who cares about Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
that is a worthless scrap of paper written by despots for despots and is not enforceable in this land.
what you really have to worry about chuck is the reduction and removal of our common law rights by stealth and subterfuge which are guaranteed under habeous corpus, magna carta, english bill of rights which are the basis of the laws in australia (and our constitution) and which are still law in this country. for example have a look at the empirial acts act in qld which details what acts of the british realm are in force and from whence the constitution of qld comes from.
the removal of the right to a jury for example introduced by carr and now entrenched in the new legislation, and also rapidly in the process of being removed in all states, is one of the most fearful, is patently illegal yet the people of australia will simply allow this to happen.
some inherited laws and common law are entrenched. this means that howard or parliament cannot remove them. because they are TAKEN TO BE. these are the laws that people who would want a republic and to annul the constitution want to surrender yet are the lifeblood of our legal system and our safeguard against tyranny.
until and unless the queen and her representative gives royal assent to these laws (or any law for that matter) it cannot be accepted as legislation. in fact they have no power at all. the queen and her representative must negate any piece of legislaion that comes before them that contravenes her coronation oath. and by rights if she doesnt do what is right under he magna carta and the bill of rights then she should either recant or be in danger of forfeiting her life.
a note from quick and garran who notated the constitution says "not all enactments purporting to be laws made by the parliament are binding: but laws made under, in pursuance of, and within the authority conferred by the constitution, and those only, are binding on the courts, judges, and people. a law in excess of the authority conferred by the constitution is no law; it is wholly void and inoperative; it confrers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protection." a precedent is then given.
the above statement can be applied variously to differnet situations.
firstly to the new legislation they want to pass right down to toll booths on highways to introducing retrospective laws to prevent one from doing what one wishes to any fee simple (freehold) land.
the "laws" they now have to sieze property or refuse one a jury are not laws - they are not valid.
but as i have stated here before the average australian is only interested in the pay cheque at the end of the week, a six pack and sex. the word apathy was invented by australians
the noose tightens around a totally subordinate and compliant population.
