ISSUE: 20170603 - Re Clamping down on offensive religious text, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution.
Considering the content of certain religious books, regardless of which religion it is, referring to
killing, rapes, etc, that in a sense promotes it I view that the parliaments of the
commonwealth/states/Territories should ban any such text. Hence legislate that all such books
are returned to its printer for the printer to dispose of them in an appropriate manner and not be
permitted to circulate them anywhere. The irony is that even in the courts Bibles or other
religious books are permitted to be used to swear an oath despite that such books contains vile
and disturbing content. This because the content of those religious books do not matter per se
for the making of an oath. The following ought to make it clear that any content in any
religious book that promotes violence, rapes, child abuse, murder, etc contrary to the
legislative provisions of any State can be ordered to be taken from circulation and of personal
possession as much as pornographic material is prohibited. As long as religions are promoting
vile/violent content in so called religious books they (called religious not for profit
organisations) also such be stripped of any not-for-profit taxation status. It must be deemed
contrary to the interest and wellbeing of society at large for any organisation to spread
vile/violent material and as such for this their not-for-profit status must be denied/cancelled.
Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and
also an amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices
which would otherwise be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious
rites is the "suttee," and another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other
barbarous cruelty, to the devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. FRASER (Victoria).-I think that if we give the right to an infinitesimal minority to come here
and indulge in extraordinary practices, under the pretence that this is a new religion, we may have all
the theatres and all the music-halls in Australia open on Sundays. If that is possible we ought to do
what we can to provide against it.
Mr. HIGGINS (Victoria).-I want if I can to recommend the Commonwealth Bill and get it carried.
But why should we be faced with this difficulty? You have put in the preamble a religious recital which
is not in the Constitution of the United States of America, but you have not put in the safeguard against
p1 3-6-2017 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
 religious intolerance which they have there. I ask honorable members how I shall face that difficulty?
There is a grave suspicion evidenced by what I said that there were 36,000 distinct signatures upon this
very point. I do not think it is too much for me to say that we ought to reassure those persons. They
may be wrong. It may be right, as my friend (Mr. Barton) says, that there is no power by implication in
the Commonwealth to pass this law. It may be right as he says, that the Commonwealth ought to have
the power. But I only say that it is a state matter, and it should be left to the states. My honorable
friend (Mr. Fraser), with all respect to him, shows the current ignorance on this matter because he will
not understand that the state, if my proposal is carried, will have the same power as it has now to stop
any theatrical performances on Sunday.
END QUOTE

It must be clear that it doesnt offence the provisions of Section 116 of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to ban/outlaw any vile/violent material from possession/
circulation/sale. Also it is utter and sheer nonsense for any government to promote non-violence
while at the same time allowing vile/violent material under the guise of religion to be possessed,
and/or being spread, etc.
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
"religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the
greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
END QUOTE

The Framers of the Constitution were alert to the misuse and abuse of religious doctrines to
permit unlawful conduct and embedded the legal principle in the constitution that any such
religious doctrines, etc, contrary to the laws would be able to be acted upon. Anyone who has the
demented view that promotion killings, raping of babies, etc, in so called religious books
cannot be subjected to laws fails to understand what Section 116 stands for. And politicians who
oppose the removal of such offensive text should resign from Parliament as I view they are unfit
to represent their elect orate appropriately. It ought to be clear that under criminal law anyone not
personally engaged in a murder/rape, etc, but promoting it or even remain inactive to prevent it
can be held legally liable as part of the criminal offence and so politicians better keep in mind
that they should face reality and not endorse in anyway the spread of offensive material and/or
the possession of it. The indoctrination of our youth with all this vile/violent material should be
stopped, this as failing to do so will result in them likely growing up with the perception it is all
right to commit those hideous crimes!
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!)

p2 3-6-2017 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