Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

ISSUE: 20181019- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 21-RACISM

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, did you read yesterday’s article of Andrew Bolt about Its OK to be White?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, actually I would have liked a more in-depth article to expose
the truth. Then again he is limited to how much he can state in an article due to limited to one
page in the Herald Sun. And make an article too long and it may turn off readers. Anyhow I
recently wrote:
QUOTE EMAIL (With typo errors!)
From: Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. [mailto:inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October, 2018 6:42 AM
To: John Abbott
Cc: Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka
Subject: Re Racial Discrimination Act CONSTITUTIONALLY validity

John,
if you ever bothered to save my various PRESS RELEASES regarding the unconstitutionality of the
purported Racial discrimination act 1975 then why not use this in the Burns v Abbott case?
.
While the High Court of Australia claimed the validity of the RDA1975 in KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-
PETERSEN (1982) 153 CLR 168 High Court of Australia nevertheless in Wakim HCA 27 of 1999 then
Mr Wakim as a new party challenged the earlier ruling regarding the validity of the Cross Vesting Act and
the Court then upheld his challenge in opposition to its earlier ruling with Mr Gould.

Hence, as you were not a party in the proceedings KOOWARTA V. BJELKE-PETERSEN (1982) 153
CLR 168 High Court of Australia then you are within your constitutional rights to challenge the validity of
the RDA1975.

What you may argue is as I so often did set out is that the RDA1975 is contrary to Section 51(xxvi) as this
specifically provides for racial discrimination. Further, that the external powers cannot give the
Commonwealth legislative powers to treat any treaty with a foreign nation into an internal legislative power
this is because to allow for this the Commonwealth could harness legislative powers not provided for within
the constitution which were left to the States.

HANSARD 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-It has been suggested that this sub-section is embraced in the preceding one-"External
affairs and treaties." That is arguable; it is quite possible that it may be true; but there are a very large
number of people who look forward with interest to the Commonwealth undertaking, as far as it can as part
of the British Empire, the regulation of the Pacific Islands. It may be, I think, as there is a doubt as to
whether the one thing is included in the other, and as there are a large number of people who are interested in
this question, that it is better in deference to their views to leave the words as they are. As the subsection may
do some good, and can do no harm, I think that the objection should not be pressed.
END QUOTE

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;


QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-

p1 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.

END QUOTE
END QUOTE EMAIL (With typo errors!)

If one consider what the Framers of the Constitution debated then it is clear that their references
to races wasn’t limited to race in being of a certain colour of skin per se as they referred to
Afghans being a nationality of mixed races. As such I see no issue to include within a race those
who identify themselves as a Jew, etc, if it was not for Section 116 of the constitution.
* Are you not of Jewish bloodline?
**#** I am indeed, and proud of it. I do not practice any religion and well aware that about 96 of
my Jewish relatives died within WWII. I will not go into details but I was provided with records
of some of my family members who died there including in Auschwitz.
* So, can I assume you don’t like Germans?
**#** Actually in about 1966 I travelled to Germany, not even speaking the language and ended
up living there for about a year. I spoke to many former German soldiers about WWII. And by
the time I left I was fluent in the German language. Later, I served in the Dutch Royal Armed
forces as part of NATO in Germany. I can state I have absolutely nothing against Germans in
general. I am aware we got this person I understood to be Liz Callinger who on behalf of the
Victorian government is making known that people say get over it but she cannot because of it
being part of her history and a treaty is only the beginning. Well, if I had this kind of attitude
towards Germans then boy would I have wrecked my life. First of all no State can engage in any
treaty as it is a federal legislative power and further the Commonwealth cannot do so with
Aboriginals. We seem in my view to have those activist judges on the High Court of Australia
who are violating the separation of powers and I understood Mason CJ former Chief Justice of
the HCA made known that the court would in effect by its judgment legislate where it held the
Parliament had in its opinion failed to do so. What a sheer and utter nonsense. The courts are not
part of the Government, but part of the constitution! It has no business to do anything but to
show to be impartial and independent!

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than

p2 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE

Therefore, we need to look at the debates and realise External Affairs was to deal with treaties in
benefit of citizens and not against citizens. If treaties powers could be used otherwise then why
have a constitution at all?

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

* Would you include gender issue as a race?


**#** You mean as lunatics?
* No as a race like within the Racial Discrimination Act 1975?
p3 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
**#** The problem is that you cannot have two opposing constitutional provisions within the
same constitution. As such External Affairs must be understood to be following S51(xxvi) that
one can discriminate against a race.
Therefore on that also the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional. Again,
you cannot have 2 opposing meanings within one constitution. AQs such, S51(xxvi) was
specifically created to overcome any international law provisions against racial discrimination
and as long as this subsection remains the purported Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is utter and
sheer nonsense on constitutional basis. As Andrew bolt indicated that he were had in the USA
some woman claiming to be of some Indian heritage but having less (about 1/64th) of DNA then
other ordinary people. This is the kind of perverted claims I often hear about. I over the decades
did have communications with many Aboriginals who claim that eve n if you got some distant
DNA relating to Aboriginals then you are an Aboriginal. So, if anyone has a fraction of DNA
relating to Africa then they are all Afrikaners or Negros? Come on, let be sensible.
Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH: I have been a federationist ever since I have taken any part in public
life. I am an Australian native, and I have a patriotic desire to see the nation with which I
am associated assume a position of importance amongst the nations of the world.
END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE

William Arthur Trenwith (15 July 1846 – 26 July 1925) was a pioneer trade union
official and labour movement politician for Victoria, Australia.

Born to convict parents at Launceston, Tasmania, he followed his father's trade as a


bootmaker.

END QUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Trenwith
QUOTE
Trenwith was the only elected labour representative at the Federal Constitutional
Convention (1897–98) that led to the Federation of the six Australian colonies in 1901.
His support of Federation was over the objections of many in the labour movement, and
served to ameliorate accusations that the Federation Bill had been "wholly shaped in a
conservative direction" as accused by the Age.
END QUOTE

Therefore, a native is anyone born within the Commonwealth of Australia regardless of the
biological/DNA treats of the parents.

I migrated to Australia in 1971 and have absolutely no history as to what eventuated before my
arrival that could be held against me. So, it is well overdue that those calling themselves
Aboriginals are getting over it and accept that their own DNA may even end up less to be of
being an Aboriginal then perhaps some so to say new comer of another country who may have
DNA linage stronger then they have.
Hansard 6-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN:
In the first instance, the power of the Crown itself is nowhere defined, and cannot be defined under this
constitution.
END QUOTE

p4 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Here too we had the HCA violating this principle claiming that somehow we are some
independent nation. We are not and cannot be under this constitution:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE

Therefore, forget about treaties and forget about some Queen of Australia. The purported
Australia Act 1986 (UK) is utter and sheer nonsense, this because an ordinary legislation cannot
override a constitution. Only a constitutional amendment Act can do so.

To sum it up, it makes not one of iota difference if you are black or white, purple or yellow or
whatever other colour as long as there is no special legislation AGAINST a specific race we are
all equal in rights.
All legislation purporting benefiting Aboriginals in violation to the constitutional amendment of
s51(xxvi) 1967 are unconstitutional.
As such Aboriginals better get over it and start appreciating that those generally referred to as the
White race have been the leading cause to develop what the Commonwealth of Australia now
has become.
*.What about some lesbian claiming it is not OK to be White?
**#** Lesbian or not every person has an ordinary right to have their personal opinion as much
as I am entitled to however if you were to refer to a Member of Parliament then they are bound to
reflect not their own personal, such as any demented view, about what a race is about but they
are bound to uphold the constitution. Hence, they are to cast their views in line with the
constitution and the constituents they represent.

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2018/07/26/unbridled-lunacy-federal-judge-in-oregon-rules-high-
school-boys-must-share-locker-room-with-transgender-who-is-a-biological-girl/
Unbridled LUNACY: Federal judge in Oregon rules high school boys MUST share locker room
with ‘transgender’ who is a biological girl
QUOTE

Brook Shelley of Basic Rights Oregon said Tuesday’s ruling sends a clear message to school districts
that transgender students deserve as safe and affirming an education as every other student.

What about the vast majority of students? Don’t they deserve the same thing? Because when you
grant special rights to some, you necessarily take them away from others.

END QUOTE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-10-18-finally-female-cyclist-cries-foul-over-biological-man-
winning-womens-cycling-championship-by-claiming-to-be-a-transgender-woman.html

p5 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
FINALLY: Female cyclist cries FOUL over biological man winning
women’s cycling championship by claiming to be a transgender woman
QUOTE
Of course, men have physical advantages over women

No one is denying McKinnon’s right to call himself a her. All the good doctor appears to be stating is a human
fact with which she, a graduate of several biology and physiology courses, is imminently qualified to make.

Wagner replied, “Just because it’s a CURRENT UCI rule doesn’t make it fair or right. And rules can be
changed.”

McKinnon’s response? He accused Wagner of “transphobia” because she dared to criticize rules that allow
men to compete against women in all-women events on the premise that they claim they’re a woman without
having undergone the treatment to actually become one and, thus, compete fairly.

“I think there is absolutely no evidence that I have an unfair advantage,” McKinnon told VeloNews.

But is evidence that he/she has or doesn’t have an unfair advantage really the point? Or is the real issue the
Left’s incessant push to redefine and politicize everything, including biological sex?

If there were no inherent physical advantages or disadvantages between the sexes when it came to sports,
then women would have been playing professional football alongside men decades ago.

If there were no inherent physiological differences between a man and a woman, then the gender-specific
sport would never have been invented.

It’s not a matter of real or imagined advantage, because science proved long ago that in nearly all cases,
biological men are physically stronger than biological women. We can argue the semantics of training
regimens, conditioning, and overall fitness to no definitive conclusion all day long, but the scientific fact that,
on average, when taken at the same levels of training and fitness, men are stronger, faster, and have more
endurance than their female counterparts.

END QUOTE

In the crazy world of politicians where politicians prostitute themselves to get as many possible
votes in political elections then we end up with utter and sheer non sense.
https://www.google.com.au/search?source=hp&ei=DG7IW7uaCImk-
Qatg6SoCQ&q=lyrics+michael+jackson+black+or+white&oq=lerics+michael+jackson+black+o
r+white&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i13k1j0i8i13i30k1l9.1727.12458.0.15515.39.28.0.0.0.0.1515.4217.3-
2j2j7-1j1.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..32.6.4201.0..0i10k1.445.-ochWzg_c9o

Black Or White
Michael Jackson
I took my baby on a Saturday bang
Boy is that girl with you
Yes we're one and the same
Now I believe in miracles
And a miracle has happened tonight
But, if you're thinkin' about my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white
They print my message in the Saturday Sun
I had to tell them I ain't second to none
And I told about equality and it's true
Either you're wrong or you're right
But, if you're thinkin' about my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white
p6 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
I am tired of this devil
I am tired of this stuff
I am tired of this business
Sew when the going gets rough
I ain't scared of your brother
I ain'ts scared of no sheets
I ain't scared of nobody
Girl when the goin' gets mean
Protection
For gangs, clubs, and nations
Causing grief in human relations
It's a…
Protection
For gangs, clubs, and nations
Causing grief in human relations
It's a turf war on a global scale
I'd rather hear both sides of the tale
See, it's not about races
Just places
Faces
Where your blood comes from
Is were your space is
I've seen the bright get duller
I'm not going to spend my life being a color
Don't tell me you agree with me
When I saw you kicking dirt in my eye
But, if you're thinkin' about my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white
I said if you're thinkin' of being my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white
I said if you're thinkin' of being my brother
It don't matter if you're black or white
Ooh, ooh
Yea, yea, yea now
Ooh, ooh
Yea, yea, yea now
It's black, it's white
It's tough for them to get by
It's black, it's white, (x3) whoo
Songwriters: Michael Jackson

The message I understand from this is that it is OK to be Black or White! And the crazy thing
really is that there is really little difference between one so called White persons versus another
White person. In Europe the skin colour may gradually change from White to a darker skin
colour pending how far south you go in Europe, albeit most identify themselves as being of
White skin colour, this even if they are descendants such as Slaves from Eastern Europe.
What we have is this concocted version of race that somehow includes any what some may claim
demented perceptions of persons who deny their biological existence to pretend to be otherwise.
And as shown above we end up that those who are merely in their mind, so they claim, to be of a
different sex can then compete with unfair advantage against those who are really of the
particular sex in which the sport is being held.

p7 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
If it is all right to be claiming to be of a different sex than one is biologically, merely because of
the person claiming to have this frame of mind, contrary to natures laws, then why would it be
offensive to claim to be a police officer when in reality you may not be so? Why would it be
offences to claim to be a parliamentarians when in real you are not. If it is all about whatever a
person may claims to be regardless of nature’s DNA then why not apply the same otherwise?
There are ample, at least as I understand it, lunatics in asylums who claim to be Napoleon
Bonaparte, etc. Well we should stipulate that unless you can prove by genes that you are of a
particular sex then well you are who you biologically are and failing to do so you be locked up in
an asylum.

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I want to know from what point of view this can be called federal? We keep our
property; we are left to the free exercise of our brains and bodies; there is no
interference with the individual; state rights are to be preserved. Surely, collaterally
with that, state rights ought to be preserved too.

END QUOTE

Therefore if a person desires to claim to be whatever then as long as they keep it for themselves
that is their right however if they try to pursue to indoctrinate others then they should be locked
up in some asylum!

They had in Scotland 2 sisters who did a DNA test and one was given more than 50% of being
Scottish whereas the sister was held to be overriding British. This is as ton what you inherit of
your parents. Well, it might also be that a person who has (even if unbeknown to this person)
DNA heritage stronger than a person who looks like an Aboriginal then does it really make a
difference what they are on about or should be hold that as long as they are Australians they must
be deemed equal unless within Subsection 51(xxvi) they are subject to special legislation.
*. Is that meaning they should scrap all legislation in favour of Aboriginals which other
Australians are denied?
**#** To my understanding there is no constitutional provision that allows the Commonwealth
to discriminate in fav our of anyone. Section 25 is a State provision that can discriminate against
a race to which the Commonwealth cannot interfere with. Section 41 of the constitution protects
any State elector to be entitled to vote in federal elections.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

It should therefore be clear that the Commonwealth pursuing to legislate as to gay students/
teachers regarding private school (including religious schools) would offend or for prohibiting
the free exercise of any religion.
Unless there is a criminal law provision that outlaws certain conduct the Commonwealth cannot
merely legislate directly and/or indirectly as to homosexuality, etc.

Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


p8 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Education is not within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth, and students benefits was
about financial issues and shouldn’t be used to encroach upon the rights of private school
(religious or not).
Parents who have their children attending a private school are paying for this privileges and
entitled to have their children educated as to the principles of that school. If they desire to save
themselves monies they can send their children to public schools. It is not for the Commonwealth
to interfere with those principles of any private school. After all there are insurance companies
who insure people but not allowing pregnancy associated cost to be claimed as by this they can
reduce the insurance premiums for those who insure without pregnancy related expenses. Fancy
the Commonwealth to legislate that such insurance company nevertheless should not
discriminate against pregnant women and must provide cover for associate pregnancy cost, this
even so those women specifically took insurances to exclude the higher premiums. And other
example is that my wife has a senior citizen for decades has private insurance where as I do not
have this. Now could I demand from the Federal Government that I should have the rights as my
wife has to all services and benefits even so I am not paying for this? Let us be clear, we have a
constitution and no constitution in the world can survive when you got those I view belong in an
asylum in government or even in the Parliament. It is not our constitution but those legislators we
elect to represent us who are I view often demented and cannot grasp what their constitutional
obligations are.
If I go to the races but do not place a bet then can I nevertheless demand that I still can win on a
horse? I do not think so. Hence, if a parent pays for the privilege of a special school such as a
private school (religious or otherwise in its principles) then I view the Commonwealth/State has
no basis to interfere with this. You only can demand for the privileges you pay for and if you
desire to join a private school as a homosexual or otherwise contrary to mainstream conduct then
you have the issue to search for a private school that facilitates for this. Failing that you simply
have to accept that public schools are the alternative.
[http://www.owenguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ButtonB5.jpg]Thoughts For the Week.
Is White Genocide Going to Follow the Fall of Western Civilisation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's OK to be white
It is OK to be White, Black or whatever other skin colour and any politician who fails to
understand it in my view doesn’t belong in the Parliament!
Are then now condemning those White skinned persons who claim to be Aboriginals because it
is not OK to be White?
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)
p9 19-10-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati