Re White Australia Policy, Privacy, Etc: Constitutionalist

ISSUE: 20180815- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 3
Re White Australia Policy, Privacy, etc

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.
* Gerrit, there is realty a commotion going on with the KAP Senator Fraser Anning. Considering
you being a CONSTITUTIONALIST and what Senator Fraser Anning stated what is you view
about his statement and you might perhaps also express a view about others?
**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, I have read the statement of Senator Fraser Anning and it
appears to me that the man has done his homework. For example his reference to External
Affairs is right on. As for his comments regarding immigration let me quote the Framers of the
Constitution:
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE The Hon. J. H. CARRUTHERS:
I will take the three great purposes under clause 52 of this bill for which the commonwealth is to be
established-for taxation, for defence, and, what is to my mind one of the greatest of all purposes, the
regulation of the inflow of population so as to secure a white Australia.
END QUOTE
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE
Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE
Sub-clause 23. Immigration and emigration.
Colonel SMITH: I should like to ask Sir Samuel Griffith, the exact meaning of these
two words, "immigration " and "emigration"? The colony which I represent objects to
immigration unless the immigrants come at their own expense. For many years we have
abandoned the system of assisted immigration. I should like to know, therefore, if power
p1 15-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
is to be conferred upon the dominion parliament to override the local parliament in
reference to this matter?
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: The words as they stand are as general as they can be, and
should be read with the introduction:
The parliament shall, subject to the provisions of this constitution, have full power and
authority to make all such laws as it thinks necessary . . . . with respect to immigration and
emigration.
That is wide enough.
Colonel SMITH: Rather too wide!
Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It will enable them to keep out Chinese, Hindoos, or other
aliens-even English, if necessary. It will enable them to impose conditions, if found
necessary, such as America, has imposed to prevent pauper and other undesirable
immigration. It may under some circumstances be a very useful provision.
Sub-clause agreed to.
END QUOTE
Hansard 12-2-18900 UNION OF THE COLONIES Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN HALL.
It is said that history repeats itself, and we shall, I feel confident, have another instance of it. In the
Northern Hemisphere the old Empire has shown to the world how it is possible to combine the greatest
amount of individual freedom and liberty with most absolute security for life, property, and order; and I
believe it will be our great glory that in the Southern Hemisphere, and in these Southern Seas, we shall
repeat the lesson which the dear old mother country has taught the North, and that this great Australian
Dominion will prove a centre of liberty, civilization, and light throughout the length and breadth of the
Pacific.
END QUOTE
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The amendment is to omit clause 110, and insert the following now clause:-
The citizens of each state, and all other persons owing allegiance to the Queen and residing in any territory
of the Commonwealth, shall be citizens of the Commonwealth, and shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the Commonwealth in the several states, and a state shall not make or enforce any
law abridging any privilege or immunity of citizens of the Commonwealth, nor shall a state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws.
Now, there is a clause that covers the whole ground-a clause that is all-sufficient for the purpose-bearing in
mind that every provision is made for securing to the Commonwealth that its citizens shall not be people of
alien races to any considerable extent. There are in India some 150,000,000 British subjects, but of those
150,000,000 people very few indeed could stand the test applied by the Natal Immigration Restriction Act,
which I think has been adopted already in Western Australia; which will no doubt be adopted in other
colonies. of Australasia, and which will be effective in keeping from our shores the natives of India who
cannot pass the education test that is applied under the Natal Act. This education test is one which would
debar some 149,000,000 at the least out of 150,000,000 from qualifying, and would so keep them out of
Australia. There you have a very much wider disability-and I think a very wholesome disability-which goes
far and away beyond that suggested by the learned and honorable member (Mr. Isaacs). I think if we took this
clause into our consideration, it might be found to do all that is required for us.
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-It seems to me that the clause that has just been read by the Right Hon. Sir
Edward Braddon-the one suggested by the Tasmanian Assembly-would land us in greater difficulties than
anything we have thought of yet, and I think we shall be incurring a very great risk in endeavouring to
define who is in future to be considered a citizen of the Commonwealth. We have a right to deal to-day
with what we think is right for to-day, but we have Do right to tie the hands of the future people of the
Commonwealth in this connexion.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the
liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of
liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good
government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and unite.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the
people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta
for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole
history of the peoples of the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of
Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Is it a Constitution which gives all reasonable and liberal guarantees of freedom? That can only be
answered in one way. Is it a Constitution the action of which, until amended by the people, is preserved and
safeguarded? There is only one answer to that. Is it a Constitution which the people themselves, by their
will expressed by their Parliament and themselves, are able to alter to suit their needs under conditions of
reasonable thought, without unreasonable difficulty? There can be no answer but one to. that question.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. HOLDER.-
We know that it could never have been perfect by any possible contingency. But we may claim that it is
sufficiently perfect for a free and self-reliant people to live under its rule with their freedom undiminished;
and my answer to those who ask whether the Bill is acceptable in this light is this: When we met in this
Convention we entered upon a task in which we realized we should be untrue to the trust reposed in us if
we had not dealt with the matters which came before us with the sense of responsibility resting upon every
one of us that we were dealing with matters on behalf of independent and self-reliant states.
END QUOTE
* You really have done your research. Didn’t you?

**#** We got a Prime Minister who in my view lacks any proper understanding about the
constitution as to its meaning and application.
His desire for authorizing so called law enforcement agencies to access private information by
legislation in my view hold no water. Without a court order where the person concerned is first
allowed to object against private details disclosure I view it would be unconstitutional. What
appears to me to be is to use excuses such as terrorism where really the Federal Government
itself started the terrorism with its unconstitutional invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq!
Then consider that whistleblowers and journalist now will have their contacts revealed!
Again:
QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:
Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.
END QUOTE
Therefore the Framers of the Constitution held that freedom, etc, enshrined as principles in the
constitution were greater than in the US with its 14th Amendments. As such I view FREEEDOM
of the Press is interrelated with this also.
.
This Derryn Hinch is supposed to be of the Justice Party. Well where is he about reverse racism?
Why is it, as now appears to be, that where the police couldn’t get me for racism or so against a
person who appears to be of Aboriginal descent then somehow he no longer pursues the issue of
violence, etc. His (what I consider to be a loud mouth.) comments as to the pension of former
Governor-General Hollingworth in my view shows at least to me the lack of research and facts
he is aware of.
If you desire to be genuinely a Justice Party then surely one needs to check facts and learn the
true meaning and application of the constitution rather than as I view it to be some gutless
wonder and boofhead. Also consider the benefits of what the White Australia policy presented.
https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/14-study/203-differences-between-human-races-100-
facts?utm_source=The+Daily+Archive&utm_campaign=301c3ecfa8-
Newsletter+from+The+Daily+Archive&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5d5146944-301c3ecfa8-
41941613
Differences Between Human Races: 100 Facts

QUOTE from my next 16-8-2018 PRESS RELEASE Re Governor/Governor-General
unconstitutional payments.
* As usual you got your wealth of knowledge and let us see how this ends up. I do view
that if a Senator like Derryn Hinch with his career as a journalist cannot even gather what
the facts really are then one has to be concerned what kind of law maker he is?
**#** I understood he was born in New Zealand and so English was his native language
where as it is not mine. I had no former education in the English language and so view that
if I can do the research then so he should be able to do so. As I view it he simply joined the
rot he so much criticized in the past.

END QUOTE from my next 16-8-2018 PRESS RELEASE Re Governor/Governor-General
unconstitutional payments.
Getting back to privacy, etc. In 2005 and 2006 my internet access to my own emails was
prevented and so to the High Court of Australia, this while I had a federal case of AEC v
Schorel-Hlavka against me. Unlike Derryn Hinch and his legal team of lawyers I on 19 July 2006
actually succeeded that compulsory voting was unconstitutional in both appeals.
Last Saturday I activated another pre-paid simcard and got the evidence that Optus confirmed
this via email. Just that then the access to the internet was prevented thereafter. Even the simcard
I used to activate the new simcard stopped working. I thought perhaps the WiFi was gone off
(after all both simcards now were not working) and so replaced it but to no avail. I then changed
computers but still to no avail. I then suspected that with the NBN works that were to be in our
street then 3G system was gone of air but this was denied by Optus staff on Tuesday. (When I
raised this with him.) On Tuesday I ended up to attend to Optus Preston this as I neither could
use the simcard in the mobile to call Optus. After sometime I was advised that the simcard I had
activated on Saturday was faulty. They replaced it. I had to provide my driver license to show
who I was, this even so I had already given him the details in writing which I had pre-printed.
* So it was merely a technical problem?
**#** Not in my view, this as if the simcard I activated on Saturday had a technical problem but
then how could it be that then also my existing simcard stopped working? Ordinary my existing
simcard would allow me to continue to contact Optus as I did to activate the new simcard but it
would neither work after the activation.
For some unknown reason both simcards were blocked and I suspect this was against my person
and not because of a faulty simcard. This also because the new simcard was reported in progress.
Well in the 4days Optus never contated me that there was something wrong with my simcard.
And for the record my mobile number is not with Optus and so they cannot argue they were
unable to contact me. The mobile I used for Optus simcard is a different mobile. As such the
story line of the new simcard being faulty didn’t work with me. They issued a new simcard but
cleared my account, as that was blocked! Because I criticize whomever is in government they I
suspect are trying to obstruct me. And with this legislation they pursue now they could do
likewise with journalist, whistleblowers and others. In my view the liberty enshrined in our
constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to willy nilly permit so called law
enforcement agencies to access your confidential details. It neither has in my view any
constitutional right to publish on the internet your health records without your specific
authorization.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR.-No, it would not; and, as an honorable member reminds me, there is a decision on the
point. All that is intended is that there shall be some process of law by which the parties accused must be
heard.
Mr. HIGGINS.-Both sides heard.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes; and the process of law within that principle may be [start page 689] anything
the state thinks fit. This provision simply assures that there shall be some form by which a person
accused will have an opportunity of stating his case before being deprived of his liberty. Is not that a
first principle in criminal law now? I cannot understand any one objecting to this proposal.
END QUOTE
At best the legislation can provide for a law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant but then it
must be that the person against whom the warrant is issued must first be allowed to object in
court to this warrant issue.
And here is where I view that Senator Fraser Anning seems to be right on the ball about what he
pursued in his speech. We have rights and liberties and we have a governing constitution and if
this were adhered to we could return to the pre 1970 era of being a united Australia.
The Framers of the constitution were not against immigration of people of other colour of skin
but held that it must be suitable to Australians. This I view is lost.
.
Sir Edmund Barton's ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an
Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it
is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is
predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian. There
can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn't an
Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag. We have room for but one language
here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to
the Australian people." Edmund Barton, 1907
I for one do not accept that I can be racial abused and the police does nothing about it but if I had
done it then I more than likely would have been charged.
* Your statement is dated 4 August 2018 and as such not created for the sake of Senator Fraser
Anning?
**#** It was emails that day (4 August 2018) to the Victorian Police at Preston.
* Why do you refer to appearing to be of Aboriginal descent and not just it were Aboriginals?
**#** there are Aboriginals living all over the world. Also the Supreme Court of Victoria held
that a person convicted of being an Aboriginal entering a white on hotel had to have the
conviction overturned, this as there was no evidence before the court that the man was
Aboriginal. The court made clear that the man may look Ab original and talk like an Aboriginal
but that doesn’t prove he is an Aboriginal. And we have ample of white skinned people claiming
to be Aboriginal. I have for decades cross-examined witnesses and was given the nick name
TRAPDOOR SPIDER by a judge in 19085 because of my style of cross-examination and I am
well aware some defense lawyer might cross-examine me about how could I prove the offender
was Aboriginal. So I make sure not to fall in that trap.
In the end I view that the statement by Senator Fraser Anning was within the spirit and legal
principles of what the Framers of the Constitution were expressing.
I may also add that I consider Derryn Hinch recorded statement in the 15 August 2018 Hansard
to be of a miniscule person who simply lacks the education how to deal with people regardless if
they are of a different opinion. He was I understand a law breaker convicted for contempt of
court with revealing details about alleged pedophile person and he dares to criticize someone else
who pursues no more but to act within the spirit of our constitutional framework? If we had more
of the kind of person as Senator Fraser Anning appears to me to be we might just get a better
representation in the Parliament then the ill-informed and rorting politicians.
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)


Re White Australia Policy, Privacy, Etc: Constitutionalist

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re White Australia Policy, Privacy, Etc: Constitutionalist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE: 20180815- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-Supplement 3

Re White Australia Policy, Privacy, etc

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Sub-clause 23. Immigration and emigration.

That is wide enough.

Colonel SMITH: Rather too wide!

Sub-clause agreed to.

QUOTE Sir JOHN HALL.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

* You really have done your research. Didn’t you?

QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Differences Between Human Races: 100 Facts

p5 15-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

p7 15-8-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like