| Prev Page | Table of Contents | Next Page |
Certain relevant Christian doctrines are acknowledged and entrenched in British and Australian political history, through "Common Law", "Rule of Law", "Law of the Land", "Magna Carta", "Petition of Right", and the "Bill of Rights 1689". This is what makes Australia a Christian nation, with the Laws of God the only valid standard for Parliamentary lawmaking. These terms are fully explained below, together with further terms "Entrenched", "Imperial Acts", "Constitution", Oaths", "Sovereignty", and "Royal Prerogative".
In this Submission the term Common Law will be used with meanings and definitions as obtained from various sources.
English Common Law has guaranteed Australians our liberty since we became self-governing colonies. All the inherited Imperial Acts are entrenched in Australian State and Federal Constitutions, and in the States' Imperial Acts Application Acts, because earlier generations of civic-minded individuals wanted to make sure that, not only freedom of religion and belief, but also personal security, personal liberty and freedom of expression and ownership of private property would never be lost in Australia.
Common Law is the most fundamental part of the law. It defines the purpose of Statute Law. The spirit of Common Law places the liberty, security, responsibility and freedom of the people, and the peace and progress of our country FIRST. The common law is incorporated into and is not repealed by Statute Law.
Common Law makes known the rights and duties of the subject, and deals broadly with all aspects of individual and national life. It is worthy to be preserved, but unfortunately in this country, Christian belief is often violated and God-given liberties under Common Law are all too often curtailed by governments, by -
(1) their passing statutes that contravene the general principles of Common Law;
(2) setting up tribunals that ignore Common Law;
(3) conferring uncontrollable powers on ministers and their departments;
(4) implementing oppressive bureaucratic regulations and decisions, etc., contrary to the Rule of Law.
In 1953 Lord Denning wrote that "we still claim to be under the Rule of Law, but anxiety is raised in many quarters by the growing powers of the executive", which he blames on circumstances, i.e. giving leaders power to fight wars, to safeguard currency, to ration scarce necessaries, and to nationalize essential industries, all of which involves entrusting great powers to the executive, which are apt to continue indefinitely.
Lord Denning said, "If the Common Law is to retain its place as the greatest system of of law that the world has ever seen, it cannot stand still whilst everything else moves on. It must develop too. It must adapt itself to the new conditions." But in doing this, it appears there has been an effort by certain of our judges to eliminate the Common Law in favour of Roman Law (Civil Law), which takes away our God-given rights to be considered innocent unless and until proved guilty. Thus it is clear that there are many violations of the freedom of Christian religion and belief, and making them become commonplace evils does not make them any less a violation.
I understand Lord Denning summed it up;- " The fundamental principle that, where there is any conflict between the freedom of the individual and any other rights or interests, then no matter how great or powerful those others may be, the freedom of the humblest citizen shall prevail...." (Freedom under the Law - Hamlyn Lectures 1st series p.4) see also e.g. I.R.C. v. Rossminster Ltd (1980) A.C. 952.
Confirmatio Cartarum 1297 confirmed that Magna Carta is the common law, that it is the supreme law, and that all other contrary law and judgments are void. The State Government has abandoned Common Law in breach of State and Federal Constitutions.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares in the preamble:
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human right should be protected by the rule of law."
Since "the rule of law" is also to be included in the wording of the proposed new Preamble, people are entitled to know what it means. In this Submission the term Rule of Law will be used with the meaning and definition as obtained from the following source.
The Queensland Supreme Court Library offered the Oxford Companion to Law by D.M.Walker, p.1093/4 as an expression of what the Rule of Law implies:
"Rule of Law. A concept of the utmost importance . . . It implies the subordination of all authorities, legislative, executive, judicial, and others, to certain principles which would generally be accepted as characteristic of law, such as the ideas of the fundamental principles of justice, of moral principles, fairness and due process. It implies respect for the supreme value and dignity of the individual.
"In any legal system it implies limitations on legislative power, safeguards against abuse of executive power, adequate and equal opportunities of access to legal advice and assistance and protection, proper protection of individual and group rights and liberties, and equality before the law . . . It means more than that the government maintain and enforces law and order, but that the government is, itself, subject to rules of law and cannot itself disregard the law or remake it to suit itself.
"It probably originated in mediaeval time in the belief that the law, whether of God or of man, ought to rule the world. One development of this was the idea that certain fundamental laws are unalterable by even the government, an idea itself connected with ideas of natural law. . . . "
That is what Rule of Law is in the strict theoretical sense. Because it is in character with Magna Carta and the other ancient Imperial Acts, the Common Law, and the Law of God, it applies in Australia. It upholds the Christian belief that God's Word is the measure for ruling and judging the world, but our freedom of Christian religion and belief has been seriously violated in the twentieth century, for we read:
"Since Dicey wrote [in 1885], important qualifications have developed to the doctrine [i.e. of rule of law]. . . . Many liberties have been curtailed by statute. Tribunals have been established to decide many issues which do not administer the common law or its procedure."
Politicians of major parties, while giving lip service to the Rule of Law, have unlawfully conspired to abandon it, because they do not like the limitations it rightly places on Parliament as well as on the Monarch. There is no doubt that our politicians have shown absolute contempt for the people's rights under Australia's national religion. Until our government rectifies its own faults, it can hardly pretend to be able to address violations of religious freedom elsewhere in the world. As Christ said,
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7.5)
This applies just as much to a nation of individuals collectively as to individuals within a nation. Therefore our Submission refers more particularly to Australia and its guilt, rather than to other countries "around the world," as in the Terms of Reference. This is not to deny that historically, there has been much violation of religion in many parts of the world, much of it the religion of Christians. In fact wherever Christians have attempted to exercise their God-ordained right and responsibility to obey God and to have God's Name hallowed on earth, they have regularly been discriminated against, and their freedom violated.
The Christian rights and liberties that Magna Carta gives us, which every Monarch guarantees to us, are:
(1) Absolute, undiminished rights and freedoms for the English [and Australian] Christian church, with free elections, and freedom from all outside control; [Section 116 of our Constitution stems from Magna Carta.]
(2) No freeman to be taken, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled, or injured, except by judgment of his equals or by the law of the land; [The right to trial by jury.]
(3) No delay in bringing prisoners to trial, no withholding of justice; [Habeas Corpus Act 1679 stems from this.]
(4) Right and justice will not be sold, refused or delayed to any man; [Equality before the law.]
(5) Punishment must not deprive a man of his livelihood, or of his means of livelihood; neither shall sheriff nor bailiff of the King take the possessions of any free man without his consent; [Private property is protected.]
(6) Royal Forest boundaries not to be to the detriment of the landholders; [Councils must not infringe our rights.]
(7) Freedom from arbitrary arrest, punishment or imprisonment; [Innocence presumed unless/until proved guilty.]
(8) Parliamentary control of taxation; [Lower House is checked and controlled by Senate and Governor-General;
(9) The barons and clergy on their part agree to give every liberty to their tenants that the King has granted to his.
Trial by Jury: Magna Carta now contains this revised pledge in Chap.29 of the 1297 Charter, guaranteeing the right to justice and jury trials for every accused person on the basis that innocence is presumed unless and until guilt has been proved:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled or any other wise destroyed ; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, We will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." [Edward 1 (1297) Magna Carta]
In the case of Brown v The Queen, the judges in the High Court emphasize the important role that trial by jury has in the administration of justice. On page 179 Chief Justice Gibbs said:
"The requirement that there should be trial by jury was not merely arbitrary and pointless. It must be inferred that the purpose of the section must be to protect the accused -- in other words, to provide the accused with a 'safeguard against the corrupt or over-zealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.'"
He adds that a jury protects against tyranny and arbitrary oppression, and is important in securing a fair trial. Magna Carta embodies Christian beliefs, that must not be violated.
In 1956 Winston Churchill said:
"There is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."
This document was drawn up by the English House of Commons. The King, Charles I, was forced to promise that Englishmen -
(1) would NOT have to pay any tax or give any gift or loan, without common consent by Act of Parliament;
(2) would NOT be imprisoned or detained contrary to the law of the land;
(3) would NOT have to have troops billeted in their private houses;
(4) would NOT be tried by martial law in peace-time.
Trial by Jury: The Petition of Right [Sec.3 of (1627) 3 Charles I] reaffirmed Magna Carta 1297 and trial by jury by stating:
"also by the statute called the Great Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or his liberties or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land."
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
Preamble to Bill of Rights (abridged): "Whereas the late King James the Second, . . . did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom . . . By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
And thereupon the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons . . . being now assembled, . . ..for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws as assumed of late is illegal.
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws as assumed of late is illegal.
3. That the late Court of Ecclesiastical Commission and all other such courts are illegal.
4. That levying money by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parliament is illegal.
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such Petitioning are illegal.
6. That the raising or keeping of a standing army in the Kingdom in time of peace, without the consent of Parliament is against Law.
7. That it is necessary for the public safety, that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable for their conditions and as allowed by law, and that the arms that have been seized, and have been taken, be restored.
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.
9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal.
13. And that for the redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
"And that the Oaths hereafter mentioned be taken . . . And that the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
"I A B do sincerely promise and swear That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God."
"I A B do swear That I do from my Heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable Doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm. So help me God."
On top of that, the Bill of Rights 1689, by including this following statement, affirms that it will not allow any previous case of injustice to become a precedent nor to have any effect on Common Law:
"And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the People in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. . . .
_________________________________________________________
Article 12 shows that Parliament is to preserve and strengthen these laws, never to diminish them.
The fact that Article 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights has guaranteed both State and Federal Parliamentarians right from the beginning, freedom of speech in the House, is evidence that the Bill of Rights is, and has always been, operative in Australia.
____________________________________________________________
The Coronation Service and the Monarch's Oath place an obligation on every one of Her Majesty's subjects, and especially those required by law to take Oaths relating to their public service and/or office. This is an obligation to assist the Queen to keep Her Oath to uphold Her high calling to maintain God's Laws and the true Gospel of Christ.
Our Queen, at Her Coronation Service in 1953, swore before God and the people to uphold the "reformed religion" (doctrines of Christianity), which Oath is an act of worship to God and must not be broken. Every Australian citizen, born here or naturalized, is under allegiance to the Queen, to assist her in maintaining the established Christian community standards. That gives parents the authority in Australia to train their children Biblically, and gives us all the God-given right of self-defence, and the authority to make a citizen's arrest if necessary.
Those whose public service to the community require additional prior Oaths of Allegiance and/or of Office are under a double requirement to serve Her Majesty by serving God and by upholding Christian ethics, no matter whether they themselves are personally Christian or not. Parliamentary prayers are evidence of this.
The Oath of Office that each Governor-General must "swear and subscribe" before the Chief Justice of Australia is:
"I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia, without fear or favour, affection, or illwill. So help me God!"
The Scottish people pledged themselves by this Covenant to -
(1) defend the true reformed religion against introduced innovations as tend to the subversion of the true reformed religion;
(2) to preserve the Presbyterian form of church government;
(3) to labour all the days of our life, by all means lawful, to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the late innovations.
The Scottish Parliament then made an alliance with the English Parliament called the Solemn League and Covenant, by which they promised to fight for the English Parliament in return for acceptance of their terms. This achieved some more freedom for the Presbyterian Reformed Religion.
It is the Monarch's prerogative, that is, Her hereditary and official right to assent to Bills, to withhold assent from Bills, or to reserve Bills awaiting Her pleasure.
The following appears to be the truth in relation to the Royal Prerogative:-
On many occasions unfortunately our Queen has been deliberately misled by her ministers into giving Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament that have violated our liberties, and should not have received Royal Assent at all. All such laws are legally null and void, and of no force.
Although Sections 58 to 60 are still in the Constitution document, they have been unlawfully made "ineffective", and the Royal Prerogative removed, through the passing of the Australia Act 1986. This Act is itself illegal and is null and void for want of a referendum under Section 53 in Queensland. A referendum was also required in Western Australia. Both States were unable legally to authorize changes to entrenched Sections in their State Constitutions.
In Australia our 1900 Constitution declares the Sovereign to be supreme over Parliament, and stipulates that without the physical presence of Her Majesty (or Her Governor-General) there is no Parliament but only two separate Houses of debate. The Government is "Her Majesty's Government". The Prime Minister has no right to usurp the Queen's lawful Constitutional position as Head of government.
Without the Sovereign's Royal Assent, no Bill passed by a House of Parliament can become law, so without a referendum to change the rules of the Constitution, Parliament can never be supreme. [the unlawful null and void Australia Act 1986 appears to have caused adverse unconstitutional effects to the relationship between Queen and representatives]
Section 1 of the Constitution makes it clear that without the Queen there is no Parliament, only two Houses of Parliament.
Clause 5, Sections 1 & 58 to 61, 106 to 108, and 116:
Covering Clause 5: In December 1998, Mr.Justice Hayne in the High Court ruled that Covering Clause 5 of our Commonwealth Constitution Act, validly declares:
"This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every state and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; . . ."
Commonwealth Constitution Sec.116: This section is only effective to the extent that the Federal Government does nothing to breach its requirements, which are:
The Queen Herself must obey and enforce all the laws forming the Constitutions of the Colonies and the Commonwealth. Through the Governor-General, Her Majesty must see to it that the Law of the Land, Common law, Rule of Law, and the Constitution Act 1900 are enforced and not violated.
What is the hidden agenda of those who want to discriminate against Christianity, and do away with these good, just and immutable laws, which have never been equalled anywhere in the world?
| https://www.angelfire.com/id/ronajoyner | Back to Submission Table of Contents |