Part 2

After all, if the Magistrate had ruled in my favour to declare the election invalid (to complicated to set it all out in this post but can be provided by email if you desire to have further details) and John Howard was not elected, then so was the rest of the Parliament never elected.
Consider the issue of going to war by a person never elected!

I am an expert in certain constitutional issues, such as electoral matters and in my 30 September 2003 book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

I did set out extensively what I am on about.

But, in the end, when a Magistrate is directed to defeat my case, and I am convicted for a crime committed on 1 January 2005, regardless no election then was held, without any need by the prosecutor to present evidence, then forget about how good Australia is in electoral matters.

This was more then 4 years of legal battles to prove the 2001 Federal election was invalid, and in the end it is the prosecutor directing the Magistrate what he can or cannot do.
While normally no one can be charged at the bar table, this too was ignored.
If I am going to have a conviction for failing to vote when no election was held, then at least it is now a precedent that a person can be charged at the bar table. Now, this means lawyers also can be charged, and loose their sanctity at the bar table.
At least, it was clear that John Howard was never elected as the elections were invalid, that was my point to prove! And, if the others neither were elected then all legislation enacted since are also NULL AND VOID.
And, there is a lot more to it, As John Howard not being elected and having authorized murderous invasion could cop for this also treachery, etc.
This time they picked on the wrong person!

Mr Schorel-Hlavka, are you trying to deceive by making apodictic claims about the intention of the framers of our constitution and the validity of government/s. There is the small matter of S51 of our constitution. Section 51 grants certain powers to the government and that would include the power to compel us to vote. In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote. You (the voter) are required to report to the local polling place and have your name crossed off a list. What you do with your ballot paper is up to you. If you do not mark your ballot paper you have not voted.

You could argue that the laws passed by our federal government are invalid and have been for some time because some MPs hold the passport of another country.

of course prisoners should vote.

What other class of people would those opposed to them continuing to exercise their rights like to ban from voting?

What about those convicted but given a non custodial sentence, or those guilty of civil wrong doing eg Steve Vizard and persons of that ilk.

Punishment is handed down through the court system and incarceration is enough.

In essence people need to think up a reason to deny prisoners the right to vote - not the other way around and so far all I have read is that they have committed a crime and therefore forfeit that right - that does not constitute an arguement just an empty statement of claim.
Prisoners continue to live work and operate within a society - they are in fact full particpants in the social process - they are in jail representaitng the imprisoned class and the outcome of being a scalliwag and thereby setting us an example of how not to behave.

Most of those opoosed to prisoners access to the ballot bax are, it would seem, driven by the principles of punishemnt based on revenge - the Hang'em high brigade. Beats me why people waste so much energy on hating criminals or wanting people dead.
And rommels' argument is just stupid

Aaron - re

“Col,

Can we extend that to include bribe taking, corrupt police officer's?
If so I would happily pull the trigger or the trap.

PS perhaps this final solution could also extend to SCABS / Blackbanned employers' (I ain't always all that supportive of the human rights of SCUM).”

The last time I looked, bribe taking police officers did not actually inflict a reduction in life expectancy or significantly diminished life quality or impart psychotic behaviour as the natural consequence of their crime.

As for those who suggest execution for what unionists might call “SCABS” or “SCUM”, I would remind you, unions are not elected under the common rules of universal suffrage. Thus, any criminal action proclaimed by a union is, by its very nature, socially defective and morally reprehensible.

You might dare suggest your proposal would find wide spread social support – so you can promote them if you wish and assure your future as the object of public ridicule.

I personally, doubt your proposal has any morality or democratic merit and will not.

However, I would speculate that executing drug dealing scumbags would find overwhelming public support and all we lack is the “political will” to implement it.

On a saner note – Sage “In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote.”

You are absolutely right.
“Attendance” is the 'tested event'. Anyone can discard or spoil the voting papers as they see fit. No one can force you to complete it – its one of the characteristics of secret ballots.

Col,

Sorry, I was simply responding to your hypothetical - let's hang all the druggies. I think that is a wonderful idea - lets also hang all alcoholics etc. (and why shouldn't corrupt police be included?), matter of fact we could extend to serial parking offenders (predominantly asian according to Ray Martin).

Additionally, i do not advocate any criminal action by union members etc. (or others). I simply advocate publishing details of the companies (and management thereof) including addresses, photos etc. This would also include any (and every person) crossing picket lines. I do not suggest that either the ALP / ACTU should advocate or engage in morally reprehensible conduct, but of course they could hardly be accountable for others doing so.

However, as recent lockouts have extended for many months (locked out employees' are neither paid nor eligible for benefits - therefore many have NO income), it is inevitable that tempers may be frayed, WHAT CAN I SAY - IF YOU ATTACK WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES BE AWARE THAT YOURS MAY BE TARGETED. I do not advocate it, but I certainly cannot prevent it, people will not be targeted because they were identified - they will be targeted because of what they have done.

Well, that's a novel idea, Sneaky Peter. I never heard that one before.

So, criminals are providing some sort of public service by being bad examples, eh? Naturally, we should not take the vote off such public spirited people who only have the communities interest at heart.

I'll bet even Debra Parks winced at that argument.

Are you trying to do me out of a job by being the best argument I have got? You could probably do more for Debbie's cause by being on my side.