Danielle,

I do not think you went of the topic as it is all interrelated.

As for how to deal with Howard, well while he might still be in power, my legal battles against him finishing at least in court with success on 19 July 2006 (after a 5-year protracted battle) indicates that in time he will be held accountable before the Courts.

If you have information about the 9 Afghanistan’s you belief were executed then can you pass on this information to me? I will then publish it in my next book.

What we had with Howard was that he claims “intelligence’ that he couldn’t disclose to justify an invasion but when it suits him he was willing to “disclose” intelligence. As such, I view he was manipulating it all.
If we were allow John Howard and his cohorts to TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, as they do now also with Aboriginals, then where with it stop?

That is why my books will be excellent reference material as anyone then can trace back certain material and use it in Court against Howard & cohorts.

And, for that matter any politician regardless of which political party they belong to.

We now have this detention with Dr Haneef and again a disregard for DUE PROCESS OF LAW as required constitutionally. They are fabricating their own unconstitutional DUE PROCESS OF LAW where there is none.

Our protection against TERRORISM is to ensure we do have a proper DEMOCRACY as if you allow this kind of TYRANNY/DICTATORSHIP as we are now under then you enhance TERORISM.

A PROPBLEM WITH LAWYERS IS THEY HAVE BEEN EDUCATED ON “LEGAL FICTION” AND WHEN FACED WITH “LEGAL FACTS” RATHER RELY UPON THE “LEGAL FICTION” THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO, AT THE DETRIMENT OF THEIR CLIENT(S).

MAY JUSTIVCE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

I will try and find the referrence about the Afghanis for you. I sent a comment to "letters to the editor" but cannot remember if it was published. However, I was very surprised that there wasn't a flurry of outrage by the public. I couldn't understand this ...

Unfortunately, we get the politicians we deserve. Until more people are willing to stand up and be counted, things will go along as much as at present.

This means that people must want to be educated and keep asking the hard questions; going much deeper than the local media provides. This also means an efficient way of demanding answers from politicians and also getting our own views across.

Aussies often say, they make their views known through the ballot box, or more actively through protest marches. Unfortunately I have known “protest marchers” who were quite ignorant about what they were protesting about. This immediately discredits this form of protest and they are often seen as nothing but yahoo trouble makers.

As you know I belong to a group of online dissidents, FREE IRAN, who want regime change, true democracy in Iran.

They do not want any form of invasion, nor conflict coming from outside. They want the world community to support their petitions and target significant organisations, especially the UN. They want Iran expelled from the UN until such time as the horrific human rights abuses are stopped - such as child execution, and stoning, where children are targeted if their fathers dare go on strike; - whilst those killing the mentally disabled can do so with impunity, as can fathers and grandfathers kill family members - the list goes on.

cont ...

Unlike the Iranian regime, these dissidents recognise Israel's right to exist. They condemn their regime which established, and finance the Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, the UN itself is problematic due to its composition. Arab counries are amongst the most wealthy in the world, and also are among the most influencial at the UN. Whilst Iranians are not Arabs, they are Muslim and some countries would share similiar ideas

These Iranians dissidents are extremely brave - the Iranian regime has very long arms.

Supporters are free to question, and also to decide which petition to put their names; and there is also a discussion group.

FREE IRAN
http://www.activistchat.com/

I am also a member of PEN, a worldwide organisation, which seeks to protect journalists and writers who expose and condemn their countries human rights abuses. Some of these dissidents are often executed, others tortured and gaoled. The aim of PEN is to seek the release of such people. However, I cannot but wonder what happens to these people, once freed.

As security is an issue in Australia, how best would you see security measures taken?
Obviously we can’t be complacent.

French philosopher, Bernard Henri-Levy said - that Europeans do not realize that terrorism doesn't stop on the border of France or Germany, and that to Islamic terrorists Paris and Berlin are capitals of America! This includes Australia.

This has been one of the more interesting debates on OLO.

Thank you for sharing your stories.

My family has been lastingly affected by WWII as well and I grew up with stories. At any family gathering a reference would be brought up.

My mother spent her entire teenage years in a concentration camp in Indonesia. Today, 60+ years later she can still cry on some subjects. Though from both of my parents I have learned to divorce the actions of a nation state from its people. As Gerrit, beautifully quoting Goering, observes, it is not that hard to convince citizens to go to war.

When Iraq was invaded my mother was almost beside herself with anger and grief. She knows what an invasion really means to the ordinary men, women and children.

In regard to Israel. To question what a democratic Western nation like Israel is doing does not equate with Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately Israel is judged to a much higher standard than her neighbours, but rightly so I believe.

Yvonne,
when ever I see a post of you I am thinking of my (step) daughter Yvonne (46). It is just a habit of mine.

Danielle,
I have just made new posting on my blog and you might just discover how the BLACKSHIRTS were going to follow up the Italian BLACKSHIRTS methods, was it not for more then a decade my effort to stop that. It is about the criminal and other inappropriate conduct of High Court of Australia judges!
What the article is about is that people in Australia (nothing to do with religion) are so frustrated with the lack of a proper legal system that they contemplate not just suicide/murder but even mass murder.
This is why I can UNDERSTAND, but do NOT approve of suicide bombers, etc. While I am personally against killing of a human being, I have always sought to be open minded to try to understand why people desire to commit suicide/murder, even mass murder.

That is why I do not hold much sway in the “religion” issue as while some might be Muslims, reality is that they are of all kind of religions and also those who do not have any religion and yet have all the same intentions.

Sure, there are at time religious zealots/fanatics who desire to do it for religion, but they are in all religions.
Our greatest error is to assume that criminals come from only a certain religion and/or group.
When I assist a person as an Attorney in their litigation then I take on the feelings of their religion (any religion), when relevant, and can feel the anger within, yet, as soon as I stop writing the felling is gone. Yet, people tell me that I have written precisely how they would have expressed it from their religious point of view. I find this very helpful to me to understand others what they are on about.

As for freedom of writing. Well, I for one write what I like and no government is going to block my writings!

I may dare to say; No-one-would-be-more-critical-on-Members-of-Parliament/lawyers/judges-as-I-am.

The issue of Australia’s security;

Regardless that I may not agree with all parts of the constitution, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” my primary issue is the real application of constitutional powers and limitations.

IF PEOPLE LIKE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THEN THAT IS FOR THEM TO DECIDE BUT UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY DO SO I SEEK TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.

How does this translate in Human Rights, etc?

Well, because I am a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” first, I understand far better what is applicable regarding Human Rights then many if not most Human rights supported do. As I did set out also on my blog, the European Union Human Rights provisions are applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia other then to Subsection 51(xxvi) to some degree.

The locking up of refugees in the Commonwealth Detention Centres is not to me Human Rights as a first priority rather that it is unconstitutional. Again, it is set out on my blog (and also my books)

Why argue about certain Human Rights conditions if you can cover the lot by exposing it is unconstitutional in the first place to put people in the Commonwealth Detention Centre?

If the so called Human Rights advocates were to follow what I have set out then they will give far more weight to their argument and what is better but to use the RULE OF LAW against the Government itself?

Constitutionally, refugees are not “illegal” at all, as unless they have been charged with a Commonwealth offence and been convicted by a State Court by “JUDICIAL DETERMINATION” they are not guilty of any illegal conduct.

Some Refugee lawyers, of the record, gave me the understanding “they do not want to rock the boat” to use constitutional issues. In my view, they are betraying their clients.

Ironically, our best protection against an invasion against refugees, and a lot cheaper, is to use the proper RULE OF LAW as constitutionally permissible! Just that his is not politically desired for a Government for re-election!
That’s-why-I-would-like-all-people-who-do-vote-for-independents-as-to-teach-those-belonging-to-a-political-party-a-lesson, that they are disposable and they better do the right thing to the community.