Where do you stand on Freedom of Speech in Australia? Fun fact, Australia also doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
People worldwide are campaigning and educating their citizens about a Bill of Rights or "Power to the People" through "Citizens Initiated Referendums" (CIR), such as the model used in Switzerland. We believe the group Restore Australia CIRNow is a good example of an organization campaigning for the "Bill of Rights" in Australia and think it should be adopted worldwide. We acknowledge Mike Holt of CIRNow (Formerly Restore Australia), for granting us permission to use his website articles:
Most of us take our laws and constitution for granted and we have been conditioned not to think about it too much by our so-called leaders. They probably do not want us to discuss a Bill of Rights or to understand fully what this represents because if we do, our "rulers" may start losing power over us. For hundreds of years, we have fought in many wars, supposedly to represent our countries, when all along what we were doing was fighting wars so that the elite Establishment which rules us can make more money and gain or retain power. Thanks to Internet websites like Alex Jones Info Wars in the United States who constantly talks about the American Constitution and the American Bill of Rights many Americans understand their rights clearly, as outlined further below in this article.
Some countries today have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. However, if you research further you will observe that having a "Bill of Rights" does not actually guarantee free speech or the right to bear arms for instance. And if they do guarantee this, you really need a constitutional lawyer with in-depth knowledge to interpret the jargon for you.
In other countries such as Australia, there is no single Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedoms like Americans have. We are writing this article because we want to push for a Bill of Rights in all countries worldwide and we are using Australia as an example of what happens when you do not have one.
Australians need a Concise Federal Bill of Human Rights
Australia is the only liberal democracy that does NOT have a Bill of Rights or a Federal Act protecting Australian rights, such as that of the United States. Instead, the rights of Australians are protected through a combination of the Constitution, Common Law and Legislation and is a reflection of the prevailing view of the architects of the Australian Constitution from the 1890s. While certain states may have Human Rights Acts, there is no single document protecting Australians' rights, like there is in the United States Bill of Rights.
There have been many failed attempts to enact a Bill of Rights for Australia. These have been either in the form of a statutory Bill of Rights enacted by the Federal Parliament or as amendments to the Australian Constitution. The 1988 attempt to amend the Australian Constitution to extend freedoms such as religious freedom gained the lowest 'Yes' vote ever recorded in a national referendum.
By not having a Bill of Rights, the Australian Parliament can change many Australians rights and freedoms, by passing legislation. As outlined in the summary on the video below:
This allows the government to pass data retention laws that potentially breach our privacy and can restrict our freedom of speech. A big reason we have many of our rights and freedoms is because no one has wanted to take (too many of) them away. If a government determinedly tried to take some of our rights away, there’s very little the courts could do about it. Codifying our rights in the Constitution would provide an extra safeguard against governmental tyranny. While a Bill of Rights was defeated in the 1988 referendum, it’s worth having another go.
Should Australia have a Bill of Rights?
by Ron Dyer
Australian Bill of Rights - In Brief
Everything done has been done without a referendum and by the implementation of the poisoning of the water supply using Fluoride first implemented by Hitler and later by the US government.
Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? (21 September 2010 article)
Victoria and the ACT have human rights legislation — but a year ago the federal government's Human Rights Consultation Committee recommended a national human rights act. Then, as the election neared, the government rejected it. The Coalition backed the rejection, while commentators locked horns over the issue.
We encourage people worldwide to come together and lobby for a Bill of Rights. 'CIRNow' are campaigning for a Bill of Rights.
VISION: A Government according to the will of its people
Without a Bill of Rights, you are basically living in a dictatorship system, where a government can change the rules anytime they deem fit. That is exactly what they have done in Australia. Under the Australian Constitution, they cannot make major changes to the constitution without a Referenda. But they have been making major changes, without a referenda.
Plebiscite: An issue put to the vote which does not affect the Constitution.
An example of a change in the Australian Government undertook, without plebiscites or referenda:
In 1966, Australia's 'White Australia Policy' was ended by the Holt government. The Migration Act 1966 established legal equality between British, European and non-European migrants to Australia. These changes to immigration policy were some of the most significant steps towards the formation of multicultural Australia.
At this time in history, parts of Australia should have been handed back to Aboriginal people so they could self-govern.
Section 18C in the Australian Constitution
Debate is ongoing in Australia with regards to reforming section 18C of the 'Racial Discrimination Act' in the Australian Constitution. If a black man is called a "black bastard" or otherwise in a hateful manner, there is understandably a case for racial hatred. However, the Act says it is there to prevent discrimination. Section 18C is actually breaking national and international United Nations laws. Firstly, it is promoting a multi-cultural society by flooding Australia with non-Europeans, who cannot criticize the flooding of their country by foreigners, who have a completely different culture and religion, many who hate white people. And yet, they are allowed to enter the country. This situation is clearly portrayed in the image at right, where a protestor brandishes a sign saying, "Behead all those who insult the prophet."
Genocide is being committed against the European population who built Australia. Secondly, it allows the persecution of white people who cannot defend themselves. White people are being persecuted, which is against The United Nations Human Rights Laws. Any time they want to defend themselves or help their people, they are labelled as "racist," "extremist," "bigoted" etc., by the Globalists, Socialist-controlled media and some politicians. If European white Australians find themselves discriminated against, they can not defend themselves because they did not build community organizations to finance an Anti-Defamation Council to represent them.
Examples of conflict in Australia: There has been much conflict between Hindus and Muslims for hundreds of years, and many Hindus fear the large numbers of Muslims moving into Australia as they forsee future conflict, just like what has happened in India. Australian aboriginies are unhappy with large numbers of Tongans and black Africans entering Australia, because of the conflict between the two groups. Europeans and Australian aboriginies, together with a few other nationalities, fought and died in wars for Australia. Yet today, their memory is not completely honored as their heritage is being sold out, due to the large numbers of non-whites entering the country. Today around 25% of the population of Australia are non-European and this is rapidly increasing. The time will come when Europeans are a minority in Australia.
Amendments to Section 18C would also allow a healthy discussion about other serious issues by allowing free speech. As we have discussed in other articles on this website, there are Jews in Australia who claim that the "gassing of six million Jews" did not happen. While there is no denying that a "holocaust" took place and millions of people from all races died, anyone criticizing the "Jewish Holocaust" denial is labelled as being "anti-Semitic."
What is Section 18C and why do some politicians want it changed?
In the article above, ABC News gives the pros and cons of 18C.
The Bill of Rights (United States)
One of the principal points of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the lack of an enumeration of basic civil rights in the Constitution. Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several states, however, the ratification debate in some states hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four states ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.
James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these amendments would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights who many today consider to be fundamental to America.
The First Amendment:
Implements Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment:
Gives citizens the right to bear arms.
The Third Amendment:
Prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.
The Fourth Amendment:
Protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment:
Provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination, (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment:
Assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.
The Seventh Amendment:
Provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.
The Eighth Amendment:
Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.
The Ninth Amendment:
States that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.
The Tenth Amendment:
Assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.