In a recent VCAT case, a judge pointed out that the Director of public housing had made an 'unlawful' application for an eviction order against a person and his son, staying illegally in a public house.

Residential tenancies law section 344 clearly spells out the legal right of the Director to make such application.

The reason Justice Bell declared it 'unlawful' was because of "Human Rights Law" which...according to him.. trumped Australian law.

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/residential_tenancies_list/$file/director_of_housing_v_sudi.pdf

What think ye ?

If Aussie "law" which was produced by our democratically elected representatives is declared UNlawful in favor of a different law which we did NOT vote for..... can anyone think of a word which describes such a state of affairs?

What we need is for the law makers to sit down in a 'royal commision' style arrangement and re-write every law from A-Z and put a little common sence into the equation while they are at it.

If all laws were spelled out in 'plain english', there would be little need for the blood sucking lawyers or the law society we call our justice system, as even the simple minded would have some idea of thier legal rights.

Someone get an alarm clock & wake up the Law reform Commission.

Was the "Human Rights" law referred to a result of an international treaty ?
If the treaty was ratified by parliament then it does over ride
Australian law.

Unfortunately many politicians are second class lawyers who do not understand ihe impact of phrases written into International laws that affect our standards and values.

International treaties do not become laws in Australia until they are adopted by a law of the relevant Australian Parliament , so the claim that they override Australian laws does not apply . Plain English is now , as a matter of routine , used in newly drafted legislation . However , it is often not possible to express laws with sufficient precision , using language which is simple enough to be understood by persons of below average educational standards [ often those who are affected by such legislation ] . It sometimes becomes a choice between precision and simplicity . Many persons define "justice "as meaning whatever outcome suits their interests , not what is objectively fair .

What is it about

Human rights that brings out the

Worst in some people?

Conservatives and

Christians seem outraged if

Others assert rights

Simple answer- UN human rights law is not binding, and domestic laws (more likely tailored to suit the region best) should always hold priority over ones an independent NGO feels we aught follow instead.
Justice Bell was out of line.

Not so Al, this is common under the Australian Charter and nothing to do with the UN Human Rights legislation.

http://www.hrlrc.org.au/content/topics/housing/eviction-from-public-housing-without-adequate-justification-a-breach-of-human-rights-vcat-31-march-2010/

The tenant was a refugee and the reason for the eviction order was because the original named tenant (the mother) had died. The complainant and his three year old son were living with the mother for some time prior to her death.

The mistake was in an earlier refusal to allow the son to take over his mother's lease due to a rental debt. This decision was later revealed to be a mistake on the part of Housing as oultined here. As a long term resident with his mother and son, the complainant was not perceived as a queue jumper.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/human-rights-trump-public-housing-eviction-20100405-rn4a.html

Nothing to do with the UN at all.

You've just spoiled another Boaz story, pelican.

>>Nothing to do with the UN at all<<

Once again, Boaz, you failed dismally to check your facts.

>>The reason Justice Bell declared it 'unlawful' was because of "Human Rights Law" which...according to him.. trumped Australian law. If Aussie "law" which was produced by our democratically elected representatives is declared UNlawful in favor of a different law which we did NOT vote for..... can anyone think of a word which describes such a state of affairs?<<

The legislation referred to in the tribunal is the Victorian Government's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s1.html

Can anyone think of a word to describe someone who, in their quest to rubbish the "massive conspiracy of the Left", gets their facts so consistently, completely and dramatically wrong?

AGIR:

Just a brief summary of His Honour's - Justice Bell's decision - which I googled to get the full story: Firstly public tenancy agreements have to be consistent with the Charter of Human Rights - that is the law in this country. Therefore Justice Bell merely upheld the law. He held that the decision and conduct of the Director of Public Housing in seeking to evict My Sudi (Somalian refugee) and his son (after living and caring for his cancer
suffering mother - who died, for several years, in their public housing home) was a breach of the right to family and the home under s 13(a) of the Charter and thus unlawful pursuant to s 38(1). As the Director's making an application for a possession order without justification was unlawful under the Charter - it was not a legally valid application properly made under 344 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Director's application was therefore dismissed.

Hi Folks, welcome aboard.. 'lettttts GO'....

The background to this was the "Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibities"

where they ASSURED us... no.. it won't become 'law'....hah!

The decision is apalling and has been appealed. I assure you, the legal dept at the dept of Housing is 'enthusiastic' about pursuing this.

INTENTION TO HIGHLIGHT... I confess.. I'm deliberately raising this case to highlight the festering sore on Australian sovereignty where 'Human Rights' (aka Socialist law) is being used to undermine our sovereignty.. AS I SAID IT WOULD.. (now there is a Beck-ism)

I've been ranting, raving, persuading, begging, telling, informing and generally being regarded as an extremist spook for saying these things.. and humanist bishop Pericles and his deacon CJ Morgan and deaconess's Bronwyn and Foxy all poo poo'd the idea.

The "international" treaty relevant is probably the 'Convention on civil and political rights' (I'll look further into this)

SO.... QUESTIONs.

1/ Is...Australia Sovereign?
2/ Did...we vote to be under the legal jurisdiction of a foreign power? (UN)
3/ What happens when a COUP D'ETAT takes place? is it not that a 'new law' is established by the conquering power?

I call this a bloodless coup.

This is but the thin end of the wedge. Trust me...I watch Glenn Beck! :)

Seriously.. does anyone NOT find it rather worrisome that our law is

a) Countermanded by "human rights" law
b) Now required to pass through a "human rights" filter when being enacted?

I find this intolerable. Considering that most (it would seem) people calling themselves by the 'Human Rights' label are communists in drag.. it is specially worrying.

Maryam Namazi (UK Human Rights campaigner)and..... Central Committee member of the Worker Communist Party of Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Namazie


You don't have to scratch too hard to reveal a pink/red tone under the skin of a 'human rights' activist. (and I don't mean blood

So it's a beat-up

Pericles asks for a word

I suggest "boaz"

AGIR, as soon as I read the title of this thread I knew you had written it.

How? Because this sort of title and it's contents always lead up to anti-foreigner issues, only thinly disguised by you.
I read on to discover your discontent was about a Somalian refugee- a Muslim no doubt? No surprises there.

I'm sorry AGIR, but I tend to believe the wise Lexi's version of the court case to yours.
We may not always like the outcomes of some court cases, but all judges are constrained by the laws and acts of parliament.

AGIR has it wrong.

Common law as it is called essentially means that the common good over rides any parliamentary law, and in the case of penniless squatters will not allow them to be evicted if it threatens their well being. Examples can be drawn from other cases in other countries.

This is standard application of Australian law.

Which part of "this is a piece of Australian legislation, in the form of an Act of Parliament, duly passed in Australia" did you fail to understand, Boaz?

>>The background to this was the "Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibities" where they ASSURED us... no.. it won't become 'law'....hah!<<

Section 6 (4) states:

"This Charter binds the Crown in right of Victoria and, so far as the legislative power of the Parliament permits, the Crown in all its other capacities"

The fact is, the clear wording of the Act clearly contradicts your accusation that "they ASSURED us..." If you had conducted even the most rudimentary search (it's even got its own stub in Wikipedia, for goodness' sake), you would have realized that your memory is not only highly selective, but actually faulty.

But your rant about the involvement of "foreign powers" is - or should be - an embarrassment to you.

>>1/ Is...Australia Sovereign?
2/ Did...we vote to be under the legal jurisdiction of a foreign power? (UN)
3/ What happens when a COUP D'ETAT takes place? is it not that a 'new law' is established by the conquering power?<<

1/ Clearly, this is an entirely Australian, sovereign issue. Read the Act.

2/ The jurisdiction remains in Australia. Read the Act.

3/ Oh, puhle-e-e-e-ze...

Admit it, Boaz. In your anxiety to foment yet more xenophobia, you jumped the gun on this, and shot your mouth off before checking any facts at all.

Not only that, you even misunderstood the key issue in the case.

Quite a sad display, all told.

Hi team.

Another vigorous discussion is underway!

The "Charter" is based on the UN conventions. The content reflects it.

Pericles does the old shell game trick "So.....where is the pea?" under that one ? NOOO (dill)..it's under....THIS one!

i.e.. Pericles points to the 'existence' of the Charter in our statutes now, with no regard for the history of how it got there.

Hulls! ('antiChrist' ? one of a number)

“The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities formally protects 20 important rights and, by implementing this charter, we are sending a clear message about the way we in Victoria wish to live and be treated -- with dignity and respect.”

What utter unadulterated complete stinking rubbish!

He rambles on:

Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities was drafted after a lengthy public consultation. There was widespread agreement that the 20 rights in the charter should be formally protected in law.

Ooooooh yeah! "consultation".. we know about that Mr Hulls...don't we.

LABOR LIES
Jenny Mikanos (to me by email ) "The Equal Opportunity Reform act was subjected to wide public consultation including the Faith groups.. even the Catholic Church supported it."

REALITY 'Submission by Catholic Church to the SARC on this change to the law'.... "We are happy with the law AS...IT...IS!

So MUCH for Labor "public consultation"

I also wonder.. if the 'consultation' included such things like..
//"Much of our law will be invalidated by this, and the Director of Public housing will be legally castrated in his attempt to enforce the law over YOUR and MY tax payer dollar funded public houses"//

Nope.. guarantee they didn't say that. Because IF...they HAD... you can be sure the 'public consultation' might have had a different outcome.

It essentially PROTECTS unlawful opportunistic squatters (thieves)who are abusing our tax payer funded public houses.

Shadow....

//Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'état, regardless of the intentions//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#Relation_to_rule_of_law

The fact that this process occurred within Australia does nothing to diminish the reality of where it comes from, and who is pulling the strings. It becomes a Progressive/Socialist overlay on Aussie sovereignty which is enacted by deception.

Just ask a few of your neighbours how THEY feel about the original case cited!

AGIR:

I did ask several of my neighbours about the case - and I won't repeat all of their replies - because they were not very polite. However, this one I will quote because it's the least offensive:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Enough said. Except to tell you to do a bit more research into this case - and find out what the Director of Housing failed to provide..., amongst other things.

I'm thinking of setting up a Boaz translation service. I'll start with this one, 'cos it's a gem.

>>Hi team. Another vigorous discussion is underway!<<

Translation: I wrote something that was so completely and utterly inaccurate that a whole lot of people jumped in to tell me how wrong it was. So I'll pretend that my continuing to argue is not simply a load of hot-air and bluster, designed to cover up how wrong I was, but is instead... ah yes, a "vigorous discussion".

Face it Boaz. You claimed the "reason Justice Bell declared it 'unlawful' was because of 'Human Rights Law' which...according to him.. trumped Australian law."

And followed it up with a load of huffing and puffing about "Aussie 'law' which was produced by our democratically elected representatives is declared UNlawful in favor of a different law which we did NOT vote for"

You cannot hide behind the claim that "the 'Charter' is based on the UN conventions". That is irrelevant. We are talking about an Act passed in open parliament by a democratically elected Australian government.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "foreign".

But hey, you have a Liberal government now. I am sure, if you asked them, they would repeal such a subversive, left-wing-inspired piece of legislation, in a New York minute.

Wouldn't they.

I hate to say it Boaz, but Pericles pointing out the presence of an actual domestic parliament-implemented law holds solid (though I am surprised there was one implemented in Victoria, myself):

As such, even speculation on the (potential UN) origins becomes moot and the topic aught to discuss why (or not) this domestic law is now wrong and aught to be repealed.

You don't like our law?

Then work to get it changed

No need for porkies

Still and all, here’s an interesting read:

“Obligations assumed by Australian government under international law
In ratifying CROC, the Australian government in 1991 entered into an agreement with the United Nations and with all other parties to CROC. That agreement places an obligation on Australian governments to implement the rights in CROC by taking all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures: Article 4. This agreement is binding on Australia in international law.
In practice Australia is required under CROC to:
•Review all existing laws and regulations to ensure that they comply with the rights set out in CROC and to repeal or pass amendments to any laws that are non-compliant
•Review all policies at Commonwealth, State and Territory and Local Government level to check that they conform with CROC and to review and amend any policies that fail to comply
•Develop systems for reviewing and monitoring new laws and policies to make sure that they do not breach CROC
•Prepare and implement a global policy and plan of action based on the rights set out in CROC
•Incorporate the rights in CROC into Australian Commonwealth State and Territory law.
Australia has not performed well in meeting these obligations”

http://www.ncylc.org.au/croc/crocbenefits.html

a choice between precision and simplicity,
jaylex,
You must be a lawyer. To my understanding the Law is already precise & fairly straight forward. I mean, I understand when the law says stealing is an offence & if one does indeed steal than punishment is heading your way. Same goes for violence.
A lawyer however sees it as an opportunity to make money by arguing this precise & simple rule. Politicians & bureaucrats are for some inexplicable reason exempted by those who make the ruling. There you have it Australian Law in all its glory. The Law is like a railway track. Going off in every direction but constantly parallel. Widen or narrow the track & you're de-railed ! Stay within the lines & you're right, except of course if you report a bureaucrat then it's your fault.

SPQR... *right on*

which of course.. saves me a lot of remedial therapy to poor Perilous and his cabal of sympathizers.

In a nutshell.. the things our government has signed us on to.. including the wretched poor blind "Refugee Convention" which we did NOT vote for.. in the sense that

a) Opposition to the flood has Labor at almost panic stage (Timor solution etc)

b) It would be included as a 'minor' or unpromoted part of election platforms.

INSIDER EXTREME.....knowledge.

Now..if you folks were up to speed, and more knowledgable about how political campaigns are run these days, (and of course if you regularly watched Beck :) sorry..couldn't resist that little tease)

THIS is how they are run.

A) Identify the SWINGING voters, and their position on a range of issues.

B) Consign 'hard core traditional' voters to the dustbin of irrelevance, because their vote is assured.

C) Run your public platorm specifically tailored to the SWINGERS.. who are the ones who decide the outcome.

To see i) The research behind this and ii) The outworking in living color (Reagan and Thatcher and New Labour) just watch all parts of

CENTURY OF THE SELF.. youtube/google vids.

Lexi.. do you live in the Flemington high rise flats ?

Hazza, I appreciate your sincerity and candour, but please consider SPQR's post.

AGIR:

You ask if I live in the Flemington high-rise flats?

No. I own my own home, (architect designed) and live in the garden state of Victoria, in a lovely eastern suburb.

Keep trying though!

You get so het up about these things Boaz, that you forget where you are.

You live in Australia.

Under Australian governments, State and Federal, that are democratically elected by people like you. Ok, maybe they are not all like you - but that's the wonder of living in this world, isn't it. We are all different.

Those governments pass laws. Some people like the laws that they pass, some don't (see above, "we are all different"), but most people put up with it because it is the price we pay to live in a free, open and democratic society (cf. Egypt, North Korea etc.)

Those governments also take notice of trends in lawmaking around the world, and have noticed that over the past sixty years or so, a lot of attention has been paid to various flavours of "human rights" - SPQR picked up on the "rights of the child", but there are many others.

The idea behind them is to write down the sort of stuff that separates our societies from those less... particular than ours, as to whom they oppress, kill, imprison etc. etc. (cf. Colombia, bad-old-East-Germany etc.) in the form of Charters.

Again, some people are happy about this, some are not. I must confess that I'm not a great fan of them myself, but that has more to do with the results (massive increase in opportunities for lawyers to make a motza) than the intent.

But at least I don't go around pretending that these laws that we pass in this country are somehow dictated by the United Nations, despite your splutterings.

>>In a nutshell.. the things our government has signed us on to.. including the wretched poor blind "Refugee Convention" which we did NOT vote for<<

You did vote for them, Boaz.

We are - collectively, as an electorate - responsible for the laws our parliament pass, and any problems you have with that are problems with our democracy.

While it is far from perfect, it is better than i) dictatorship ii) anarchy and ii) theocracy, to name but three alternatives.

A good point Pericles, though I don't quite agree:
-
">>In a nutshell.. the things our government has signed us on to.. including the wretched poor blind "Refugee Convention" which we did NOT vote for<<

You did vote for them, Boaz.

We are - collectively, as an electorate - responsible for the laws our parliament pass, and any problems you have with that are problems with our democracy."
-

The problem with a non-direct representative democracy is that it's more a matter of we, the voters, being responsible for the people we elect; than so much a case of we actually voting for the government to implement each of these specific things with our support; nobody really can tell which of the dozens of policies a party has are ones that people each support overall, but more a case of the party having enough of the right ones (or, simply opposing Workchoices) to get the mandate to act on them all.

Hence why I, like some of us others, try to avoid the 'our elected representatives' line myself.

That's all very well, King Hazza.

>>Hence why I, like some of us others, try to avoid the 'our elected representatives' line myself.<<

But it doesn't rate as an excuse for saying "I didn't vote for it, so it must be illegal/foreign/dreamed up by the UN"

I totally agree there is no requirement for the politicians we elect to follow even the most prominent of their pre-election commitments. It is a failing of the system that I have pointed out on this forum on a number of occasions.

But that does not give dissenters licence to pretend that circumstances are different.

We do elect those people. The fact that they are feckless money-grubbing chancers who would sell their grandmother for a movie ticket is not at issue. Using their dedication to perpetuating their time at the trough, riding the gravy-train (apologies for the convoluted metaphor) does not change that fact.

This thread is entitled "Which Law rules? Australian law or ?"

I was simply pointing out to Boaz the vacuity of the question.

Pericles.. you know me by now Hammer...nails ? right.

I see "Human Rights" law as invasive..intrusive and a skillfully disguised attempt to undermine our soveriegnty.

I didn't need the lecture on how our democracy works.. I do actually know that.

In fact.. by being 'colorful' in my presentation of this issue..I'm doing the very thing you advocate...ie...fighting to change it.

You know as well as I do.. that if I'd chosen the issue of "reffo's"

or mentioned Bob Browns continual mantra "International Obligations" then it would be exactly as I huffed and puffed about the original issue.

The problem for the average Jill and Joe in the electorate is that (sadly) as Bernays says "they are a bunch of idiots" in that they vote according to the hip pocket nerve rather than the gray matter of political science.

But Governments KNOW THIS..and if they then insert some "Human Rights" convention sign up thingy in their next term... it is absolutely that 'we didn't vote for it' by 'we'..I mean those who voted for that government.

Hell..they might be chasing a seat on the security council or human rights commission for some bright sparks sense of self fulfillment- and sacrifice our sovereignty in that quest. *scumbags*.

Lexi... sounds like you are close me. See my reply in the other "Prime Minister" thread, but 'architect designed' ?..hmmm *fights jealousy*

CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2006/27.html

//The Victorian Charter of Rights is the first bill of rights to be enacted by an Australian state. It is a limited change to the law that does not disturb accepted principles of parliamentary sovereignty and does not confer powers associated with the United States Bill of Rights, such as that of courts to STRIKE DOWN down legislation//

COMPARE WITH.

http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/residential_tenancies_list/$file/director_of_housing_v_sudi.pdf

ORDER (from VCAT)

2. The director.... acted UNLAWFULLY.

I dispute that the Director had to give reasons...because those reasons were clear to Sudi.. he was not paying rent..and didnt have a rental agreement and he knew it.

Sovereignty eh?

Laws made by parliament

Are Australian

Good point Pericles- no arguments there.

@ Shintaro

In the same way that

laws "made by" Louis 16th

were “sovereign” French law(s).

People....lend me your eyes...

We all have sufficient IQ to know how 'things are done'.
A billboard "looks" like we are just advertizing a Buick, when in fact the advertiser is tapping into our primal urges. By putting a hot bikini (un)Clad chick on the sign with the Buick.

IN THE SAME WAY....the so called "public consultation" carried out by the supposedly high powered impartial committee was a complete scam where the outcome was pre-determined.

TIMELINE

2002 LABOR ELECTED. See Bracks 'Platform' speech and you will not find a syllable about 'Charter of Human Rights'.

2004 Rob (mini AntiChrist/Stabshauptmann)Hulls brought up the idea of a Charter of Human Rights and responsibilities.

2005 a select committee is appointed to 'guage public opinion'

They contract out to AMNESTY (Hammer and Sickle) INTERNATIONAL who then contract to Morgan polling to see if people want 'more protection for human rights'.

To PRIME them..they show 2 tables. First table shows

"protection previously" (Prior to anti terrorism law) and they are asked some key questions.

Then..they are shown a second table. (Post Anti Terrorism law)
and asked the same questions.

Of course the QUESTIONS are rather loaded... nooooo surprise there.

Then... the good committee goes out interviewing 'many community organizations' such as... the..... "Youth Affairs Council of Victoria"..

oops.. which just happens to be FUNDED by the Victorian State government! ie... Mr Mini AntiChrist Stabshauptmann Hulls.

The AMNESTY funded survey... included the MASSIVE number of... wait for it.. 1001 Aussies. *WOW*..yep..that's representative.

Not much of a case for 'Democratic Process'

My conclusion.. *CLASSIC BERNAYS* SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

Say what you like, Boaz, it doesn't change a thing.

>>My conclusion.. *CLASSIC BERNAYS* SOCIAL ENGINEERING.<<

I know that Bernays is your (Beck-initiated) "thing" right now.

But whatever its provenance, the Victorian Government's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 was enacted in Australia, by a democratically elected government.

"Which Law rules?, you asked.

The answer, however much you bluster, is "Australian law".

End of story.

Dear Prickles... :)

yes.. I know you are technically correct....but morally suspect.

But I'm seeking to highlight how 'our' "democratic" law is the illegitimate child of the UN CCPR which is mentioned IN....the discussion of the Act as one of the primary reasons it was enacted.

If that Convention had not existed...nor the requirement that signatory countries enact it in our law.... our Charter would not exist.

So.. it is a progressive/Green/Hulls loony left attempt to bring unsuspecting Aussies under 'international law' withOUT them being fully informed about it.

Come -ON.. 1001 people ? gimme a break. A few gullible Country Womens Associations and a very malicious, government funded "Youth Affairs dept" and some chosen few who read the submissions, but made no comittment to actually allow them to guide their (pre determined) conclusion.

Call it democracy..call it 'our' law.. until you are hoarse...it won't change the truth of the matter.

Nor will it change my resolve to remove it! *The power of one*

Or.. "The power of one+TheOne"

That's pretty cheeky, even for you, Boaz.

>>...yes.. I know you are technically correct....but morally suspect.<<

In what respect am I "morally suspect"?

I put it to you that your own behaviour on this thread is far more worthy of that description. You strongly implied that the case in point illustrated a situation where we in Australia are not in control of our own lawmaking process.

>>Which Law rules? Australian law or ?<<

The implication being that we were observing laws that had been made elsewhere, when in fact this is, categorically, not the case.

Trying to weasel your way out of this false accusation by pretending that you meant something entirely different is, in my view, strong evidence of utter moral bankruptcy. An impression, by the way, that has been encouraged over the years by the sheer number of times that you have pulled the same trick.

At least when it came to your false claim to Highland ancestry having a tomb at Fortrose, you had the rat-cunning to pretend that I hadn't called you out on it.

And now you have the utter chutzpah to call *me* "morally suspect".

For shame.

Dear Pericles.. "morally suspect" was not intended to impune your 'general perosnal morality'.. it was intended as "sure.. technically you are right.. but morally wrong.

In that....you fail to see the GAPING evidence for base manipulation of the public and it's alleged opinion, which was done in the interests of a sectarian (Progressive/Green/Socialist)agenda for world domination.

Now that last bit should send you rushing for the bex, but it is still actually 'true'. Human Rights organizations are thinly disguised communists who have resigned themselves to the long incremental haul to establish their Secular Caliphate.

While a DIRECT causal link between the International socialist agenda and our "Charter of Human Rights" cannot be shown convincingly, it is nevertheless STRONGLY inferred by the unfolding and manipulation of events.

Got it? good.. ur now fixed :)

Sorry Boaz- you just aborted your own argument by tying it to the great Marxist/secularist/Islamist/Green/Liberal/fascist/world-domination alliance conspiracy.

Signing out,

KH

I reckon that if you owned a bike, Boaz, it would have one forward and twenty reverse gears. Your back-pedalling is fast becoming legendary.

>>Dear Pericles.. "morally suspect" was not intended to impune your 'general perosnal morality'.. it was intended as "sure.. technically you are right.. but morally wrong.<<

And this is just Saturday-night-at the-pub waffle:

>>Now that last bit should send you rushing for the bex, but it is still actually 'true'. Human Rights organizations are thinly disguised communists who have resigned themselves to the long incremental haul to establish their Secular Caliphate.<<

I'll be sure to check under the bed this very night, Boaz. What a load of twaddle.

Still no owning up to the Fortrose fib, I notice.

That must really be hurting.