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.