“What constitution” is what really the politicians are already about, hence I keep hammering on it. They purportedly replaced it with the Australia Act, and we worry about some foreigners to be TERRORIST when we already have our home grown terrorist in the Federal parliament.

For over 25 years I have been involved with people who might be described in today’s language to be TERRORIST, but were people who simply, albeit far too often, saw violence, even mass-murder as their only way to make a statement, even if it was to include their own death. Nothing to do with religion at all, generally Family law cases. As such, the worry about some Muslim going to be some TERRORIST is for me on the lower end of the scale when it comes to current Australian home-grown TERRORIST.

The Federal Government will play the TERRORIST card time and again and by this creating fear and fooling many as their way to pretend to be better. They are the once putting more tyrannical (unconstitutional) laws in and so the real suffering from TERRORIST is next to nothing versus that of our politicians.

It was the Federal government who declared war against “INDIVIDUALS” with its stupid “War against Terrorism” and so we learned by the killings in Bali what the Federal-Government achieved to declare war against individuals.

You cannot expect that we have our troops killing innocent people in their own country and then will have no consequences of this. I may not like it and neither approve of it but can UNDERSTAND that they consider to have the right to hit back using the “Eye-for-an-Eye” argument.

Constitutionally John Howard had no powers to authorise the invasion and as such I view he is a criminal, traitor, etc. if you are willing to accept this kind of conduct, then the message you would give to others is that you are not the least interested to ensure that John Howard is held accountable and so his victims for themselves have to do what they deem appropriate instead.

For-this-also, we-must-hold-John-Howard-and-his-cronies-accountable-before-the-Courts, as-also-to-show-to-the-victims-also-that-we-will-not-tolerate-such-mass-murder, etc.
We, as-a-society, must-show-to-act-responsible-and-appropriate, so-others-can-follow-this-example.

Dear Gerrit
I think I'm beginning to gain some insight about where you are 'at'.
But correct me if I'm wrong, you place a very high value on the concept of 'rule of law'?

You then move from this staunch position, to evaluating many world events, and our governmental response to them, in terms of that understanding "Rule of Law".

I honestly see value in that approach, but not a lot of practicality.
Mainly because sometimes events overtake us to the point where the whole concept of 'rule of law' is out the window and its 'dog eat dog/survival of the fittest' which at the end of the day 'rules'.

My own theory of society is this. "Noble concepts are promoted among the masses, to give them the feeling of order, and direction, but at the highest levels of power, its all a lot rougher and more brutal."

At this point, we are a little bit powerless, we end up with the choice of 2 evils. "Party A" or.. "Party B".. but in the long run they are self serving, and never provide anything other than the advancement of the interests which put them in power.

I think you are expending a VERY large amount of emotional and intellectual energy for something that I hold little hope of changing much, because human nature doesn't change. (Though, it can be transformed by Christ)

ISRAEL and HAMAS. It is widely known now that Hamas charter (their constitution) clearly has as its objective the actual destruction of Israel. Part III, Article 11http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

This means the Israelis have a moral right to eliminate every single Hamas supporter, in acts of war. HAMAS have declared war on Israel in their charter, they simply don't have the means at this point to carry it out, but they are working on it. Israel can "lawfully" in the moral and legal sense, attack any Hamas supporter, and kill them at any time and place.

BOAZ_David

Since 1982 I have been dealing with people contemplating suicide/murder even mass murder. They too viewed that their cause to do so was justified in their circumstances.
When you have a man who contemplates to blow up a tanker in the midst of a large city being upset about a Family Court case and what the Court did against him, and in any event having the understanding he is going to die of cancer, then telling such a person not to do it is a sheer waste of time. Yet, more then 10 years later the person still admits that in my way I drove home the “RULE OF LAW” albeit in a way that he made himself the decision not to go ahead with it. As I made clear then, if he demanded his rights then he needed to accept that others had rights too. He could not go out killing people as that would violate their rights. I did assist as an Attorney (not a lawyer) him in his court case (FREE OF CHARGE) and he succeeded and discovered also he wasn’t going to die.
If I didn’t push the RULE OF LAW time and time again many people, in the many hundreds if not more, would have been dead!

Many made known to me that they gained strength to fight their own demons because of that I so much insisted on sticking to the RULE OF LAW, despite the Courts far to often themselves ignoring it.

Once I ended up in prison (compliments of the Family Court) and when I made clear it was unconstitutional/illegal they had backdating legislation to purport to make it legal. It was more of their way of trying to silence me but to the contrary I expose even more their wrongdoings. One of my daughters (who was in my custody all along, and remained so) was very upset in the belief that she was at fault for me ending up in prison but I explained that she had done nothing wrong is was simply a power play by the Courts. My daughter was forced to go on access to her mother, contrary to Supreme Court orders, despite that her mothers husband due to sexual abuse upon her sister (while she also was then sexual abused) was by the Children’s Court ordered out of the house!

Again I had Supreme Court orders which were valid, but the Family Court could not care less and had me imprisoned while my daughter was forced to go on access to her mother (and again was sexual abused).

Again, to me it was a power play because I was then already a severe critic upon the abuse of powers by judges and to them it was payback time. In fact, I was warned by Court staff more then 2 months earlier that the judges had decided to imprison me. I was even before the High Court to seek to avoid the hearing, but Dawson J insisted that they could use the Cross Vesting Act. Only years later it was declared by the High Court of Australia the Cross vesting act was unconstitutional!

So, while I had valid Supreme Court orders and acted accordingly, the Family Court could not care less about the “Rule of law” and abused their powers.

I was wronged against, and more over my daughter was by the Court. But I have my “sweet” revenge by using the law against them!
Nothing better then turning the law against the judges! Little doubt they wished they had never crossed my path.

I-proved-that-you-do-not-need-to-resort-to-violence-to-prove-your-point.

Thanx Gerrit for that, it helps me understand your passion on this issue.

I agree that you make a good case. If I may add though, law by itself is not really sufficient. People need a reason to obey the law, and in your dealing with the man intent on blowing up a tanker, you hit the nail on the head.

The 'law' as you so described it, should have the objective of facilitating "Do for others as you would have them do for you"...
This is very good reasoning, and sound logic. It (by itself) only lacks one thing.
That is... the divine authority to make it applicable at the heart level.

This is why Jesus, when summing up the law to a 'scribe' (expert in religious law) said concerning the greatest commandments

The first is, love the Lord your God with all your heart....etc"
The second is like it "Love your neighbour as yourself"

I don't find it unreasonable to make 'Love for the Almighty' a pre-cursor to loving my neighbour, because if we view things on the totally natural plane, there will be times when I can gain great benefit from my neighbour, by NOT doing for him as I would have him do for me. Only if I have a feeling he could treat me equally shabbily (ie. if he finds out, or my deed is discovered) would I possibly be worried about doing such to him.

There is a verse in the bible

You have sinned against the Lord; and be sure your sin will find you out. Numbers 32:23.

When David arranged a 'hit' on Uriah Bath Sheba's husband.. a brave warrior, where David had his general 'pull the troops back' at the height of battle (leaving Urriah exposed) he thought he could get away with it... but God had other ideas, sending Nathan the prophet to 'deal' with David.

You would realize by now I see things in life in 'Christian' terms. So, I hope you will not be offended or distressed by this. I just call it as I see it.
blessings

THANKS FOR CONCERNS I MIGHT BE UPSET ABOUT REFERENCE TO RELIGION BUT I AM NOT!

I have never used the issue of religion when people contact me and if they desired to talk about it then I let them talk. Albeit, when assisting a person who is a devout Catholic I had to write his Affidavit material in his feelings, and while writing it I felt as if I had this huge anger in me for the insult to the catholic religion being done, but as soon as I stopped writing it was gone. In fact what I had written was meaningless to me but the person who I wrote it for made known I had precisely typed his true feelings.

A lot of people know about the group BLACKSHIRTS, and some about their desire (in 1994) to hang every lawyer/judge! I never joined them but became so to say friendly with them. I would at times speak to members and offered to assist them in litigation in return for them to leave the group. The leader once threatened to shoot me, (1995) realising he was loosing members every time the member succeeded in Court.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® is my registered trademark!

People may not realise it but the power contained in using the RULE OF LAW is considerable, albeit a slow protracted process when one take on the government and others like judges, as I do.

But, many a person who contemplated suicide/murder contacted me because they had been present in Court and were impressed how I was exposing judges in the Courtroom of double standards, etc.

I became aware that judges generally have little or not conception what is relevant to the case before them.
For example, if I were to state to a judge” Your Honour I refer to the matter of BOAZ_David v G. H. Schorel-Hlavka FLR 4, 20-35, page 23 1979 ( I just made this up as you may realise) in which His Honour stated;

“the-right-of-the-child-is-paramount-but-always-subject-to-the-jurisdictional-powers-of-the-court” (I just made this up) then unlikely would a judge challenge me.