTE 15-7-2016
QUOTE 20151011-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ISSUE - Is a Mosque constitutionally permissible to exist
within Australia
ISSUE: Is a Mosque constitutionally permissible to exist within Australia?

There will always be people who will have issues with the way others lives their lives, but to me as a
CONSTITUTIONALIST my first concern is what is constitutionally appropriate.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 CONSTITUTION CONVENTION DEBATES MR. DEAKIN.- QUOTE WHAT A CHARTER OF LIBERTY IS EMBRACED WITHIN
THIS BILL-OF POLITICAL LIBERTY AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY-THE 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 AS SUCH THOSE
WHO ARE MUSLIMS ARE ENTITLED TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention) Mr. HIGGINS.- QUOTE "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; END QUOTE
We then have to consider for example:
p24
1-11-2016
http://www.wernercairns.com/2015/03/why-oppose-building-of-mosque.html QUOTE What is a mosque? It is

vitally important to understand what a mosque represents in Islam. A mosque is not like a church or a temple, it is
much more than a place for Muslims to simply worship their God (Allah). Mosques are modelled on the first
mosque established by Mohammed in Medina which was a seat of government, a command centre, a court, a
military training centre and an arms depot. END QUOTE
http://www.wernercairns.com/2015/03/why-oppose-building-of-mosque.html QUOTE Turkey. The Prime Minister
of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, understood the military nature of a mosque when he stated: A mosque is our
barracks, the domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets and the faithful are our soldiers." END QUOTE
In my view the following quotations make it very clear that the purpose and usage of Mosque is within the
legislative powers of the Commonwealth as well as the states to legislate against it, without violating s116.
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. END QUOTE
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. END QUOTE
Section 114 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) A State shall not, without the consent of
the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force. Allowing and even funding
(using taxation) a so called religious arms depots to be built surely is not only irresponsible but criminal, and
endangering those residing nearby or elsewhere! Hence, no council/court can permit this, as it cannot overrule
the embedded legal principles of the constitution. It is not the individual right to engage in the Islamic religion
personally that is in question, but the use of a Mosque to exert extremist conduct upon those attending and/or
others that causes the violation of the embedded legal principles of the constitution. Too late for an Iman to argue
this usage should be stopped as it never should have been allowed in the first place. The fact that it was used for
extremist propaganda, etc, makes it clear that this Mosque usage is unconstitutional, this as it also undermines the
legal principles in the (federal) constitution of a governance by elected representatives, etc. Here we have
terrorism legislation in avalanches upon the general community, while unconstitutionally Mosque are allowed to
exist undermining our constitutional principles, rights and protections. What should be understood is that Mosque
are not places of worship for women, and as such not at all a general place of exercise of religion. Hence, to close
down Mosque is not to obstruct a person to exercise their personal faith, but is rather for State and
Commonwealth national security permitted and justified. In my view any bank that directly/indirectly supports
Mosque being build, intended or otherwise, supports extremism/terrorism, and should be held legally accountable
for this!
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!)
END QUOTE 20151011-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ISSUE - Is a Mosque constitutionally permissible to

exist within Australia
p25
1-11-2016
QUOTE 20151008-PRESS RELEASE Mr G.H. Schorel-Hlavka Re Why a 'religion' building a Mosque never could justify
not-for-profit tax exemption status
ISSUE: Why a religion building a Mosque never could justify not-for-profit tax exemption status!
Our Framers of the Constitution made clear: Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE MR. REID.-I SUPPOSE THAT MONEY COULD NOT BE PAID TO ANY CHURCH UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION? MR. BARTON.-NO; YOU
HAVE ONLY TWO POWERS OF SPENDING MONEY, AND A CHURCH COULD NOT RECEIVE THE FUNDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH UNDER
EITHER OF THEM. END QUOTE
What we have however is that politicians have fallen over each other to harness votes for political
elections and so unconstitutionally permit religion to be used for tax exemption and fund the building or
religious arms depots, etc. Now with the surge of Muslims entering the Commonwealth of Australia
they use this now for their own benefits as to build as many mosque as they can. There are protest
against the Mosque and well those protestors are given all kind of names because those giving those
names themselves lack the intelligence and competence to understand what a Mosque purpose is.
Indeed, often they compare it with building of churches, temples, etc, whereas this is a totally deceptive
comparison.
QUOTE http://www.wernercairns.com/2015/03/why-oppose-building-of-mosque.html What is a mosque?
It is vitally important to understand what a mosque represents in Islam. A mosque is not like a church or a temple,
it is much more than a place for Muslims to simply worship their God (Allah). Mosques are modelled on the first
mosque established by Mohammed in Medina which was a seat of government, a command centre, a court, a
military training centre and an arms depot. Mosque leaders today raise religious decrees, enforce Islamic
doctrine, monitor conduct, punish transgressors and command actions including requirements to conduct Jihad.
END QUOTE In
my view any politicians, judge, municipal/shire councillor who support the building
of any Mosque is a traitor to the community. We are not having an issue with a Muslim praying
(Women are not allowed in a Mosque, and pray elsewhere!), but a Mosque is not the right place
for a Muslim to pray, at least not for one who is a decent and upstanding citizen and has no ill
feelings towards society. Ample of Muslims pray wherever where they have no access to a
Mosque, as much do for example Christians who have no access to a church building. My
20150318-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr TONY ABBOTT PM-Re What security
when it can be simply circumvented correspondence copies were also emailed to Bill
Shorten
Bill.Shorten.MP@aph.gov.au,
Daniel
Andrews
Premier
Victoria
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au, Senator George Brandis senator.brandis@aph.gov.au,
Mr Clive Palmer Admin@PalmerUnited.com, Jacqui Lambie senator.ketter@aph.gov.au, Frank
Chung frank.chung@news.com.au, George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au may have
been ignored by them, and well they are by this part of the problem and I consider have blood on
their hands, this as the killings continue, with Mosque being used in the process for this. Curtis
Cheng had a right to live and was brutally murdered and this because we have incompetent
politicians pretending to be a 21st Century Cabinet governance for absurd self-promotion
rather the acts as a constitutional required responsible government!
Section 114 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) A State shall not,
without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or
military force.
Allowing and even funding (using taxation) a so called religious arms depots to be built surely is not
only irresponsible but criminal, and endangering those residing nearby!
p26
1-11-2016
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/jake-bilardi-wrote-of-terror-and-death-in-his-online-blog/story-fni0fiyv1227260574271?sv=cb68939f458f2b4b5b671c931e2f662a&utm_source=Herald%20Sun&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial
Jake Bilardi wrote of terror and death in his online blog

I WAS GROWING TIRED OF THE CORRUPTION AND FILTHINESS OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY
AND YEARNED TO LIVE UNDER THE ISLAMIC STATE WITH THE MUSLIMS.
Let politicians (also a source of ongoing corruption) not try to keep themselves without blame of
the filth they are involved with, because they are as much a cause of problems with the rorting of
tax exemptions.
Stop the rot and prevent any taxation exemptions for military style kind of (religious)
places!
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!)
END QUOTE 20151008-PRESS RELEASE Mr G.H. Schorel-Hlavka Re Why a 'religion' building a Mosque never could
justify not-for-profit tax exemption status
The above stated ought to make it clear that politicians/lawyers/judges only serve the general
community when they foremost consider the constitutional rights of commonwealth citizen
above that of what they perceive to be the rights of self-promoted refugees, who are often, such
as in Europe, an unarmed mass invasion to take over a country.
The constitution of the commonwealth (USA and/or Commonwealth of Australia) was created
not for aliens but for the citizens in the territory it governs.
I will now quote a comment by Mr Colin Douglas. St Kilda (Victoria, Australia) to which my
attention was drawn:
QUOTE Mr Colin Douglas. St Kilda (Victoria, Australia)
ELECTIONS are policy contents, not personality contents. Donald Trumps personality may not be
everybodys cup of tea but the policies on immigration, national security, law and order, taxes, trade, and
political correctness are far superior to Hillary Clintons.
QUOTE Mr Colin Douglas. St Kilda (Victoria, Australia)
Therefore, politicians (executives and so also Members of the Parliament/congress) must

foremost always consider the safety and wellbeing of citizens before considering that of aliens.
Likewise so lawyers and judges!
If they do not then they betray the oath they made for their respective positions and could be
considered traitors. This, as each and every person only can be authorized to perform their
functions within the context of the constitution being the supreme law of the land.
As such, any legislation that is enacted within the confines of the constitution must be subjective
to the legal principles embedded in the constitution (written and unwritten) and cannot be used to
somehow override or otherwise undermine the true meaning and application of the constitution.
p27
1-11-2016
The politic al and religious freedoms embedded in the constitution neve r can be subjected to
legislation seeking to deprive in some manner this political and religious freedom for citizens. As
such, laws governing aliens must always be subjective to the political and religious freedoms any
citizen is entitled upon within the context of its constitution.
.
This means, that when an alien desires to enter a country but holds certain views as to
customs/traditions/doctrines that are contrary to the governing constitution and any legislation
designed to protect citizens their rights, then regardless if those customs/traditions/doctrines are
religious based or not the constitutional rights of existing citizens cannot be infringed upon and
as such the person must be denied citizenship/residence where deemed appropriate to do so.
It is not, as often is assumed, a religious test, rather it is a test on the persons
customs/traditions/doctrines that person adheres to.
One can have so calls radicals/fanatics in a religion/non-religion who will/may pusue to harm
others while other persons who are of the same religion/non-religion may have no association
with the extremist violent views in that regard. It is therefore not necessarily the religion but the
views expressed/adhered to that are of issue.
.
On 16 October 2016 I received the following email:
QUOTE 16-10-2016 EMAIL
STOPPING TERRORISM
People
Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com>
reader@hotmail.com.au
Today at 10:39
To
Hide
BCC
inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
MESSAGE BODY
Committee Secretary
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
pjcis@aph.gov.au
Dear Committee Members
The established rule of industrial and commercial investigation to solve problems is that when the root-cause of
the problem is identified you must find a way to prevent it reoccurring, otherwise massive cost and possible loss of
life result depending on the situationwhich applies equally in all instances of problem solving. Applying the
same principles to acts of terrorism the first consideration is to identify the root-cause and remove the incentive to
p28
1-11-2016
commit such act. As all the perpetrators are brainwashed into religious/political ideology which is the basis of their
actions and the (mistaken) belief that any such act will deem them a martyr and will guarantee a trip to (a
mythical) paradise (and 72 virgins): The object now is how to cancel their 'ticket' to this paradise.
As this ticket is applicable only after death, then it becomes an easy solution. Any terrorist killed must NOT be
given a religious burial, the body will NOT be returned to the family (as was the rule for executed prisoners where
the state retained the body with a disgraced unmarked burial in Quick-lime). With the terrorist body buried with
pig fat. Muslims detest pigs believing they are filthy animals, to eat or touch a pig or any pig products is to be
instantly barred from their mythical paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to Hell. Kill an Australian and you
will go to Hell, you get no considerations whatsoever and your body is desecrated. That alone will be a massive
deterrent.
As further deterrent to such associated criminal activity, prison food to be cooked with lard (pig fat)no halal food
to be provided ever; jail is not a holiday-home paid for by taxpayers where you can order food to your liking
(pizzas, ice creams etc.), you get what is served or nothing thats part of the penalty as further deterrentsuch
must be part of the anti-terrorist legislation. Losing your rights of free activity and choice is part of the
incarceration punishmentthere is a huge difference between punishment and penalty. Punishment is to inflict a
painful deterrent that worksPenalty is an inconvenience with free accommodation, clothing, laundry, good food
and far better medical treatment than they can get outside. We must put the lives of our Police and Prison
Officers and the public way ahead of offending any religious/political ideology sensitivities: Fanatics knowing they
will go to Hell is a powerful deterrent of terrorist acts against Police and public to keep out of jail.
The sensitive-new-age, political-correct, social engineers, do-gooders, mixed-genders and Greens will likely object
preferring instead to protect delicate Moslem sensitivities over the right of a stable, peaceful community and
sanctity of peoples liveswhen a terrorist kills a politician or bombs the Gay Mardi Gras (who they hate) then
suddenly the direction outlined above will be quickly implemented. Industry operates on Preventative
Maintenance, that is being smart enough with your forward planning to foresee problems and neutralise them
before they occur: Politics operate on Crash Maintenance, do nothing until the problem has wrecked such havoc
upon the community and destroyed many lives and businesses that politicians are forced to actif someone had
the intelligent foresight and strength to have acted immediately the havoc on many lives would not have occurred
and massive government expenditure would have been avoided.
Anyone, politicians or other who object to taking very serious practical steps to remove the incentives for terrorism
and crime, to stop primitive barbarous acts of cruelty and murder need to be publically named.
Should any religious/political groups, social engineers, Greens or do-gooders bellow objections, as law abiding
citizens they do not have anything to worry aboutthis is specifically a deterrent for terrorists and criminals
unless they are intending to become one? These provisions will never be applied unless you are a terrorist or
criminal; so good citizens need not have concern as it does not apply to them.
The government having the ability to cancel terrorists ticket to paradisethe basis of their terrorist activities, so
why arent they taking it, risking Police lives in the interim? By not enacting regulation to do this they are now
perpetuating terrorist ongoing activities by allowing them the vehicle to go to their mythical paradiseand to kill
other innocent victims and our Police in the processthey are complicit and are giving an incentive for these
horrific acts to continueas the gates to paradise is open for them irrespective of what horror they create: SHUT
THE GATE.
We are disgusted at the government not stepping up to stop terrorism acts, by cancelling the ticket to the mythical
paradise of would-be terrorists. You can only ever prevent problems by removing the root-cause, nothing else will
ever prevent a problem, whether it be industrial, mechanical, financial, physiological or terrorism.
p29
1-11-2016
The root-cause of terrorism is to become a Moslem Martyr Coldier of Allah and go to paradise and receive 72
virgins by killing an infidelthis is repeated all through the Quran their holy book. Should you want specific quotes
they can be read from the Quran.
We are appalled at the attitude of politicians weak responses on this issue, preferring the nurture of Muslim
fanatical religious/political ideology sensitivities over the lives of the Police and public. Cancel the ticked to
paradise and send terrorists to hell.
The people of Australia and decent Muslims are totally disgusted at rewarding terrorist Farhad Jabar the brutal
killer of gentleman Mr Curtis Cheng, at allowing the body of Jabar to be returned to his family for a religious
funeral and journey to the Muslim mythical paradise and 72 virginsexactly what the terrorists want dying a
martyr by killing an infidel. The Government has actually rewarded that mongrel terrorist creating further
incentive for other terroristswhat a disgraceful act that is a blatant insult to Mr Curtis Chengs family, the
Police and all Australians. In past times anyone sentenced to death by the state had their body confiscated and
given a disgraced burial in Quick-lime, as a further deterrent where their burial place could never become a
shrine or symbol for others of evil intentthis must be implemented against all terrorists or anyone killing
Police.
In todays madness the government actually rewarded the terrorist by allowing a religious funerala reward all
other potential terrorists would have noted in their fanaticism to become a martyr knowing they will go to
paradise because weak politicians prefer to pander to religious fanaticism in case they offend someone, instead of
immediately showing strength and unbending resolve to protect our citizens at any cost as it should be, without
any considerations whatsoever to the terrorist.
Much is now written about these shocking incidents and everyone has an opinionbut no answers to prevent it
re-occurring. It can be stopped relatively easily by shutting the gate to paradise and sending them to Hell with a
desecrated burial with pig fat.
No one is prepared to tackle the problem head-on because of its religious/political ideology base--if it were any
other subject there would immediately be preventative action taken. Unless we do this and stop 'kowtowing' to
fanatical minority groups who are openly saying The government and politicians are scared of us, we will only
exacerbate the problem until it gets completely out of hand with other serious terrorist activity and multiple Police
and political deathsunless we cancel the ticket to paradise we will deliberate sacrifice more lives through
inaction.
No wonder people are looking to Pauline Hansons One Nation and Nick Xenophon members to show some
leadership and respect our lives.
Sincerely
G J May
1 Kirklees Place
Forestdale 4118
16-10-2016
END QUOTE 16-10-2016 EMAIL
Again, as set out above, when alleged religious/non-religious conduct incites and/or manifest
harm upon others then it no longer is a religion between a person and his almighty under
whatever name this almighty might be referred to, but it is then outside religious context. This as
it is belong the persons personal views between this person and his/her almighty.
p30
1-11-2016
QUOTE Dr. QUICK (Victoria).If under a Constitution in which no such words as these appear such legislation has been carried, what
further danger will arise from inserting the words in our Constitution? I do not see, speaking in ordinary
language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily
a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God"
could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even
by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
END QUOTE
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
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.With this liberal stand firmly taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily over-ruled.
And now, sir, it will be observed that in the Constitution of the United States of America there was not any
such recognition in the preamble, and it is proposed that there shall be in our preamble. I am very sorry that
those who first propounded this addition to the preamble did not tell the people with what object it was to
be put in. They, no doubt, were perfectly fair and honest in their object, but they had read more than most
people as to what had happened in the state of America, and I think, in all frankness, the people ought to
have been told that there was a direct object and purpose in view. Now, in 1892 there was a decision in
regard to the New York difficulty which has put all the fat in the fire. It was this: There was a law passed by
the state of New York, which was to the effect that there should be no labour imported from abroad for
the purpose of employers in the state of New York. There happened to be a clergyman imported from
England to fill the pulpit of a church in Broadway, in New York, and it was urged that this clergyman was a
labourer imported from abroad.
Mr. SYMON.-A labourer from the vine-yard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-The vineyard idea strikes the honorable member forcibly, no doubt, after his experience as a
vigneron. The result was that the question as to whether this clergyman had not been imported against the
laws of the state of New York was brought up before several courts and gravely discussed. One court held
that it was a breach of the Act to import the clergy-man from abroad, but the Supreme Court of the states,
when the question was referred to it, held that it was not a breach of the law, and they also went on to say
that Congress never meant to interfere with the importation of clergy-men, because that was a Christian
country. And for the purposes of establishing that it was a Christian country all through the states of
America they went into elaborate charters and documents to show that from the first it had been a Christian
country, and of course they were able to show that most of the states had been founded by denominations
for the sake of their own adherents. But what happened in consequence of that decision? There has been a
recrudescence of religious strifes throughout the United States, which I could never have believed would
have happened-a lifting of banners of those who wish to impose, for instance, a compulsory sabbath all
through, in, and upon every state, and a lifting of the banner of those who oppose that movement.
p31
1-11-2016
Mr. FRASER.-Which side are you on?

Mr. HIGGINS.-I think the honorable member's interjection is beside the question, and wholly unfair. This
matter may be put upon broad grounds, and not upon the matter of differences between us. I think that our
feeling is that we ought not to do anything under this Constitution which will alienate from giving an earnest
"Aye" to this Bill a large body of honest and good people, if we can avoid that without at the same time
inflicting irreparable harm on the Constitution. I should prefer to rest on the fact that the powers of the
Federal Parliament are limited under the Constitution itself, and that the Federal Parliament has no power
to do anything except what is expressly given to it, or what is by implication necessary. But, although that
was the case when this clause was put in, if there is inserted in the preamble an express recognition of the
Almighty in [start page 656] the Constitution, the position which met the draftsmen of this clause will no
longer be applicable, inasmuch as there will be in the preamble of this Constitution a declaration of a
religious character, from which, as experience shows, a number of corollaries will be deduced, and upon
which attempts will be made, from time to time, to pass legislation of a character which I do not think we
intend to give the Federal Commonwealth power to pass. I think that, whatever is done in this matter, if
anything is done, ought to be done by the states. I do not think we ought to interfere with the right of the
states to do anything they choose, if they think fit to do anything; but I do think that in establishing this
Federal Commonwealth we ought to take care to reassure people that there will be no interference with
them. There is, I understand, in America, a large body of people called Seventh Day Adventists. There are a
few here. Rightly or wrongly, it is not for us to judge, they hold a theory that they are not obliged to keep
Sunday. They cannot afford two holidays in the week, and, therefore, they keep Saturday. Well, these
people in America are excited beyond bounds at the attempts which have been made since 1892 to
establish a compulsory Sunday in the United States. Here, these people are few in number, I believe-I do not
know much about them-but I understand that they are exceedingly troubled over the fact that through
putting the words in question in the preamble there may be an attempt to enforce the observance of
Sunday upon them, whereas they observe Saturday.
END QUOTE
It should be clear that while the commonwealth (USA and/or Commonwealth of Australia) are
prohibited to legislate as to religion it must be understood this relates to citizens and not aliens,
as aliens who do not reside within its borders as citizens cannot be deemed to be entitled upon
this provision and therefore cannot claim immunity for their alleged religious conduct that may
or does harm citizens. For this the commonwealth legitimately can restrict aliens from
abroad regardless if they are refugees/economic refugees to be subjected to what may be
perceived certain religious provisions but are actually national security requirements.
It should be understood that those who profess/professed violence against citizens are the real
culprits why certain security measurements are required, which may or may not include to
control the influx of aliens of certain religious view/doctrines.
In my view so called religious buildings that are used/misused for violent purposes or other
purposes to undermine the governing of the country must be deemed no longer protected by the
freedom of religion as they do not serve a pure religious purpose and scan be torn
down/dismantled as a warning to others that if you do not used the facilities for the right
purposes and/or allow others to misuse/abuse the facilities then you have to cop the
consequences. It makes every person who follows a particular religion/doctrine responsible for
making sure that extremist, etc, are not tolerated as if they do then they themselves are held
accountable and have lost the kind of freedom of religion ordinary associated with ordinary
citizens. This as by their silence, etc, they are implicated to any criminal conduct flowing from it.
QUOTE
p32
1-11-2016
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry. As
regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the
whole constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE
Using the system such as promoted by Mr Gil May cannot be deemed to be an interference in
regard of an exercise of religion because as set about above a persons personal religious
freedoms are not interfered with but when a person uses an excuse to use religion to commit
vile/violent acts against another person then it is beyond the religious freedom guaranteed by
the constitution and then such conduct as promoted by Mr Gil May might be applied where the
Executives hold this to be appropriate to do so.
The religious views deemed to apply to some that there are 72 virgins awaiting them after dead
when they have killed someone may cause one to wonder what kind of virgins are referred to
when upon dead one has no body as while alive on earth and so the promoted 72 virgins is an
illusion that cannot exist after death.
In my view any writings, regardless of deemed to be religious text, that incite/promote violence
can be deemed to fall foul on criminal legal provisions and then those kind of writings either are
banned altogether and/or are required to omit such passages that violates the legal principles
embedded in the constitution. Any barbaric passages legitimately as any other writings can be
subjected to legal requirements and the fact that it is being held to be religious writings itself
cannot be used as an excuse to promote such barbaric conduct.
It has got nothing to do with seeking to enforce morals of certain people upon others but to make
sure that any writings that contains barbaric passages is subjected to the same legal provisions as
non-religious writings.
Religious freedom/liberties cannot mean to permit one follower of a certain religion to deny the
religious freedom/liberty of another person who may or may not practice a religious view!
As such the rights upon religious freedom/liberty exist only for so far you do not
directly/indirectly seek to deny others their constitutional rights/liberties!
Perhaps you can compare this with Freedom of Speech. You can speak up, but you still can be
held liable for libel if you unduly and inappropriate, etc, attack another persons standing.
The exercise of any constitutional freedom/liberty for a citizen comes with the obligation to
exercise it wisely or lose it! As for aliens, they only can have those freedoms/liberties subject to
any legislative provisions and also subject to that it doesnt interfere/undermine the rights of
citizens. As such, I view that Mr Donald Trump can legitimately pursue the policies I understand
he promotes to make America a safer place for its citizens.
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!)
p33
1-11-2016

Constitutionalist: Who We Are As A People-The Syrian Refugee Question

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

Constitutionalist: Who We Are As A People-The Syrian Refugee Question

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ISSUE Religious doctrine issues-aliens, etc & the constitution?

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

Hansard 16-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

As to aliens (refugees, etc)

Politicians/lawyers/judges cannot undermine the constitutional rights of any citizen in the

Therefore the Executive (including the President/Prime Minister/Governor-General is bound to

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

The documents can be downloaded from:

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

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (OUR NAME IS OUR MOTTO !)

The documents can be downloaded from:

AS A CONSTITUTIONALIST MY CONCERN IS THE TRUE MEANING AND

ISSUE: Is a Mosque constitutionally permissible to exist within Australia?

http://www.wernercairns.com/2015/03/why-oppose-building-of-mosque.html QUOTE What is a mosque? It is

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

END QUOTE 20151011-PRESS RELEASE Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka ISSUE - Is a Mosque constitutionally permissible to

Jake Bilardi wrote of terror and death in his online blog

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

Therefore, politicians (executives and so also Members of the Parliament/congress) must

Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com>

Mr. FRASER.-Which side are you on?

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

Вам также может понравиться