As November 30th creeps closer around the corner, are you frightened by the new invasive Director's ID requirements? And you want to know how to keep your private information safe?
If the answer is yes, watch this free in-depth training with Warren Black where you learn the 5 strategies to deal the Director's ID.
https://youtu.be/BTGVXTrPm6Q
If the answer is yes, watch this free in-depth training with Warren Black where you learn the 5 strategies to deal the Director's ID.
https://youtu.be/BTGVXTrPm6Q
YouTube
DIRECTOR'S ID - The 5 Strategies To Deal With It
As November 30th creeps closer around the corner, are you frightened by the new invasive Director's ID requirements? And you want to know how to keep your private information safe?
If the answer is yes, watch this free in-depth training with Warren Blackโฆ
If the answer is yes, watch this free in-depth training with Warren Blackโฆ
๐20๐3โค1
Forwarded from Time For Change
To all Victorians. You need to watch carefully to whom Dan Andrews swears his Oath or Affirmation.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK requires him to swear his oath or Affirmation to Queen Victoria the second or her Aires and successors. So who is he going to swear to? He can't swear it to anyone because Queen Elizabeth is gone and Prince Charles has not taken his oath of coronation. Therefore there is no Aires or successors. If he swears to The Queen/king of Australia or His/her royal majesty/highness or any other fictional created corporation figure/description than he is swearing his other to a private corporation and not the Commonwealth of Australia.
That's the time to make some real noise and pull the masquerading government apart. Don't let them swear a oath/Affirmation to a private corporation again and get away with it.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK requires him to swear his oath or Affirmation to Queen Victoria the second or her Aires and successors. So who is he going to swear to? He can't swear it to anyone because Queen Elizabeth is gone and Prince Charles has not taken his oath of coronation. Therefore there is no Aires or successors. If he swears to The Queen/king of Australia or His/her royal majesty/highness or any other fictional created corporation figure/description than he is swearing his other to a private corporation and not the Commonwealth of Australia.
That's the time to make some real noise and pull the masquerading government apart. Don't let them swear a oath/Affirmation to a private corporation again and get away with it.
๐122โค1
He's got a point. Not one whole police force stood up and said ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT. We're not doing it!!!
I guess that means they'll all be held liable when shit hits the fan...๐๐๐
I guess that means they'll all be held liable when shit hits the fan...๐๐๐
๐45๐ฅ2โค1๐1
Forwarded from Dave Oneegs Aussie chat ๐ฌ
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
50 seconds
TATE ON COMMUNIST AUS
๐ณโ๏ธ๐ค๐ฆ๐บ๐ฎโโ๏ธ
Iโm not a huge fanโฆ
but Tate nails it every now and then in a big way.
I think the most shocking thing is, like he said,
that so few spoke out.
It wasnโt just amongst the police tho.
Every institution turned out to be filled with state worshipping, order followers who really didnโt care what damage they did.
Still canโt wrap my head around it.
What the hell happened to Australia ๐ฆ๐บ? ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐๐๐
TATE ON COMMUNIST AUS
๐ณโ๏ธ๐ค๐ฆ๐บ๐ฎโโ๏ธ
Iโm not a huge fanโฆ
but Tate nails it every now and then in a big way.
I think the most shocking thing is, like he said,
that so few spoke out.
It wasnโt just amongst the police tho.
Every institution turned out to be filled with state worshipping, order followers who really didnโt care what damage they did.
Still canโt wrap my head around it.
What the hell happened to Australia ๐ฆ๐บ? ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐๐๐
๐73๐ฅ11๐ฏ7๐5
Forwarded from Dave Oneegs Aussie chat ๐ฌ
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
1 min 40
๐ตโ๐ซ๐โ๏ธ๐ฆ๐บ
Alex Antic on the rise of the the surveillance matrix in Aus.
Heโs brilliantโฆ
but can it even be stopped???
๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐
๐ตโ๐ซ๐โ๏ธ๐ฆ๐บ
Alex Antic on the rise of the the surveillance matrix in Aus.
Heโs brilliantโฆ
but can it even be stopped???
๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ๐
๐87โค23๐11๐ฅ5
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
0๏ธโฃ CHALLENGE UNSUCCESSFUL.
The Constitutional challenge - by Pastor Paul Robert Burton and Dr. Andrew Katelaris - of s.105 of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act1998 was unsuccessful in the N.S.W Supreme Court of Appeals.
Stay tuned for the HIGH COURT challenge!!
The judges (x3 - led by Kirk, J.A) decision and rationale for determination is attached and given in brief below.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
The Constitutional challenge - by Pastor Paul Robert Burton and Dr. Andrew Katelaris - of s.105 of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act1998 was unsuccessful in the N.S.W Supreme Court of Appeals.
Stay tuned for the HIGH COURT challenge!!
The judges (x3 - led by Kirk, J.A) decision and rationale for determination is attached and given in brief below.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
๐16โค1
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
1๏ธโฃBurton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] NSWCA 242.
Bell CJ
Leeming JA
Kirk JA
โ๏ธ"Not a personal right" and, thus, "a protected freedom" (as at [19]).โ๏ธ
JUDGMENT.
KIRK. J. A.
BACKGROUND.
[12] Even if the separation of powers
found in Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution
applied at the State level (which it does not: see Lazarus v Independent Commission Against Corruption (2017) 94 NSWLR 36; [2017] NSWCA 37 at [106]), there is no difficulty in the Executive altering the title of an office holder and deeming references to the former office to be references to the renamed office.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.
[14] The principles relating to the constitutional limitation are well-established.
There is implied in the Constitution a limitation on (at least) legislative power protecting the freedom to discuss government and political matters: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; [1997] HCA 25.
That freedom must not be unjustifiably burdened.
[15] Like many constitutional requirements in Australia and elsewhere, the freedom is not absolute. It may be curtailed by laws which are directed to achieving competing objectives.
That has resulted in the need to articulate some test or guide for what types of infringement are permissible. An ongoing majority of the High Court has adopted the โstructured proportionalityโ test to fulfil this need:
see McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178; [2015] HCA 34 at [2] per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ; and, most recently, Farm Transparency International Ltd v New South Wales (2022) 96 ALJR 655; [2022] HCA 23 at [29] per Kiefel CJ and Keane J, [250] per Edelman J, [269] per Steward J, [271] per Gleeson J.
[16] The Lange test, as understood to incorporate structured proportionality, involves addressing the following questions:
1. Does the impugned law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, operation or effect? If not, the inquiry ends.
2. If so, is the purpose of the law legitimate, in the sense of being compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government? If the purpose is not legitimate, the measure is invalid. If it is legitimate, it is necessary to address the next question.
3. Can the burden on the freedom imposed by the law be characterised as justifiable? That involves testing the law by way of a structured proportionality analysis, which raises the following issues:
a) Is the law suitable to achievement of the purpose, in the sense of having a rational connection to that purpose?
b) Is the burden on the freedom necessary, in the sense that there is no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose
which has a less restrictive effect on the freedom?
c) Is the law adequate in its balance, that is to say, not unduly burdensome on the freedom taking account of the importance of the purpose served by the restrictive measure and the extent of the restriction it imposes on the freedom?
[18] Applying the test is not a purely mechanical exercise, and a clear focus on the constitutional guarantee at issue should be retained.
a finding that a law is not rationally directed to achieving the identified legitimate end may suggest that in fact the purpose of the law should be characterised in a different way, such that in truth the purpose of the law was not legitimate.
Bell CJ
Leeming JA
Kirk JA
โ๏ธ"Not a personal right" and, thus, "a protected freedom" (as at [19]).โ๏ธ
JUDGMENT.
KIRK. J. A.
BACKGROUND.
[12] Even if the separation of powers
found in Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution
applied at the State level (which it does not: see Lazarus v Independent Commission Against Corruption (2017) 94 NSWLR 36; [2017] NSWCA 37 at [106]), there is no difficulty in the Executive altering the title of an office holder and deeming references to the former office to be references to the renamed office.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.
[14] The principles relating to the constitutional limitation are well-established.
There is implied in the Constitution a limitation on (at least) legislative power protecting the freedom to discuss government and political matters: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; [1997] HCA 25.
That freedom must not be unjustifiably burdened.
[15] Like many constitutional requirements in Australia and elsewhere, the freedom is not absolute. It may be curtailed by laws which are directed to achieving competing objectives.
That has resulted in the need to articulate some test or guide for what types of infringement are permissible. An ongoing majority of the High Court has adopted the โstructured proportionalityโ test to fulfil this need:
see McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178; [2015] HCA 34 at [2] per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ; and, most recently, Farm Transparency International Ltd v New South Wales (2022) 96 ALJR 655; [2022] HCA 23 at [29] per Kiefel CJ and Keane J, [250] per Edelman J, [269] per Steward J, [271] per Gleeson J.
[16] The Lange test, as understood to incorporate structured proportionality, involves addressing the following questions:
1. Does the impugned law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, operation or effect? If not, the inquiry ends.
2. If so, is the purpose of the law legitimate, in the sense of being compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government? If the purpose is not legitimate, the measure is invalid. If it is legitimate, it is necessary to address the next question.
3. Can the burden on the freedom imposed by the law be characterised as justifiable? That involves testing the law by way of a structured proportionality analysis, which raises the following issues:
a) Is the law suitable to achievement of the purpose, in the sense of having a rational connection to that purpose?
b) Is the burden on the freedom necessary, in the sense that there is no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose
which has a less restrictive effect on the freedom?
c) Is the law adequate in its balance, that is to say, not unduly burdensome on the freedom taking account of the importance of the purpose served by the restrictive measure and the extent of the restriction it imposes on the freedom?
[18] Applying the test is not a purely mechanical exercise, and a clear focus on the constitutional guarantee at issue should be retained.
a finding that a law is not rationally directed to achieving the identified legitimate end may suggest that in fact the purpose of the law should be characterised in a different way, such that in truth the purpose of the law was not legitimate.
๐13
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
2๏ธโฃSECTION 105 IN CONTEXT.
[30] Thus it has been held that the prohibition only applies when there is some connection in the publication or broadcast between identification of the child or young person on the one hand, and on the other pending, contemplated or completed proceedings, non-court proceedings or a relevant report: Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWSC 6 at [39]-[40] (Smith SC) per Brereton J; Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 (Smith CA) at [46]-[49] per Gleeson JA, for the Court.
There was a suggestion by the amici that this construction was wrong.
In my view the construction is plainly right.
[31] The prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of an โofficial reportโ of the proceedings of the Childrenโs Court: s 105(3)(a).
[34] ...it is notable that s 10(1) of the Act identifies certain responsibilities of the Secretary which exist in order to โensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her lifeโ.
[36] In summary, the section creates a strict liability offence prohibiting publication or broadcast (directed to the public or a section of the public in a form accessible in this State) of the name, picture or identifying information of a child or young person who is involved (or reasonably likely to be involved) in proceedings in the Childrenโs Court or in related dispute resolution procedures, or who is the subject of a relevant report related to their welfare, and where there is a connection in the publication or broadcast between the identification of the child and the relevant proceeding, procedure or report. The prohibition applies until the child or young person is 25 years old, unless they die first.
There are various ways that consent can be given to publication or broadcast, including by the person themselves from when they reach the age of 16.
"Strict liability offences allow for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact" as at [64] (1).
[30] Thus it has been held that the prohibition only applies when there is some connection in the publication or broadcast between identification of the child or young person on the one hand, and on the other pending, contemplated or completed proceedings, non-court proceedings or a relevant report: Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith [2017] NSWSC 6 at [39]-[40] (Smith SC) per Brereton J; Secretary, Dept of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 (Smith CA) at [46]-[49] per Gleeson JA, for the Court.
There was a suggestion by the amici that this construction was wrong.
In my view the construction is plainly right.
[31] The prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of an โofficial reportโ of the proceedings of the Childrenโs Court: s 105(3)(a).
[34] ...it is notable that s 10(1) of the Act identifies certain responsibilities of the Secretary which exist in order to โensure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her lifeโ.
[36] In summary, the section creates a strict liability offence prohibiting publication or broadcast (directed to the public or a section of the public in a form accessible in this State) of the name, picture or identifying information of a child or young person who is involved (or reasonably likely to be involved) in proceedings in the Childrenโs Court or in related dispute resolution procedures, or who is the subject of a relevant report related to their welfare, and where there is a connection in the publication or broadcast between the identification of the child and the relevant proceeding, procedure or report. The prohibition applies until the child or young person is 25 years old, unless they die first.
There are various ways that consent can be given to publication or broadcast, including by the person themselves from when they reach the age of 16.
"Strict liability offences allow for a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact" as at [64] (1).
๐7
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
3๏ธโฃRESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO S.105
An effective burden.
[39] In Lange at 561 the Court said:
Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power
to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament.
Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service.
It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature.
[42] The appellants also raised an issue about persons wanting to protest the treatment of children who have been removed โ such as, for example, raising concerns about the sexual abuse of foster children.
The amici noted that it is significant that s 105 extends to the indirect identification of children. They suggested that this meant that a parent of a removed child could not raise such a protest because to do so would be to identify their child. The appellants submitted that the section โeffectively silenc[ed]โ parents or caregivers of removed children.
That is an overstatement. In such cases it would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person. It may be accepted that, at the least, the parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful in how they articulated any such public criticism or discussion.
"Foster children" = THEIR (the parent's) CHILDREN!
โ๏ธ"It would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast...[by] ...the parent or caregiver concerned...is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person".
"The parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful" indeed...
HOW IS A PARENT TO NOT IDENTIFY THE CHILD WHEN THAT 'CHILD' (OR YOUNG PERSON) IS THEIR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER?!!
[43] The appellants relied in the Court below on various affidavits illustrating the concerns that parents of removed children, or people who had been removed themselves, held about the State care system.
It is not necessary to address that material in any detail. Some of it was scurrilous.
โ๏ธ "It is not necessary to address that material in any detail" [43]
VS
โEnsure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her lifeโ [34].
[47] Taking account of the practical effects of the law means identifying the effects of the law, properly construed, in the real world of human action.
The burden on the freedom is justified
SUITABILITY.
[57] The amici accepted that s 105 was suitable to achieve the purpose in question. But they sought to argue that there was a broader purpose at play in the context of the Act, namely promoting the best interests of the child or young person. They submitted that it is not the case that protecting the identity of those involved was necessarily always in their best interests, for example, if they had been improperly removed or were being mistreated after removal. That argument characterises the purpose at too high a level of generality. The focus of the provision is more specific. If the argument is that the provision goes further than is necessary, that is really a necessity or balancing argument.
It does not mean that the provision is not a rational means of achieving the identified end.
An effective burden.
[39] In Lange at 561 the Court said:
Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power
to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament.
Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service.
It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature.
[42] The appellants also raised an issue about persons wanting to protest the treatment of children who have been removed โ such as, for example, raising concerns about the sexual abuse of foster children.
The amici noted that it is significant that s 105 extends to the indirect identification of children. They suggested that this meant that a parent of a removed child could not raise such a protest because to do so would be to identify their child. The appellants submitted that the section โeffectively silenc[ed]โ parents or caregivers of removed children.
That is an overstatement. In such cases it would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person. It may be accepted that, at the least, the parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful in how they articulated any such public criticism or discussion.
"Foster children" = THEIR (the parent's) CHILDREN!
โ๏ธ"It would be a question of fact whether or not the publication or broadcast...[by] ...the parent or caregiver concerned...is likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person".
"The parent or caregiver concerned would have to be careful" indeed...
HOW IS A PARENT TO NOT IDENTIFY THE CHILD WHEN THAT 'CHILD' (OR YOUNG PERSON) IS THEIR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER?!!
[43] The appellants relied in the Court below on various affidavits illustrating the concerns that parents of removed children, or people who had been removed themselves, held about the State care system.
It is not necessary to address that material in any detail. Some of it was scurrilous.
โ๏ธ "It is not necessary to address that material in any detail" [43]
VS
โEnsure that a child or young person is able to participate in decisions made under or pursuant to this Act that have a significant impact on his or her lifeโ [34].
[47] Taking account of the practical effects of the law means identifying the effects of the law, properly construed, in the real world of human action.
The burden on the freedom is justified
SUITABILITY.
[57] The amici accepted that s 105 was suitable to achieve the purpose in question. But they sought to argue that there was a broader purpose at play in the context of the Act, namely promoting the best interests of the child or young person. They submitted that it is not the case that protecting the identity of those involved was necessarily always in their best interests, for example, if they had been improperly removed or were being mistreated after removal. That argument characterises the purpose at too high a level of generality. The focus of the provision is more specific. If the argument is that the provision goes further than is necessary, that is really a necessity or balancing argument.
It does not mean that the provision is not a rational means of achieving the identified end.
๐6
Forwarded from National Education Workers (Cole the Sociologist)
4๏ธโฃNECESSITY.
[60] The amici submitted it would be sufficient for the Childrenโs Court to be able to make suppression and non-publication orders on an ad hoc basis pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). To the extent that did not cover all possibilities, they said, a narrower version of s 105 could have been enacted. The appellants made similar arguments.
[65] The amici also suggested that it would be possible to create a โpublic interestโ defence to s 105. The primary judge apprehended that the appellants made a similar type of argument below to the effect that persons who wished to identify children for the purposes of criticising the statutory system, and its implementation, should be permitted to do so. As his Honour observed at [109], in rejecting that argument, a regime based upon motivations would inevitably involve contestable subjective characterisations. As for both arguments, they would involve identification of a child or a young person in connection with the child welfare system based on another personโs own motivation or assessment of the public interest. That motivation or assessment would only then be assessed on an ex post facto basis by a court. The court might find that there was good justification, but it might not. By then the harm would have been done. Such a scheme would not achieve the protective purpose of the provision to the same extent.
[66] In sum, neither the amici nor the appellants have identified any obvious, compelling and less burdensome alternatives to s 105 which achieve its purpose to the same extent.
[71] Even so, there is a burden on the freedom. That not insignificant but limited burden is readily justified. Why should the important privacy interests of the vulnerable child or young person be overridden by the desire of a critic to use their case as an example?
The fact that the critic thinks themselves justified, and may even be the parent who has lost responsibility for their child, does not mean that there is no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the child in question.
If the protected child or young person thinks it is in their own interest for publication or broadcast to occur, they can consent to that from when they are 16.
โ๏ธUNTIL THEN THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE CUSTODY OF A PAEDOPHILEโ๏ธ
Prior to that time the Childrenโs Court can be asked to consent. In this context it is certainly not the case that โthe benefit sought to be achieved by the law is manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the implied freedomโ: cf Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [38].
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
[60] The amici submitted it would be sufficient for the Childrenโs Court to be able to make suppression and non-publication orders on an ad hoc basis pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). To the extent that did not cover all possibilities, they said, a narrower version of s 105 could have been enacted. The appellants made similar arguments.
[65] The amici also suggested that it would be possible to create a โpublic interestโ defence to s 105. The primary judge apprehended that the appellants made a similar type of argument below to the effect that persons who wished to identify children for the purposes of criticising the statutory system, and its implementation, should be permitted to do so. As his Honour observed at [109], in rejecting that argument, a regime based upon motivations would inevitably involve contestable subjective characterisations. As for both arguments, they would involve identification of a child or a young person in connection with the child welfare system based on another personโs own motivation or assessment of the public interest. That motivation or assessment would only then be assessed on an ex post facto basis by a court. The court might find that there was good justification, but it might not. By then the harm would have been done. Such a scheme would not achieve the protective purpose of the provision to the same extent.
[66] In sum, neither the amici nor the appellants have identified any obvious, compelling and less burdensome alternatives to s 105 which achieve its purpose to the same extent.
[71] Even so, there is a burden on the freedom. That not insignificant but limited burden is readily justified. Why should the important privacy interests of the vulnerable child or young person be overridden by the desire of a critic to use their case as an example?
The fact that the critic thinks themselves justified, and may even be the parent who has lost responsibility for their child, does not mean that there is no legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the child in question.
If the protected child or young person thinks it is in their own interest for publication or broadcast to occur, they can consent to that from when they are 16.
โ๏ธUNTIL THEN THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE CUSTODY OF A PAEDOPHILEโ๏ธ
Prior to that time the Childrenโs Court can be asked to consent. In this context it is certainly not the case that โthe benefit sought to be achieved by the law is manifestly outweighed by its adverse effect on the implied freedomโ: cf Comcare v Banerji (2019) 267 CLR 373; [2019] HCA 23 at [38].
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
๐6
Forwarded from Daily Bible Devotionals
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐31๐5๐1
Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines - and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struck down
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11479153/Redfern-Legal-Centre-WIN-Covid-fines-Supreme-Court-case-45-000-penalties-struck-down.html
Mail Online
Bombshell as two Aussies WIN their Supreme Court case over Covid fines - and it means as many as 45,000 penalties could be struckโฆ
Fines worth millions of dollars for Covid public health order breaches could be overturned following a landmark test case in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
โค57๐21๐7๐4
"After digging deeper into the cesspool, which means โfollow the moneyโ, I found Bill Gates has invested FORTY MILLION DOLLARS into Scytl software which is used in the finalising of an election here in Australia.(Queensland)"
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/11/30/remote-connection-software-installed-on-election-management-systems/
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/11/30/remote-connection-software-installed-on-election-management-systems/
www.cairnsnews.org
Remote connection software installed on election management systems - www.cairnsnews.org
Letter to the Editor The United States top voting machine maker has admitted in a letter to a federal lawmaker that the company installed remote-access software on election-management systems it sold over a period of six years, raising questions about theโฆ
๐คฌ43๐คฎ17๐9๐1
Forwarded from John F. Kennedy Jr.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
๐คฌ29๐ฅ3๐คฎ2
You have to ask yourself what it really going on with these people and have they all been jabbed?
All these headlines from articles came across my path in one night ๐ I know they're not in Australia however you will see the same thing happening here too soon enough, if not already.
I guess this is just the beginning of seeing this happen more regularly.
It might be someone you know, a loved one, a friend, a colleague or your favourite sportsman or sportswoman.
Apart from the first on shown on 28 Oct, all the others are in the last week...
28 October 2022 - Nikolas Mushegian, an early developer of MakerDAO, washed ashore on a Puerto Rican beach after an apparent drowning, just hours after tweeting about an alleged murder plot to take his life.
23 Nov 2022 - Captain of American Eagle Flight Dies From Suspected Heart Attack Just After Takeoff From Chicago O'Hare
27 Nov 2022 - Kullander is the second young crypto whiz to shock the industry with his death in recent weeks. Died suddenly in his sleep.
28 Nov 2022 - Okla. Red Dirt country musician unexpectedly dies hours after his wedding, community heartbroken.
28 Nov 2022 - Flight Attendant from Gulf Air Dies On Plane From Heart Attack.
28 Nov 2022 - Penn Hills paramedic dies after crashing ambulance, suffering medical emergency.
29 Nov 2022 - What Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin's death means for the new Congress.
All these headlines from articles came across my path in one night ๐ I know they're not in Australia however you will see the same thing happening here too soon enough, if not already.
I guess this is just the beginning of seeing this happen more regularly.
It might be someone you know, a loved one, a friend, a colleague or your favourite sportsman or sportswoman.
Apart from the first on shown on 28 Oct, all the others are in the last week...
28 October 2022 - Nikolas Mushegian, an early developer of MakerDAO, washed ashore on a Puerto Rican beach after an apparent drowning, just hours after tweeting about an alleged murder plot to take his life.
23 Nov 2022 - Captain of American Eagle Flight Dies From Suspected Heart Attack Just After Takeoff From Chicago O'Hare
27 Nov 2022 - Kullander is the second young crypto whiz to shock the industry with his death in recent weeks. Died suddenly in his sleep.
28 Nov 2022 - Okla. Red Dirt country musician unexpectedly dies hours after his wedding, community heartbroken.
28 Nov 2022 - Flight Attendant from Gulf Air Dies On Plane From Heart Attack.
28 Nov 2022 - Penn Hills paramedic dies after crashing ambulance, suffering medical emergency.
29 Nov 2022 - What Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin's death means for the new Congress.
๐40๐ข2
Forwarded from Cole the Sociologist
INSPECTOR_GENERAL_OF_INTELLIGENCE_AND_SECURITY_AND_OTHER_LEGISLATION.pdf
638 KB
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AND OTHER
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISATION) BILL 2022.
Human rights implications
4. The Billโs amendments would engage the following human rights contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
โข the prohibition on interference with privacy under article 17.
โข the right to freedom of expression under article 19.
โข the right to minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings under article 14(3)
Prohibition on Interference with Privacy.
Some of the Billโs measures engage the prohibition on interference with privacy in
article 17 of the ICCPR, which provides:
(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
9. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AE into the IGIS Act) would provide
an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), which would
permit agencies (specifically the Australian Federal Police) to share personal information
with the IGIS, engaging the right to privacy.
10. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AF into the IGIS Act) would allow
the IGIS to share information with other integrity bodies, and creates safeguards for
information sharing. This may involve the transfer of personal information to an entity
that it was not originally disclosed to, engaging the right to privacy.
The right against self-incrimination.
21. Some of the proposed measures engage the right not to incriminate oneself, which is
enshrined in article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, which states:
(3) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
22. This right is embedded in Australian common law and protects a person from being
compelled to disclose information or documents that would incriminate themselves.
Right to freedom of expression.
31. Some items in the Bill would engage the right to freedom of expression, set out in article
19(2) of the ICCPR:
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.
33. Under article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and
when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public
order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation, necessary
to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.
๐
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISATION) BILL 2022.
Human rights implications
4. The Billโs amendments would engage the following human rights contained in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
โข the prohibition on interference with privacy under article 17.
โข the right to freedom of expression under article 19.
โข the right to minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings under article 14(3)
Prohibition on Interference with Privacy.
Some of the Billโs measures engage the prohibition on interference with privacy in
article 17 of the ICCPR, which provides:
(1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
9. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AE into the IGIS Act) would provide
an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), which would
permit agencies (specifically the Australian Federal Police) to share personal information
with the IGIS, engaging the right to privacy.
10. Schedule 1, item 131 (which would insert section 32AF into the IGIS Act) would allow
the IGIS to share information with other integrity bodies, and creates safeguards for
information sharing. This may involve the transfer of personal information to an entity
that it was not originally disclosed to, engaging the right to privacy.
The right against self-incrimination.
21. Some of the proposed measures engage the right not to incriminate oneself, which is
enshrined in article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, which states:
(3) In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
22. This right is embedded in Australian common law and protects a person from being
compelled to disclose information or documents that would incriminate themselves.
Right to freedom of expression.
31. Some items in the Bill would engage the right to freedom of expression, set out in article
19(2) of the ICCPR:
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.
33. Under article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and
when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public
order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation, necessary
to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.
๐
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
๐31โค2๐ค1
MEANWHILE IN CANADA.
We may, often, measure & conpare what occurs here with Canada.
Just ask the First Peoples ('Orignals') of both lands..
In the post below we may find comparison with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (A.B.C).
See: Frontier Wars (Australia).
See also: Amanda Nettleback
See also: White blindfold/black armband
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
We may, often, measure & conpare what occurs here with Canada.
Just ask the First Peoples ('Orignals') of both lands..
In the post below we may find comparison with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (A.B.C).
See: Frontier Wars (Australia).
See also: Amanda Nettleback
See also: White blindfold/black armband
Cole the Sociologist
@SociologistCole
๐ฅ
๐13