I think Judicial opinion depends on which side of politics the judge happens to come from.

If this were not so, there would be very little if not 'no' controversy over who is appointed to the body which interprets the constitution in the USA.

It seems clear that the president always chooses a person who reflects his/her social agenda.... history seems to confirm this.

LORRY

you said;

Under our Federal Constitution the people of Australia are the sovereign power.

If you only knew mate!

The biggest enemy to that sovereignty is the

Human Rights Commission of Victoria (and the Federal one)

In many recent submissions to the Attourney General, they are constantly arguing for the sovereignty of HUMAN RIGHTS LAW over our constitution/law.

Herr Szoke says this (re reverse discrimination)

*The Commission will remain accountable, fair and transparent in its dealings with the community.*

You may directly relate this to SATAN's wors to Eve "Did God say you will die if you eat that fruit? Nooooooo itwill make you WISE!

Her statement is an absolute LIE.. because I know from experience how HUMAN RIECH COMMISSARS work!

The whole *thing* is about 'getting our people into the commission' ('our' meaning her kind..and PC MC socialists)

Once you have the 'right' people there.. all you do is simply DECLINE any complaint which does not fit your political agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Recent_cases

Compare how the Canadian one treated the complaint of Chiv Chopra with the one against Al Hayati...

*watch..and learn* or..read it and weep.

The HR commission are hotbeds OF discrimination.. it seeps out like pus from a ripe boil...it oozes with contempt at the rest of the community.

There is NO QUESTION that the HREOC commissars are intent with flagrant disgregard for the Australian constitution and case law, to IMPOSE a foreign sovereignty onto this country in line with their Marxist PC/MC and globalist vision.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/submissions/2010/20100319_senate_scrutiny.html#Heading65

* Require Parliament to scrutinise Bills introduced into the Parliament for compatibility with the rights recognised in the Charter

The Charter of Rights should require legislation (whether primary or subordinate legislation) to be compatible with the rights recognised in the Charter. HREOC supports the Attorney-General being obligated under the Charter in respect of Bills presented to the Parliament by a Minister to prepare a compatibility statement stating whether the Bill is consistent with the Charter of Rights.

IE... in plain language TURF OUT THE AUSSIE CONSTITUTION, SHRED IT.. RIP IT UP.. BURN IT and use it for toilet paper!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vheDsYQfF40

You might find some interesting relevant material in that video.
It focuses partly on Islam, but within the context of "Human Rights" commissions and objectives.

This one is also useful. I love the bit where Bob Brown defends "Muslims" who, if in Iran would hang him by the neck until dead.
It's pure political opportunism.