Posts

The right to protest is protected by a body of law going back 800 years

, ,

Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and the Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights?

This is Australia in 2021. It’s a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based.

Transcript

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I reference the response by the Attorney-General, Senator Cash, to my question on freedom to protest under the body of Australian law. Senator Cash fluffed on about what is in fact a basic element of our democracy.

What she seems to have forgotten is that there is an overarching principle: the right to freedom is a basic inalienable right that our body of law has been formed around. Our laws reflect our Christian heritage and should always do so. Our governing document, our national Constitution, for instance, references God in its preamble.

Without being presumptuous, and while I’m not a biblical scholar or a church-goer, perhaps I should have asked myself earlier than this a fundamental question: what would God do? It turns out that the Bible is quite clear on the issue of freedom. From Galatians 5:1:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm … and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

In this epistle, Paul was urging the new churches he had founded in Galatia to stand against those who were trying to subvert the freedom Christianity had given. Paul’s epistle to the faithful in Galatia could have been written today. The battle for freedom and darkness exist now, as it did 2,000 years ago.

We spent 2,000 years writing a body of law to implement Christian principles, including the right to freedom. These freedoms were first enshrined in the Magna Carta Libertatum—literally the ‘great charter of freedoms’ that the head of the church at the time, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote in 1215.

Our Attorney-General has demonstrated not only a lack of understanding of man’s laws; she has failed to demonstrate an understanding of God’s laws. Being sworn in on the Bible is clearly no guarantee of believing a word of it. While eminent biblical scholars advise that the Bible is properly understood in context, how could the Attorney-General not have looked this up at any time in the five months the senator has occupied her role?

Five months of widespread and sustained media and social media conversations around the right to protest and the Attorney-General, the highest law officer in the land, was missing in action. Was she not curious about what the law actually said? Let me help on that in the time remaining.

The Magna Carta was written in response to King John exercising his powers, using the principle of vis et voluntas, which translates as ‘force and will’—the making of decisions that were above the law and then using force to create compliance, much like parliaments around Australia are doing right now. Lord Denning described the Magna Carta as:

… the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”

I looked through the Magna Carta and I couldn’t see the COVID exemption that allows governments to destroy human rights and do whatever they want if they can get the population scared enough to accept it. Of course, there is no exemption afforded power-mad governments and unelected bureaucrats.

In 1948, before the UN turned into the problem and not the solution, the United Nations charter on human rights declared a few things on freedom of protest that parliaments around Australia are conveniently ignoring. Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference …

Article 20:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Article 21:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country …

This is what protesters are doing: participating in governance, exercising their right to free speech and free association. That’s the very definition of a protest. These are rights that article 30 of the United Nations declaration of human rights protects. It binds governments from breaching the declaration.

It would appear that the Prime Minister and the premiers are seeking to wind back our right to freedom to that which existed prior to 1215, to give themselves the powers that King John used force to exercise.

Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and the Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights?

I wonder what Monica is thinking, languishing in jail with the promise that she can get out, providing she renounces her membership of a political party. This is Australia in 2021. It’s a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based.

/4 Comments/by

Question Time: Attorney General Cash fails to explain the legal right to protest

,

I asked the Attorney General the Hon, Senator Cash her legal opinion on the right to peaceful protest. Judge for yourself if this is an acceptable defence of the right to protest from Australia’s first law officer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. My question references independent professional truckies who protested on Monday morning in Queensland. Can the Attorney-General inform the Senate of the legal protections afforded Australians under our Constitution, legislation, common law or international conventions that protect the right of everyday Australians to engage in peaceful protest in a public place?

Senator CASH

I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I don’t have the actual legal provisions with me, so I will need to revert to you in relation to that. In terms of the right to peacefully protest in this country, it is a right that we hold dearly, certainly as a society and as a government.

We’ve seen protests around Australia, in particular during COVID-19. It is important that people do adhere to the law at all times and certainly respect the rights of others in relation to what they are protesting on.

The PRESIDENT

Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS

After the truckies made their excellent point, which Senator Hanson and I support, Senator Hanson did ask the truckies to consider allowing horses on trucks in the blockaded traffic to be freed and allowing everyday Australians to go about their day without hindrance.

Attorney-General, do you agree that the Australian people would be looking to parliaments to defend civil liberties exercised in a fair manner, not to trash them?

Senator CASH

Again, at all times when people are protesting—and it doesn’t matter what issue they are protesting about—they should always protest in accordance with the law. They should respect the laws of the land, and at all times they should respect the rights of others.

The PRESIDENT

Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS

I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions.

The only difference between the two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?

The PRESIDENT

Order! The minister said they couldn’t hear the question because of noise during a remote question. I’m going to ask Senator Roberts to ask it again, which I know will waste the time of the chamber, but the minister couldn’t hear it. I ask for silence. Senator Roberts, can you repeat your question?

Senator ROBERTS

I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions.

The only difference between these two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?

Senator CASH

Again, for Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the one thing we’re all united in is keeping Australians safe during COVID-19. The Australian government has at all times sought to take measures that combat the virus, while, as I said previously, at the same time respecting people’s rights and their freedoms.

You would also know that states and territories themselves have taken measures under their own laws in respect of COVID-19, and, as you have articulated, this is predominantly done under state and territory public health and emergency management legislation.

Again, at all times, though, the Commonwealth will work with state and territory governments—through the national cabinet—to ensure that Australia’s COVID-19 response is one that is measured and is one that is appropriate.

/by

Letter to QLD Premier – Licensed Firearm Dealers Shutdown

,
200402-Qld-Premier

Full text

Dear Premier 

I was alarmed to recently hear that licenced dealers and armourers across Queensland were notified by Queensland Health that they must cease trading by close of business on Saturday, 28 March 2020. 

I have been swamped with complaints from people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods because of this short sighted decision. 

Other businesses such as the retail stores are able to carry on business without onerous conditions. This would appear to be discrimination. 

A decision had been made by the Chief Health Officer, a public servant, in conjunction with you, to add all Licensed Firearm Dealers and Licensed Armourers to the list of non-essential business, with few exemptions. 

I am told that this was done on the basis of perceived health needs to reduce threats of domestic violence, on the presumption that licenced shooters are likely to commit domestic violence if they can go to a gun dealer’s shop. 

This is absolutely untrue and has no foundation in fact. 

Queensland already has some of the tightest gun management laws in the country. 

There is no evidence in Australia that draws a link between domestic violence and gun ownership, or attending gun shops. 

Why were the Weapons Licensing Branch and the police not consulted beforehand? 

Why were industry representatives not consulted?

It is not possible to buy a gun over the counter from a dealership and leave with it. 

I suggest that this response by the government goes well beyond the power of the State Government to make such a direction based on a health power and is clearly contrary to the National Firearm Agreement. 

This constitutes a major employment problem across the State and 22,000 jobs have now been lost unnecessarily. 

This has the potential to lead to mass bankruptcies of businesses with a total lost value to the Queensland economy of more than $1 billion. 

Many country outlets will have to close down and farmers, who constitute the main users of firearms and ammunition in the State, will be caught unable to deal with the needs of stock and feral management, necessary to be productive in a season of lush greenery. 

The most recent Closure Directive (No 4) from the Department of Health is so restrictive to farmers that many are unable to purchase vital ammunition because of the limited Condition Codes on their Weapons Licences. 

It will impact on an already overworked police service upon whose shoulders it will be to maintain some sort of security of firearms and fill the gap from the front counters of stations across the state. 

Gun shop owners who had ordered weapons and/or ammunition prior to your government’s capricious action would have originally been left in the position of either opening their shop and breaking your directive, or leaving weapons and ammunition in the hands of delivery companies or on their shop front door after delivery. Your government increased the security risk to the community and that risk was averted only through the advocacy of concerned gun shop owners and shooters representatives. 

This is an example of poorly thought through and opportunistic government decision making that should worry all voters about intrusive and unjustified governments who can invent a reason to shut down people’s livelihoods. 

A legal challenge is likely unless the Queensland Government reverses this dangerous decision that may lead to widespread job loss and the destruction of yet another industry through poor government decision making. 

To avoid all these negative outcomes I ask you to please reconsider this decision. 

Yours sincerely 

Senator Malcolm Roberts 

Senator for Queensland 

/1 Comment/by