- Rule of Law
- By Chris Field
- Contributed by: MrNatural ( 25 articles in 2014 )
All laws are equal, but some laws are more equal than others. (apologies to Orwell)
Or to put it in the vernacular of an Aussie oil commercial, “Laws ain’t laws!”
The law landscape is becoming muddier in recent decades, so this article is an attempt to clear the mud and distil a simple grid of reference that allows ordinary people to understand the law as far as it impacts them.
Some Foundational Principles
Law is that body of obligations to which everyone is bound, from the king to the chambermaid. The term ‘rule of law’ refers to the fact that everyone is bound by the law. No-one can escape their obligation to obey the laws.
But straight away we have a problem. Some laws are universal, such as laws against murder and theft. Everyone is bound by those laws and responsible not to break them.
However, there are in-house laws for employees or club members. Those laws are not universal and cannot be forced upon people who are not employees or members of the club.
For the purpose of this article we shall look only at those laws which apply to us all.
Foundation of Law
Everything must have a foundation, otherwise it will not stand. Things built on a firm foundation stand longer and stronger than things built on sand.
The original foundation for English law, which is the law that the Western world inherited and has built upon, is the Holy Bible and the law of Christ given two thousand years ago. That law involves such things as mercy, forgiveness, innocence until proven guilty and the guilty mind (mens rea) among other things.
An underlying principle of historic English law is that certain rights are given to humanity by our creator God. Those principles must be protected and upheld, in honour of God who gave them.
We see this principle of the rights of the people defined and protected in such historic documents as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
Consider the promise by the Kings and Queens of England that “we will deny to no may, nor delay to them their justice and their rights”.
Law For the People
Considering the promise to deliver justice and right we can see that it is law FOR the people. It is a promise to protect the people and their God-given rights and freedoms.
However, there is a competing concept of law.
Another concept of law is that when people form a society that society becomes the force to which they must submit and also becomes the provider of their rights and freedoms.
This state centric concept discounts the inherent rights and freedoms of the people, in pursuit of what is best for the society, or the ‘greater good’. If one person has their rights wrongfully stripped from them that is not of great concern if it serves some greater purpose of the society.
And here we have the principal tension in today’s laws. We have laws for the people, and we have laws for the corporate entities.
Antichrist and All That
Historically the Christian church has understood that the world is heading for a one world government under the dictatorship of a character known as the Antichrist. This revealed in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, where the aged Apostle John saw visions of this apocalyptic future.
If the predictions are to come to pass then the whole world will end up in slavery to a global dictator. For that to happen law must evolve from law for the people to law for the corporation. Laws that protect people’s rights must be replaced by laws that take those rights away, ostensibly for the greater good.
The Antichrist mindset was in existence in the days of the early church, two thousand years ago. So it is no surprise that such a mindset is active in our world today.
And so we have people today who are seriously and passionately committed to laws that serve corporate agendas and that deny people their God-given rights and freedoms.
And thus we have conflict of laws in much of the world today, where laws that protect people are being overturned or restricted by laws that empower corporations and governments to take our freedoms from us.
Overturning Rule of Law
Since the true foundation of law is that we have inherent God-given rights and freedoms, those who wish to overturn those rights and freedoms must cheat the system at some point or other.
If we know what to look for we will see the evidence of laws that violate foundational principles and overturn historic principles and protections.
I will show you later how the Infringements Act 2006 (Vic) and similar laws in other states of Australia and beyond violate some pretty foundational principles. Those violations are not hidden, but that has not stopped our politicians and lawmakers from creating these suspect laws, nor has it stopped the courts and governments from enforcing them.
But first we need a little more foundational understanding.
Laws have to be made by someone. We call the people who make the law ‘lawmakers’ or ‘legislators’.
When society needs to find a way to use the roads safely a law is needed about which side of the road vehicles should travel on. Legislators are meant to consider the options and debate the possibilities until they have come up with the most effective law to govern use of the roads.
When it is discovered that people are smuggling unwanted goods into the land the lawmakers must work out the best laws to stop that action and punish those who break the law.
In Australia we have certain protections in the making of laws. Elected representatives must consider and debate proposed laws. Once they have voted in favour of a set of laws, usually embodied in an Act of Parliament, that Act must pass on to our Upper House, or Senate, where the law is reviewed.
If the laws are not accepted in their original form they will be sent back to the House of Representatives where they will either be disbanded or reworked and resubmitted for approval.
Only once laws have been approved by both houses of parliament can the law be made a law. But even then it must be signed off by the Queen’s representative, and it should also be reviewed by the courts to make sure it is not in conflict with existing laws.
So it is not an easy matter to get a new law made and have it imposed on the population. And that’s a good thing that laws must be rigorously debated and filtered before they are allowed to be enacted.
Good society involves three branches of government: the legislative (law making); administrative (general operation of society); and judicial (law enforcement).
The Australian Constitution was set up on the principle of ‘separation of powers’. That principle is that the three branches of government are to be kept separate.
If they are not separated then people’s rights can be violated.
Take for example the December 2012 decision by Melton Council in Victoria that it did not like people interrupting the council meeting. The Councillors met and made up a new law that anyone who failed to leave the chamber when directed by the Mayor would be subject to an immediate on-the-sot fine of $500.
In that case there was no separation of powers. Firstly the law was made capriciously by the self-interested group of councillors. There was no ‘check and balance’ process to make sure the law was a good one and did not violate such foundational principles as the right of free speech. The Councillors significantly escalated the penalty to frighten people into submission. Then those who made the law were able to enforce it themselves.
This is a blatant violation of the Australian Constitution and the principle of ‘separation of powers’. It shows how easy it is for a corporation or government agency to become a belligerent dictator if the principles of law are not maintained.
It is also a good reason why Australians should not elevate local councils into our Constitution, as they are not subject to the rigorous law making limitations imposed by the Constitution.
Through the centuries the courts have become evil in various ways. Thankfully a set of principles has been distilled over time to define correct judicial process.
A person making a claim must have a just cause. They must have the sworn testimony of an injured party, not hearsay, groundless claims. The accused must be allowed to face his accuser and to challenge the claims made.
A judge must provide a fair trial; including ensuring that one party is not overpowered by the legal representatives he is up against. Those who represent themselves must be given special protection from their own ignorance and inexperience.
If there is contention in a matter then the court cannot give summary judgment. Each matter must be heard. The jurisdiction of the court must be established and may be challenged at any time during a proceeding. A judge who has vested interest in a case or who is biased must stand down.
If the principles of judicial process are not upheld then the whole case can be thrown out.
Foundational Reference Point
Because societies tend to drift over time, shifting their values without even realising it, the safest societies are those that have an external reference point and a firm foundation.
In Australian Law we have the Australian Constitution by which all other laws must be evaluated. If any law offends the Constitution then that law is of no effect.
Further to this the Holy Bible is regarded as the foundation of Australian law, both by our historic lawmakers, but also by our Queen swearing allegiance to the Bible in her Coronation.
These foundations have not been removed, despite public sentiment having drifted somewhat over the past century.
So we can measure the modern laws that might be attacking our God-given rights and freedoms by referring to the Australian Constitution and to the Holy Bible.
Making Laws that Ain’t Laws
State lawmakers have tried to overturn our law, taking away our rights and freedoms and moving away from our foundations, by making laws that are not laws.
Acts of Parliament are increasingly being made without regard to the foundational law in Australia. It is as if those driving this process are flagrantly challenging our Constitutional protections and making people fight for the very rights and freedoms that have been guaranteed to them.
When Parliaments create an Act they declare that they have made a new ‘law’. They then backup that law with police enforcement, courts making judgements based on that ‘law’, sheriffs taking possession of people’s goods and so on.
By this evil use of the instruments of society laws are being forced upon people even though those laws are not lawful when measured against the Australian Constitution.
It is imposition of new laws, taking our freedoms, by force and intimidation.
Infringements Act 2006 (Vic)
Let me use the Victorian Infringements Act of 2006 as an example of modern law that overturns the principles of law, Australian Constitution and the rights and freedoms of the people.
The Australian Constitution upholds ‘separation of powers’ and rigorous lawmaking process. That means that those who make the laws must do so with checks and balances and they cannot enforce their own laws.
The Infringements Act licences certain private corporations with the power to make laws without any checks and balances. And it empowers them to make a law one day and send out their own employees to enforce the law the very next day.
The new laws don’t have to be signed off on behalf of the Queen. They don’t have to be scrutinised by the courts. The Corporations, such as local councils made up of ordinary men and women, are given power to do what highly trained, legal minds cannot do. This is an amazing allocation of power, and it completely violates the separation of powers.
No Judicial Process
What is more each company that is allowed to issue infringements, based on by-laws they make up themselves, is permitted to employ people who are given incredible judicial power.
The company man, be he or she a parking attendant, council by-laws officer, train ticket inspector, or whatever, is given the role of finding an offender, accusing the offender, determining that the offender is guilty without even hearing from the alleged offender or hearing the case, determining the penalty and then creating a legal document that immediately makes the accused a guilty party obligated to pay the fine.
That makes them accuser, judge, jury and executioner!
This collection of actions contains several violations of judicial process. The Australian Constitution not only requires the separation of powers but requires that correct judicial process be followed.
Judges are required to guarantee fairness and must prove jurisdiction. There must be just cause, based on the sworn testimony of an injured party.
Infringements are issued in abundance every day without evidence of an injured party, without sworn testimony from anyone, without fairness, without hearing, and without conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Laws Ain’t Laws
Despite the failings of the Infringements Act the courts are keen to uphold infringements once they have been issued. The accused is considered guilty as charged.
Yet, as I have shown, the Infringements Act is offensive to the Australian Constitution. It is not valid law. It is a state statute designed to overturn and overthrow the rights of the public and the protections built into the Constitution.
So the law landscape is muddy. It is muddied by laws that are not valid laws, yet which are upheld vigorously by the courts, the police, the sheriffs and the legal system.
Those who try to challenge the Infringements system have an uphill battle on their hands.
This can only be because there are people who want to defeat our God-given rights and freedoms and to make us subject to laws made by companies. That way we can be stripped of our rights and made slaves to all manner of entities who have been given special rights to enslave us.
It isn’t a pretty picture, but it is a picture we can understand and maybe change.
We actually do have God-given rights and freedoms. Those who are attacking our rights must do so by violating the foundations of our law. Surely there are those who can and will do something to bring redress to this evil ?????
What about you?
Rule of Law, Peter Olney 2014 (46:19)