The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Necessary tolerance of religious vilification > Comments

Necessary tolerance of religious vilification : Comments

By Peter Hodge, published 9/4/2008

It is usually better to err on the side of freedom of expression as much as possible and find a balance between freedom of speech and freedom from vilification.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
From onset I do wish to make clear that personally I oppose any form of discrimination but having stated so as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have covered in my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series that Aboriginals are now (since the 1967 referendum and subsequent legislation) belonging to the group of being an “inferior coloured race” who have no citizenship rights.
The States have no constitutional powers to legislate as to racism and as such any race vilification laws would be unconstitutional(ULTRA-VIRES).
.
THEY HAVE CERTAINLY NEVER TAKEN OUT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ME OVER THE YEARS FOR PUBLISHING MY BOOKS AS PERHAPS THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT THEY WOULDN’T GET ANYWHERE AGAINST ME.
. After all it is like the issue of people being forced to vote in federal elections. Well I refused (despite being a candidate) to vote in federal elections and after a 5-year legal battle on 19 July 2006 the County Court of Victoria upheld my cases on all constitutional and other legal grounds.
.
While the States retained the legislative powers as to religion, on the other hand the (then) Colony of Victoria legislated of a separation of Church and State with invoking its 1871 legislation to keep finances of religious bodies away from the colony (now State). The Framers of the constitution made clear that no monies could be provided to a religious body. Yet we have that (unconstitutionally) monies are provided by grants, tax deductions, etc.
.
No State legislation could possibly use its racial vilification laws to litigate against me for exposing this as what is embedded in the constitution is what I am guaranteed as a right, including the funding of religion being unconstitutional.
As I do not practice any religion I oppose my monies being used through Consolidated Revenue and/or tax deductions as de facto Appropriation Bills for religious purposes.
As for funding of religious schools it should be clear that students of religious schools have the same rights on funding for secular books, etc as should private schools have in likewise manner as a public school!
See also my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 10:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy