| Prev Page | Table of Contents | Next Page |
The short answer to this question is that there are a number of causes for the falling community standards in Australia, viz, the constant violation of our Nation's Christian religion, its beliefs and influence, through the operation of Humanism, United Nations, Sovereignty of Parliament, Party Politics, and to a very large extent, the breaching of Section 116 of the Constitution by Government.
These violations are frequently the result of breaches of the Constitutions and of solemn Oaths made by those who are elected and handsomely paid to represent us in Government (both State and Federal), and who have the power and authority to make laws, under Section 51 of the Federal Constitution, for the peace, order, and good government of this nation. The problem is that many have failed to be serious about their allegiance to the Queen, and to all that She has vowed to uphold for as long as She reigns over us.
It bears repeating that any law on any issue that is passed by Parliament when it is patently repugnant to the Law of God is in breach of Section 116, as well as contravening the Imperial Acts. Such a Bill cannot be lawfully assented to by the Queen or the Governor-General. Unfortunately, Governments for many years have indulged some vocal sections of the community by giving them laws to satisfy their desire to rebel against God.
Many a rebellious law has been passed by Parliament, resulting in the upsurge of rebellious children, teenagers and adults, rebellious spouses and parents, a rebellious media and video industry, rebellious authors, publishers, teachers, doctors, and scientists. Rebellion against God is the reason we now have 'street kids', 'druggies', 'junkies' 'sex-workers', 'porn', 'sex shops', 'abortion clinics', 'violent videos', 'nudist beaches', 'foul and blasphemous language', 'de factos', 'child abusers', 'homosexuals', 'lesbians', 'gays', etc. Previously these terms were not common like they are now.
This sad situation incriminates all Parliamentarians, not only Ministers of the Crown, for all have taken on the duty of preserving religious freedom through the Constitution. Parliaments are inhibited by entrenched law from prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity at the national level, as well as at the personal level. But laws are still passed that are obnoxious to Christ the King of our nation and repugnant to the Law of the Land.
It needs to be highlighted that there has been continual criminal breaching of allegiance and of the Constitutional provisions over the years. Those that have been brought to the attention of authorities have been ignored, and the breaches have gone unpunished, and what is worse, they have not ceased.
People in high places are well paid to do their Constitutional or sworn duty, but it appears that Ministers of State, Vice-regal Representatives, Parliamentarians, senior Education officials, the Judiciary, and the Police, including those who have made pledges as the prerequisite to assuming their duties, have overlooked the requirements of their office. This has been very obvious to the writer during frequent attendances at various Departmental interviews, and at Courts of various levels during sittings in Brisbane.
The forces seeking to lower our community standards, and to limit or remove the uplifting effect Christianity has had in this country on individuals who are shaped by it, are aided in their attacks by those who manifest:
It is extremely relevant, because of the amazing extent of the infiltration of Humanism into every sphere of our national life, and because of the fact that its agenda is to wipe out the absolutes of Christianity, substitute unenlightened human reasoning, and counteract Christian principles at every turn.
To put it simply, Biblical absolutes are a threat to non-Christians, and because Christianity is unique, any attempt to make it compatible with other religions is impossible without losing Christianity's most important freedom, "the right to obey God rather than man". Whenever man is either forced "to obey man rather than God"or even just given the option, Christianity's freedom to uphold God's laws is violated by another religion - generally that other religion is Humanism.
Humanists call themselves "secularist" because they oppose church controls and power in society, and believe that morality should be determined without any reference to God. They say, "We begin with humans, not God, nature not deity". Two Humanist Manifestos have been published, the first in 1933, itemizing their tenets of faith, one being:
"The separation of ideology and State is imperative. The State must not favour any religious or ideological belief in its public life nor act as an instrument of propaganda on behalf of any such bodies, particularly against dissenters."
This is an amazing statement from a group that has been using every possible means to unite the Humanist ideological beliefs and their alternative anti-God theology firmly to the political State. They are constantly campaigning to have the State favour their beliefs over the established official religion of the nation. They are masters in the use of propaganda.
Their statement corresponds to the message of Section 116 of our Commonwealth Constitution, and is a fair description of our governments' crimes against Christianity because they have been showing so much favour towards the Humanists. Regarding Section 116, the State has overtly and covertly, frequently and regularly, favoured the published and well-known religious or ideological beliefs of Humanism, and acted as an instrument of propaganda (in the schools and elsewhere), on behalf of the Humanist UN agencies, such as UNESCO, UNICEF, etc., from time to time passing illegal laws that have helped to establish slowly, thoroughly and subtly the religion of Humanism in Australia.
Humanism has infiltrated every sphere of life, including churches, academia, schools, and the government and through United Nations dictatorship, it is becoming a powerful anti-Christian force in the lives of adults and children, causing many, even Christians, to obey man rather than God. One evidence of this is the introduction of Murphy's easy divorce, and the numbers of Christians now divorcing and remarrying against God's law, because they feel that the government, by passing an Act, has made it acceptable.
Humanistic Education: Around 1875, Humanism became very evident in Queensland, squeezing the original Christian philosophy of education out of the curriculum. After much political unrest and a referendum of the people in 1908, Christianity was declared to be the only lawful philosophy of education on which the curriculum was to be based. However, Humanism is very aggressive and after World War II its influence in the curriculum was back again.
The freedom of the Christian religion and beliefs, which had always been violated by some in society, became even more seriously at stake in the mid-sixties as Universities, other Tertiary Institutions, Government Departments particularly Education and then Radio and Television also, took every opportunity to undermine our national religion, its socio-political values, standards and beliefs. Violating the freedom of Christianity came hand in hand with promoting the tenets of the Humanist religion, which are a diametrically opposed alternative creed to the doctrines of Christianity.
Around 1971 Humanists (see "Definitions" later) started arriving from England and USA, specifically to change the philosophy of the tertiary institutions away from Christianity.
In 1964 after the Federal Government accepted our equivalent of the English "Robbins Report" on education, the Queensland Country Party government announced that transmitting our common Christian culture from one generation to the next was so important, that they would fund tertiary institutions so this could be done more efficiently and no one could claim ignorance of God's laws. But this funding was taken under false pretences by the tertiary institutions. University academics, governments and their departmental bureaucrats, by using unlawful legislation, regulations and misplaced power, soon caused Christianity to lose entirely its right and freedom to be transmitted through schools as our national culture.
Christianity has been ruled in Australian Courts to have always been "part and parcel of the Law of this Land", which could have been why Section 116 was inserted in the Constitution to protect and preserve our established national religion from being usurped in public life by the rival religion of Humanism, that had caused trouble in education..
However, despite this, it was determined that evolution should be put into school science courses, along with a sympathetic approach to sodomy, abortion, assisted suicide, etc., instead of creation and the moral teachings that went with it, as was the case in the writer's time at school in the 1920s and 1930s.
Establishing a curriculum that was consistent with the Humanist creed and repealing whatever was consistent with the Christian creed, our governments have in effect been "making laws to establish" an alternative religion which has a creed that it claims is "a constructive alternative to theological and dogmatic creeds". This confirms it to be "a religion" and thus the government or the Department is breaching the Section 116.
The Christian Sunday has been legislated for as double-time Rest Day, thus discriminating against Jews and Seventh Day Adventists, whose religion requires a Saturday Sabbath. This was legislating for a religious observance, contravening Section 116, and establishing a precedent for making laws for observances.
Making Laws to Establish a Religion - Every time a law is passed based on anti-Christian tenets of humanism or principles of United Nations Conventions, the religion of Humanism is being established by a law.
Prohibiting the Free Exercise of Any Religion - The free exercise of the religion of Christianity is prohibited by many laws that have been passed in Australian Parliaments, bringing to nought in the education system and in people's minds the supreme laws of God.
Moslems operate on girls as part of their religion. Freedom to do this cannot be allowed in Australia under Section 116 of our Constitution, because of contrary provisions in our Crimes Act and Criminal Code. This is an example of how other religions are required to obey the entrenched Imperial Acts or such statute laws as are an expression of God's laws. Jews who practice circumcision as a religious rite should not be prevented from carrying out an Old Testament command from God, and neither should Christians under freedom of conscience because in 2000 years no law has ever been passed against it in a Christian country.
Section 44 of the Constitution forbids any person sitting in Parliament who "is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power", but yet the majority of Parliamentarians are apparently blindly committed to the philosophies and policies of the U.N., a body of mostly foreign anti-Christ nations that give absolutely no recognition to God. Why is this allowed, in view of Section 44? Blind subservient allegiance to an atheistic United Nations further erodes our nation's religous freedom.
The following statement is in the United Nations' "Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion and Belief":
Inadmissible by whom? - By the United Nations, who are trying to cast off the cords by which God binds them and restrains them so they are not as bad as they would otherwise be!!
Psalm 2.2 "The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.'"
Our governments are answerable only to God and to the Crown and the Constitution under God. (see the first paragraph of the real Preamble to the existing indissoluble Constitution.) They are not answerable to the United Nations, but to the Queen. for "No man can serve two masters." (Matthew 6.24)
It was ruled by Mr.Justice Hayne in the High Court in December 1998 that legislation made in accordance with our Constitution cannot be overridden by the United Nations Charter, etc., unless Australia makes corresponding new laws according to our Constitution.
Another of the statements by the U.N. recorded on P.19 of the Committee's Information Booklet is:
"freedom of religion and belief should also contribute to the attainment of the goals of world peace, . . .and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination."
If the proposed "Religious Freedom Act" is to be (unlawfully?) made law in Australia, would these ideologies or practices of colonialism" that are to be eliminated be interpreted by the Humanists in Canberra as Christian ideologies and practices, for the Australian colonies were founded on, and are still constituted on, the basis of the Christian religion. If removal of these hated "colonial ideologies" is the U.N. goal for Australia, then where does that leave the "protection" of "Freedom of Christianity" in Australia?
United Nations Declarations, etc. have caused the loss of God-given human rights in Australia through laws that decriminalize abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, de facto relationships, pornography, drug use, etc. thus stealing from Christians our right to live in security.
United Nations influence over the Federal Government has forced State Governments to infringe the right of Christians to obey God in the use of arms to protect their family and neighbours from attacks by criminals. Thus the right to personal liberty has been violated.
God forbids the taking of either a person's life, his wife, his servant, his house, his good name, his sexual purity, or any other possessions. Even the coveting of anything is forbidden. These concepts of the inherent right to own and dispose of private property are included in Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights.
Under the heading "The Executive Government", Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution states:
"61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."
With the Sovereign in control (through Her vice-regal representative), Parliament cannot also be in supreme. The Governor-General's constitutional duty (under Oath) is to serve the Queen by ensuring -
(1) that Parliamentarians remain answerable to Australia's established Christian law, and to the people they represent;
(2) that all proposed laws are constitutionally correct and not against the best interests of the Queen's subjects (the people) whom he is to protect from oppression;
(3) that the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth are maintained and upheld.
Parliament can and does enact laws - Section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution under the heading "Powers of Parliament" says:
"51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth . . . "
"Subject to this Constitution" denies the supremacy of Parliament. If Parliament were supreme, it would not be necessary for the Queen, Governors, or Governor-General to exercise the Royal Prerogative and assent to or dissent from signing Bills or reserving them for the Queen's decision. Our laws must reflect the Christian values the Constitution is there to serve, and they must be subject to all the Constitutionally-prescribed checks and balances, such as the Oaths and Royal Prerogative, that are meant keep Parliament in submission to Common Law, Rule of Law, God's Laws and so on.
It is our constitutional right to have influential politicians effectively curbed in this way to prevent laws being passed that violate the freedom of Christianity and override the Constitutional birthrights of free men and women, because of the depravity of man (as God's Word teaches), and we know that "all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The role of a Constitution is to protect the values it serves, and our Australian Constitutions serve God's Laws. Law-makers must not be given legal power to destroy everything that a Constitution serves to protect. A civilised system of law in Australia should uphold God's Laws and the entrenched ancient Christian charters of liberty, rejecting any idea that Parliament can trample people into the dust. John Donne, the 17th century poet, philosopher and evangelist, wrote:
"Each man is required to oppose the injustices, the greed and selfish ambitions of others."
In times past reliance was placed on unchanging Christian Common Law, or on Magna Carta (a true covenant between the sovereign and the subject), and on the Royal Prerogative, to prevent the passing of evil laws. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case today. Oaths and the Royal Prerogative are often ignored and new or amended laws override the ancient and hard won principles of Constitutional fundamental rights, but such laws are forever invalid and null and void. The dangers inherent in the exercise of "absolute sovereignty" by Parliament are worse when people believe that bad laws can be passed contrary to our Constitutional checks and balances, and when Royal Assent to a bad law is not withheld.
The Royal Charter, or Magna Carta, is a superstatute - in other words it is a written Constitution in itself that overrules all else forever in the Queen's realm. The 1689 Bill of Rights cannot reduce its status.
Lord Coke CJ confirmed the role of Section III (Bill of Rights) in entrenching Magna Carta:-
"This Parliamentary Charter . . . called Magna Carta, . . . the Great Charter . . . in respect of . . . (its) being the fountain of all fundamental lawes of the Realm, . . ..And by the Statute of 42. E.3 ca.3 if any Statute be made against either of these Charters (Magna Carta/Charter of the Forest) it shall be voide."
That 'Parliamentary sovereignty' doctrine only came about in 1688; four hundred and seventy three years after the sealing of Magna Carta, and 800 years after a well settled and developing Britain under the Anglo-Saxon King of Wessex, Egbert, had started to develop a common law in 806AD. It seems to have sprung from a flawed interpretation of the English Bill of Rights Act. Section III was included in that Bill to show conclusively the intent of those Parliamentarians who enacted it, but it has been ignored. Section III states:
"III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine [Old Style date] shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made."
There it is - none of Magna Carta, a charter, could ever be impeached or invalidated pursuant to the English Bill of Rights Act 1689. Those Parliamentarians intended the Bill of Rights to entrench yet again Magna Carta, as the Charter of Liberty against oppressive kings, rulers, governments, parliamentarians, and others..
The Journals of the Houses of Lords and Commons at 10:126 also exempted all Charters, grants and pardons, from that Act. The intent was very clear - there was never meant to be an absolute Parliamentary right to pass laws repugnant to Common Law, the Christian religion and our British cultural inheritance.
The significance and relevance of Section III and 10:126 to the continued standing and superiority of Magna Carta over the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and over any pretended sovereignty of parliament, seems to have escaped our modern politicians and judiciary. Modern education, where process is more important than content, is again at fault here.
Winston Churchill, years later, put it better than anyone else. Discussing Magna Carta he wrote:
"And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success." (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956) Vol 1, 201-202)
Beginning with the introduction into High School science of the myths of evolution instead of the truth of creation, the Education Department became guilty of violating the Christian religion and belief, because it deliberately coerced children into discarding their belief in Divine Creation. From the mid-sixties schools became mission fields for the alternative religion of Humanism.
The detrimental effect that the teaching of Evolution (Humanism) in schools has had on the lives of children since the end of the sixties is now a matter of history. It was evolution in schools that coerced children into not believing in God, and, as the Humanist Society states, no external God means no externally-imposed code of required behaviour. This leaves everything up to man's chaotic experimentation with values and rules of his own. As God says, everyone does what seems right in his own eyes, and very few know God's absolutes any more. This is just one of the disastrous effects of the Government's promoting of the religion of Humanism to the detriment of Christianity.
Bentham said:
" Now and then, it is true, one error may be driven out, for a time, by an opposite error; one piece of nonsense by another piece of nonsense; but for barring the door effectually and forever against all error and all nonsense; there is nothing like the simple truth."
The doctrine of "absolute parliamentary sovereignty" is one such error and nonsense.
There are many who would agree that Parliament was never intended to derive absolute supremacy or sovereignty from the Bill of Rights Act 1688. If Parliament had been intended to be supreme at the time of Federation, the Constitution would not have contained the requirement in Sections 58 to 60 for the Sovereign (or the Governor) to give Royal Assent to legislation before it can become law. Section 1 of the Constitution makes it clear that without the Queen there is no Parliament, only two Houses of Parliament.
The Federal Parliament and the State Parliaments are not sovereign bodies. They are legislatures with limited powers. Any law they attempt to pass in excess of their limited powers is no law at all. It is void and entitled to no obedience.
For the Parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly upheld by a Court, is quite another.
" If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional development, it is the belief that we are the servants of fundamental constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone. From the days when the King's subjects demanded respect for the laws of King Edward the Confessor, through the centuries in which legendary superiority attached to such acts as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the idea of our ancient rights and liberties has determined the form of our endlessly progressive/conservative constitutional change." (Allott, The Courts and Parliament Who Whom? (1979) CLJ. at 114)
As for Commonwealth legislation, section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 says "Common law to govern" and Part 1A of the Crimes Act 1914 says "Application of the common law". States as part of the Commonwealth are held to this also.
Furthermore, the Declaration of Human Rights expressly speaks of the fundamental human right taking precedence over (a pretended) Parliamentary "sovereignty". Since Government has also ratified that U.N. Declaration, and the Parliament has not expressly repealed it, logically it follows that it must be intended to be taken seriously.
If Parliament has the power to make a legally binding command, no matter what the subject matter of that command, then it is entirely possible that a direct conflict will arise between the duty to obey the law and the moral duty not to obey wicked laws. This conundrum was solved in earlier times by the social contract. If the sovereign failed to protect the people in the enjoyment of their basic liberties, then he breached his contract with his subjects, and the oppressive "law" could not be binding. Reliance was placed on unchanging Common Law, on Magna Carta, a true covenant between the sovereign and the subject.
The Australian Parliament claims its rights and privileges from the Bill of Rights 1689 (1 Will & Mary sess 2 c 2 1689) which demonstrated that the victors in the Revolution had sought to protect, not to change, the fundamentals of the English Constitution.
The framers of that document were simply declaring Common Law that already existed and would continue to exist after them. They were vindicating and asserting their rights and liberties, and reclaiming them from a despotic King James II who had grievously violated them.
'Parliamentary sovereignty' is a strange but commonplace fiction, a dangerous, naive faith that perverts the principles of justice by saying that Parliament is supreme and can do no wrong. The facts do not support it, and it must be challenged if our Christian religious freedom is to be defended and maintained.
Professor A V Dicey says on page 453 of The Law and the Constitution, 1865:
"...here we come round to the fundamental dogma of modern constitutionalism; the legal sovereignty of Parliament is subordinate to the political sovereignty of the nation."
But when modern politicians usurp powers unchallenged the political sovereignty of the nation is also usurped. It is hoped and expected that renewed public interest in fundamental rights and liberties will lead to a re-evaluation of the role of the Governor-General and the courts in protecting the individual against the powers of the State, and thus herald a return to a more traditional balance in the constitution.
In earlier times when Stuart kings, to cloak their tyranny and oppression, invoked the doctrine of "Divine Right", men looked back to Magna Carta as a reminder that free people everywhere are not obliged to allow themselves to be ground into the dust.
The writer cannot see a great deal of difference between a king claiming "divine right" to cloak the Royal tyranny or oppression, and a group of contemporary men and women claiming "parliamentary sovereignty" to cloak similar political tyrannies. The results are the same.
Christians have a duty to obey God rather than man.
If Parliament did have absolute sovereignty, it could pass a law stating, for example, that all blue-eyed babies had to be killed or all redheads had to be scalped, and that enactment would be blindly upheld by the Courts. That would be absolute nonsense and people should reject outright such outrageous rubbish.
Where would our judiciary and legal profession stand if an oppressive Parliament were to be formed and a law was enacted which said that every person of a certain race or creed, over 30 years of age, had to be sterilized? What if Parliament enacted a law which said "Elections for the House of Representatives will only be at 15 year intervals"? Or never again?
In 1297, with its confirmation by Edward 1, Magna Carta established itself as fundamental law. In the fourth edition of Halsbury's Laws of England he speaks of the - "four great statutes or charters by which the rights and liberties of the subject are preserved and acts of tyranny by the Crown or its ministers are restrained." Halsbury names Magna Carta as the first of these charters.
The Bill of Rights demonstrated that the victors of the Bloodless Revolution had sought to protect, not to change, the fundamentals of the constitution. The framers of that document were simply declaring law that already existed and would continue to exist. The preamble to the Bill reads:
"And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons......do in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare...."
Clearly, the intent and true meaning was not to abolish their ancient fundamental rights and liberties for a pretended 'parliamentary sovereignty' as is generally believed and accepted today. They were vindicating and asserting men's rights, reclaiming them from a despotic King James II who had grievously violated them.
Sir Robert Howard, member of both Treby's and Somer's Rights Committees, said in the Bill of Rights debate:
"Rights of the people had been confirmed by earlier Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have had unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants for the King, but recognitions by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
Burke also extolled the virtues of the Declaration of Rights thus:
"In the . . . Declaration of Right, the two houses utter not one syllable of a 'right to frame a government for themselves.' You will see that their whole care was to secure the religion, laws, and liberties, that had long been possessed, and had been lately endangered . . You will observe that from Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity; as an estate specially belonging to the people . ." (Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Penguin ed) 118ff)
In fact, at the time of James II it was the Parliament who was on the defensive and the Parliamentarians who first used fundamental law and brought Magna Carta into the debate by framing a proposal to James saying:-
"That according to Magna Carta and the Statutes aforenamed, and also according to the most ancient Customs and Laws of this Land, every free subject of this realm hath a fundamental propriety in his goods, and a fundamental liberty of his person." (Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (2nd Ed) at 63.)
Parliament here exercised the right to use fundamental law to rebel against the King. Thus citizens today have the same right to use fundamental law in securing from government its adherence to the fundamentals. The perception, apparently supported by our courts, that Parliament has "absolute sovereignty" from the English Bill of Rights Act 1689, is fundamentally flawed.
While Australia remains loyal to the Crown, the reformed Christian religion is lawfully established and fully protected as the National religion of Australia. The Law of the Land provides restraint and our rights are lawfully entrenched against interference by monarchs, parliamentarians, judges, police, lawyers and others. However, our rights have fallen into abeyance through lack of a suitable challenge, despite the power of Common Law to be our legal strength.
| https://www.angelfire.com/id/ronajoyner | Back to Submission Table of Contents |