HAIG    REPORT:    GoTo [on this page] HaigReport's Menu Of Themes of Menus for our thousands of pages
TIPS for
Navigating HaigReport:  If you arrived at this page, referred from a Search Engine such as Google et al, your URL link will NOT have an #Anchor/Marker to take you to the relevant spot on this page.  In that case, we do recommend that you view our "Latest HaigReport Promotions" of recent additions to our websites, by Clicking Here.  It will open in a new Browser window. 

If
you Click Here, you will be taken, usually, to the specific Unique Content on this page, for which you were most likely seeking.  However, if you Click Here, you will be taken to the Top of the HaigReport Header, below on this page. 

However, if you have arrived at this page from another of our Website pages, your link will usually have an #Anchor, also called a marker, which will take you to the intended specific spot on the page where that marker is positioned.  In fact, it will probably take you there prior to your reading this.  Moving to that Anchor is the final step in the loading of this page.

 HAIG     REPORT:   Is now on  twitter  [from 2nd June, 2013]  link to us HERE on twitter     See our Twitter Strategy    

 HAIG    REPORT:  SEE: Russell Mathews' COMMENTARY:    Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] current TOPICAL commentary on GOVERNMENT, politics & business     Press to READ       Press for MENU   

 HAIG    REPORT:    WANTED:
Healthy female "dog" to breed with Parson Russell Terrier, to produce ASSISTANCE DOGS.   Rochedale South QLD 4123
I wish to breed from my Parson Russell Terrier. He is a trained assistance dog. He has a wonderful nature. The breed of his mate could be varied or a cross; eg Parson Russell Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Beagle, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Staffy, and/or Fox Terrier plus many others. She does not need to be "pedigreed". I am very protective of my dogs. She will become very valuable to me and become one of my assistance "dogs". If we can assist each other, please contact me on my contact form, including your email address and your landline phone number so I can phone you to discuss. 

Because I am disabled and have an LLB [so therefore understand the Law surrounding disabilities and assistance dogs] I am now branching out to providing Assistance dogs to disabled persons [even if disabled in only a minor way and so not even realizing it]. This is not a business proposition but rather just a very necessary service I can offer to the community.
Many people have a disability and do not realize their ailment or "problem" is by law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA], classified as a "disability". This is especially so for people getting on in years, and who have a dog, and are maybe moving to accommodation where they are told they cannot take their dog. In a majority of cases, those people cannot be legally forced to surrender their animal/dog.
I will be assisting those person who already have dogs, but are being forced, unlawfully, to dispose of them because maybe they are moving accommodation. I can train your existing dogs to be assistance dogs and provide the documentation as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA]. I do not intend to charge for this, but just maybe cover some marginal costs.

 Click here  to Learn how your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY ABOVE] is prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA] or  Click here  to see your UNIQUE Personalized Alert Notice in a new Browser Window.


 My Reply To Julie Steel Threat Contempt Of CourtRe Truth Morrison Corrupt:


My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies. The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies.

   It is Our legal, social and moral DUTY to EXPOSE CRIME, FRAUD & CORRUPTION plus Lying and Hypocrisy in Public Life, Including Judges & magistrates 
 

Fraud, Corruption & attempted  MURDER 
covered-up by Queensland police, EXPOSED 

DirectoryWebsite/header.php

Probability that Order Of Malta Mafia is CORRUPT

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay.  

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> My Reply To Julie Steel Threat Contempt Of CourtRe Truth Morrison Corrupt

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for Probability that Order Of Malta Mafia is CORRUPT

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> My Reply To Julie Steel Threat Contempt Of CourtRe Truth Morrison Corrupt

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:

 Content: My Reply To Julie Steel Threat Contempt Of CourtRe Truth Morrison Corrupt

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for Probability that Order Of Malta Mafia is CORRUPT

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

My Reply To Julie Steel Threat Contempt Of CourtRe Truth Morrison Corrupt:

Gmail - My actions of political communication are the corner stone of democracy.

Russell Mathews <http://HaigReport.com/eml.html>

My actions of political communication are the corner stone of democracy.
1 message

Russell Mathews <http://HaigReport.com/eml.html> Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM
To: "Ms Julie Steel, Executive Director, Supreme District and Land Courts Service Julie.Steel@justice.qld.gov.au" <Julie.Steel@justice.qld.gov.au>
Cc: CourtInfo <info@courts.qld.gov.au>
G'day Ms Steel,

I repond to your letter dated 31st January, 2019.

The definitely amorphous manner in which Morrison dismissed my valid claims properly pleaded is a clear indication of possible corruption. When one considers the  nature of those claims, the indication is amplified.  He is a member of the Qld government.  Two of my claims properly pleaded included , assault, break and enter and armed robbery by a Qld police officer of me, and another was aggravated assault of me, causing GBH by three Qld government  public "servants".  Morrison's motive can be clearly determined from his close association wiht Peter Roney who wrote this included admission of fraud by himself, a doctor, a psychiatrist Sue and two others, and his intention to protect Peter Roney, and more importantly, the corrupt catholic cabal of the Order of Malta Mafia Mates from exposure.  The fact that two other judges [sic] of the Court of Appeal agreed with hims indicates that the Court of Appeal is corrupt.

Peter Roney [now QC] wrote the below passage in a letter to me dated 19/2/1979.  I explain the circumstances of his writing this elsewhere.
http://HaigReport.com/imagesOriginGovernmentCorruption/PeterRoneyFraudAdmissionReDoctorPsychiatristTwoStatDecsJobRE_Cr01_tn_800x357.jpg


I repeat the whole text of this excerpt to ensure that Google et al do index it readily, [and to permit me to include Anchors/Markers at particular words]: 

"... The job I lost at the RE was suddenly given back.  I've appealed against 'my TEAS decision on the basis that a week before my exams Sue & I broke up as a result of a letter she sent me. She did in fact send it to me, but it was only 2 weeks ago and upon my request. I have statutory decs. from 2 people "who knew of my circumstances," a medical certificate & a letter from a Psychiatrist (no less) which all say I was incapable of sitting for the exams I failed, & its all bullshit.
 "This is obviously where contacts are important. ..." 



Morrison is a mate, I suspect an Order of Malta Mafia Mate, of Peter Roney.  They spent three months together on the BHP Moura MIne disaster gig.

Qld government is corrupt.  It is due to the control of the Qld government by catholics and the secretive clandestine, corrupt catholic Order of  Malta Mafia.  I note that you are a catholic.   No doubt that is the reason that you have received the employment and promotions you have with the Qld government.   You were probably helped through the UQ Law school by the Order of Malta Mafia then controlling the UQ law school from at least 1979 with  the likes of Quentin Bryce, Patsy Wolfe and Margaret White and Michael White.

Qld public sector is swamped with catholics, because catholics employ and promote catholics rather than anyone else on merit.  Just knowing that you are catholic, I could anticipate that Karen Baines is also catholic.  

All statements on my sheets of corflute are political statements about Queensland and Australian government and politics.  Freedom of Political communication is sacrosanct and superior to even freedom of expression.   All statements are TRUE.  The administration of justice has been brought into  disrepute by the extensive instances of corrupt decisions by courts, judges [sic], magistrates, and QCAT decision makers.  My collection of political statements is sacrosanct Freedodm of Political Communication.  My actions are the corner stone of democracy.

The Qld government is corrupt.  The below image of the handwritten admission of fraud by Peter John Roney has been publicly available for a decade.  The handwriting proves it is Peter Roney.  The Qld government has Admitted Roney as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Qld and keeps him there.   It has appointed Roney as a Sessional Member of QCAT and he is still there. Both make him a member of the Qld government.  Just try to  tell me that Philip Michael Hugh Morrison or is is Philip Hugh Mortrison is not a catholic.

All of the past 11 charges that have been finalized, and which were laid on me by Qld police have been concluded in my favour.  

The corruption in the Qld government, police and courts over the past four decades has included sabotage of my business, and so sabotaged and wrecked my life.

 
The Qld government has even attempted to assaassinate me, in January, 1996; see 

and 

Will they try again now?

Pay particular attention to SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES, and POSITIVE measures below.

The Qld government is corrupt.  The corruption is large at the behest of the criminal catholic Order of Malta Mafia.   Persons appointed by a corrupt government are probably corrupt at least to the extent of having proven to the corrupt government that they will not "bite the hand that feeds them"  ie they will always "turn a blind eye".    Now, you are going further by harassing me.  You are wasting resources by attempting to silence me.  Do you consider political and government corruption as being something positive?  You should refrain from attacking me.   I shall express the law on political communication below.   The most important political communication is that which exposes corruption.   How else can corruption be beaten, or is it your intention  that the corruption should continue and persist?    Is it possible that your clandestine agenda is furtherance and expanison of catholicism?

This is CRIMINAL HARASSMENT.   IF THIS CONTINUES YOU EACH ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL HARASSMENT.

I have political publications on my property and you are harassing me with the aim of silencing me so as to restrict political communication.   My political publications are exposing corruption in Qld.

I engage in POLITICAL COMMUNICATION/ POLITICAL Expression.  This is very much MY Human Right.

You are now entering the area of Freedom of Political Communication. The High Court has often commented on this important area.

I have attached for your convenience, the article "The influence of human rights on judicial decision-making" by The Hon Catherine Branson QC.


I emphasise the issue of freedom of political expression/communication; expression of political and government matters. My concern regarding political expression is in regard to exposing government and political corruption. Since I am exposing corruption in government, were you to attempt to censor or restrict or restrain me in any way, it would seem as though you are supporting corruption. The Qld government is corrupt. It is most likely to promote only those who the corrupt government would be confident would not "bite the hand that feeds them". Those people would turn a "blind eye" to government corruption. That is corruption. The corruption is catholic based, peaking in the corrupt catholic Order of Malta Mafia.



The identity of the "complaintant" could be relevant. That is especially if the person was a Qld government appointment, a catholic, [The order of Malta Mafia is a secret catholic society, so any catholic is likely to be member of the order of Malta Mafia.] or a labor supporter as the corrupt catholic order of Malta Mafia is labor oriented.



This response should resolve this matter. You are welcome to view and copy the content of my published political expression/communication. You do not need to engage me to do that. If you persist with this matter you will be acting unlawfully.



In accord with the sentiments of the AHRC, if YOU or YOUR COURT really finds any SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES, THEN YOU should take POSITIVE measures [ie not at my cost] to overcome them, . There can be no thought of restricting my rights of FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION.



Please advise if you find any SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES, what they are and what POSITIVE MEASURES [not at my cost] you propose to take.



Because I have been unmercifully attacked and had my businesses sabotaged and had the corrupt courts screw me, I am not minded to react civilly. I will never act criminally or physically violently.

If you persist, and I guess you are catholic, I will take it personally. I am in my legal rights. I am serious. I have been attacked because I had Roney's handwritten admission of fraud of the Commonwealth of Australia by himself two doctors and three others.

see   

Peter Roney 'QC'[?] HandWritten Admission Major Multiple Frauds:


From my experience of being targeted by the corruption in Queensland, those corrupt people in power will not be happy with my exercising my Human Rights.  
They have already tried to kill me putting me in hospital for 16 days with every bone in my head fractured and with my nose being broken and driven back through the front third of my sinuses.  Qld police refused to investigate. Do you think I am serious?


Relevant Constitutional provisions and case law were summarised by the High Court as follows in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2013] HCA 58:

In Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, it was said that the concept of representative government in a democracy signifies government by the people through their representatives: in constitutional terms, a sovereign power residing in the people, exercised by the representatives. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation confirmed that the implied freedom of political communication is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government for which the Constitution provides. The Constitution does so by directing that the members of the two Houses of Parliament shall be directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and States. Sections 7 and 24 and related sections of the Constitution are therefore to be seen as protecting the freedom of political communication in order that people are able to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. In Lange, it was also said that the freedom of political communication is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of the system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.

The High Court in Unions NSW also observed:

In a passage from Archibald Cox's text [The Court and the Constitution (1987) at 212], to which Mason CJ referred in ACTV[, it was said that: "Only by uninhibited publication can the flow of information be secured and the people informed ... Only by freedom of speech ... and of association can people build and assert political power".

It is well-established that international human rights instruments may serve as legitimate guides in developing the common law. Brennan J expressly recognised this in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) where he stated that:

[T]he international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights.

The Mabo (No 2) decision is a striking illustration of the High Court’s development of the common law by reference to international human rights jurisprudence. Brennan J (with Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing) said:

The opening up of international remedies to individuals pursuant to Australia's accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights brings to bear on the common law the powerful influence of the Covenant and the international standards it imports. In particular I refer to Article 25 ICCPR.

At this juncture, I refer you top Sec 109 of the Australian Constitution, viz:

109 Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Any "law", which you may purport to enforce, will be a state law. If you purport to restrain my Commonwealth Human Rights and International Human Rights, any one of which would be one of many, many potential Common Laws, your attempt will be inconsistent with any common law representing my Human right.  




Right to take part in public affairs, voting rights and access to public service

Back to rights and freedoms: right by right



UDHR poster democratic rights



Article 25 | Human Rights Committee General Comment | Constitutional protection | Commission work | More information | Comments



Article 25

ICCPR Article 25 states:



Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:



To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equxhttp://HaigReport.com/imagesOrderOfMaltaCorrupt/
xhttp://HaigReport.com/imagesOrderOfMaltaCorrupt/20190209PhotoDCMagistrateTerryGardiner_20181107rap3_Cr01_tn240x278.jpg
xhttp://HaigReport.com/imagesOrderOfMaltaCorrupt/20190209PhotoDCMagistrateTerryGardiner_Cr02_tn240x297.jpg
al suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.



Human Rights Committee General Comment



The Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service is reproduced in full below. It emphasises the relationship between the rights recognised in Article 25 and other rights, including



the right to self determination

freedom of information and expression,

freedom of association and

freedom of assembly.



Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.



The rights under article 25 are related to, but distinct from, the right of peoples to self-determination. By virtue of the rights covered by article 1 (1), peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to enjoy the right to choose the form of their constitution or government. Article 25 deals with the right of individuals to participate in those processes which constitute the conduct of public affairs. Those rights, as individual rights, can give rise to claims under the first Optional Protocol.



In contrast with other rights and freedoms recognized by the Covenant (which are ensured to all individuals within the territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the State), article 25 protects the rights of "every citizen". State reports should outline the legal provisions which define citizenship in the context of the rights protected by article 25. No distinctions are permitted between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Distinctions between those who are entitled to citizenship by birth and those who acquire it by naturalization may raise questions of compatibility with article 25. State reports should indicate whether any groups, such as permanent residents, enjoy these rights on a limited basis, for example, by having the right to vote in local elections or to hold particular public service positions.



Any conditions which apply to the exercise of the rights protected by article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria. For example, it may be reasonable to require a higher age for election or appointment to particular offices than for exercising the right to vote, which should be available to every adult citizen. The exercise of these rights by citizens may not be suspended or excluded except on grounds which are established by law and which are objective and reasonable. For example, established mental inca5873998pacity may be a ground for denying a person the right to vote or to hold office.

The conduct of public affairs, referred to in paragraph (a), is a broad concept which relates to the exercise of political power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers. It covers all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy at international, national, regional and local levels. The allocation of powers and the means by which individual citizens exercise the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs protected by article 25 should be established by the constitution and other laws.

Citizens participate directly in the conduct of public affairs when they exercise power as members of legislative bodies or by holding executive office. This right of direct participation is supported by paragraph (b). Citizens also participate directly in the conduct of public affairs when they choose or change their constitution or decide public issues through a referendum or other electoral process conducted in accordance with paragraph (b). Citizens may participate directly by taking part in popular assemblies which have the power to make decisions about local issues or about the affairs of a particular community and in bodies established to represent citizens in consultation with government. Where a mode of direct participation by citizens is established, no distinction should be made between citizens as regards their participation on the grounds mentioned in article 2, paragraph 1, and no unreasonable restrictions should be imposed.



Where citizens participate in the conduct of public affairs through freely chosen representatives, it is implicit in article 25 that those representatives do in fact exercise governmental power and that they are accountable through the electoral process for their exercise of that power. It is also implicit that the representatives exercise only those powers which are allocated to them in accordance with constitutional provisions. Participation through freely chosen representatives is exercised through voting processes which must be established by laws that are in accordance with paragraph (b).



8.) Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association.



Paragraph (b) of article 25 sets out specific provisions dealing with the right of citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs as voters or as candidates for election. Genuine periodic elections in accordance with paragraph (b) are essential to ensure the accountability of representatives for the exercise of the legislative or executive powers vested in them. Such elections must be held at intervals which are not unduly long and which ensure that the authority of government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors. The rights and obligations provided for in paragraph (b) should be guaranteed by law.



The right to vote at elections and referenda must be established by law and may be subject only to reasonable restrictions, such as setting a minimum age limit for the right to vote. It is unreasonable to restrict the right to vote on the ground of physical disability or to impose literacy, educational or property requirements. Party membership should not be a condition of eligibility to vote, nor a ground of disqualification.



States must take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right. Where registration of voters is required, it should be facilitated and obstacles to such registration should not be imposed. If residence requirements apply to registration, they must be reasonable, and should not be imposed in such a way as to exclude the homeless from the right to vote. Any abusive interference with registration or voting as well as intimidation or coercion of voters should be prohibited by penal laws and those laws should be strictly enforced. Voter education and registration campaigns are necessary to ensure the effective exercise of article 25 rights by an informed community.

Freedom of expression, assembly and association are essential conditions for the effective exercise of the right to vote and must be fully protected. Positive measures should be taken to overcome specific difficulties, such as illiteracy, language barriers, poverty, or impediments to freedom of movement which prevent persons entitled to vote from exercising their rights effectively. Information and materials about voting should be available in minority languages. Specific methods, such as photographs and symbols, should be adopted to ensure that illiterate voters have adequate information on which to base their choice. States parties should indicate in their reports the manner in which the difficulties highlighted in this paragraph are dealt with.

State reports should describe the rules governing the right to vote, and the application of those rules in the period covered by the report. State reports should also describe factors which impede citizens from exercising the right to vote and the positive measures which have been adopted to overcome these factors.

In their reports, States parties should indicate and explain the legislative provisions which would deprive citizens of their right to vote. The grounds for such deprivation should be objective and reasonable. If conviction for an offence is a basis for suspending the right to vote, the period of such suspension should be proportionate to the offence and the sentence. Persons who are deprived of liberty but who have not been convicted should not be excluded from exercising the right to vote.

The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates. Any restrictions on the right to stand for election, such as minimum age, must be justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria. Persons who are otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements such as education, residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation. No person should suffer discrimination or disadvantage of any kind because of that person's candidacy. States parties should indicate and explain the legislative provisions which exclude any group or category of persons from elective office.

Conditions relating to nomination dates, fees or deposits should be reasonable and not discriminatory. If there are reasonable grounds for regarding certain elective offices as incompatible with tenure of specific positions (e.g. the judiciary, high-ranking military office, public service), measures to avoid any conflicts of interest should not unduly limit the rights protected by paragraph (b). The grounds for the removal of elected office holders should be established by laws based on objective and reasonable criteria and incorporating fair procedures.

The right of persons to stand for election should not be limited unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of parties or of specific parties. If a candidate is required to have a minimum number of supporters for nomination this requirement should be reasonable and not act as a barrier to candidacy. Without prejudice to paragraph (1) of article 5 of the Covenant, political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.

State reports should describe the legal provisions which establish the conditions for holding elective public office, and any limitations and qualifications which apply to particular offices. Reports should describe conditions for nomination, e.g. age limits, and any other qualifications or restrictions. State reports should indicate whether there are restrictions which preclude persons in public-service positions (including positions in the police or armed services) from being elected to particular public offices. The legal grounds and procedures for the removal of elected office holders should be described.

In conformity with paragraph (b), elections must be conducted fairly and freely on a periodic basis within a framework of laws guaranteeing the effective exercise of voting rights. Persons entitled to vote must be free to vote for any candidate for election and for or against any proposal submitted to referendum or plebiscite, and free to support or to oppose government, without undue influence or coercion of any kind which may distort or inhibit the free expression of the elector's will. Voters should be able to form opinions independently, free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of any kind. Reasonable limitations on campaign expenditure may be justified where this is necessary to ensure that the free choice of voters is not undermined or the democratic process distorted by the disproportionate expenditure on behalf of any candidate or party. The results of genuine elections should be respected and implemented.

An independent electoral authority should be established to supervise the electoral process and to ensure that it is conducted fairly, impartially and in accordance with established laws which are compatible with the Covenant. States should take measures to guarantee the requirement of the secrecy of the vote during elections, including absentee voting, where such a system exists. This implies that voters should be protected from any form of coercion or compulsion to disclose how they intend to vote or how they voted, and from any unlawful or arbitrary interference with the voting process. Waiver of these rights is incompatible with article 25 of the Covenant. The security of ballot boxes must be guaranteed and votes should be counted in the presence of the candidates or their agents. There should be independent scrutiny of the voting and counting process and access to judicial review or other equivalent process so that electors have confidence in the security of the ballot and the counting of the votes. Assistance provided to the disabled, blind or illiterate should be independent. Electors should be fully informed of these guarantees.

Although the Covenant does not impose any particular electoral system, any system operating in a State party must be compatible with the rights protected by article 25 and must guarantee and give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors. The principle of one person, one vote, must apply, and within the framework of each State's electoral system, the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another. The drawing of electoral boundaries and the method of allocating votes should not distort the distribution of voters or discriminate against any group and should not exclude or restrict unreasonably the right of citizens to choose their representatives freely.

State reports should indicate what measures they have adopted to guarantee genuine, free and periodic elections and how their electoral system or systems guarantee and give effect to the free expression of the will of the electors. Reports should describe the electoral system and explain how the different political views in the community are represented in elected bodies. Reports should also describe the laws and procedures which ensure that the right to vote can in fact be freely exercised by all citizens and indicate how the secrecy, security and validity of the voting process are guaranteed by law. The practical implementation of these guarantees in the period covered by the report should be explained.

Subparagraph (c) of article 25 deals with the right and the opportunity of citizens to have access on general terms of equality to public service positions. To ensure access on general terms of equality, the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal must be objective and reasonable. Affirmative measures may be taken in appropriate cases to ensure that there is equal access to public service for all citizens. Basing access to public service on equal opportunity and general principles of merit, and providing secured tenure, ensures that persons holding public service positions are free from political interference or pressures. It is of particular importance to ensure that persons do not suffer discrimination in the exercise of their rights under article 25, subparagraph (c), on any of the grounds set out in article 2, paragraph 1.

State reports should describe the conditions for access to public service positions, any restrictions which apply and the processes for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal or removal from office as well as the judicial or other review mechanisms which apply to these processes. Reports should also indicate how the requirement for equal access is met, and whether affirmative measures have been introduced and, if so, to what extent.



25.) In order to ensure the full enjoyment of rights protected by article 25, the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issueswithout censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. It requires the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, including freedom to engage in political activityindividually or through political parties and other organizations, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign for election and to advertise political ideas.



The right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join organizations and associations concerned with political and public affairs, is an essential adjunct to the rights protected by article 25. Political parties and membership in parties play a significant role in the conduct of public affairs and the election process. States should ensure that, in their internal management, political parties respect the applicable provisions of article 25 in order to enable citizens to exercise their rights thereunder.

Having regard to the provision of article 5, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, any rights recognized and protected by article 25 may not be interpreted as implying a right to act or as validating any act aimed at the destruction or limitation of the rights and freedoms protected by the Covenant to a greater extent than what is provided for in the present Covenant.

Constitutional protection

Section 41 of the Constitution which deal with the right to vote provides only that persons having the right to vote in State elections have the right to vote in Federal elections. Limitations on the right to vote have been a focus of the Commission's work.



Although the Constitution does not contain an express statement equivalent to the full extent of rights recognised in ICCPR Article 25, the High Court has found a degree of implied Constituional protection. In particular, similarly to the Human Rights Committee, the High Court has emphasised the connection between the rights recognised in Article 25 and the rights to freedom of association and expression.



Relevant Constitutional provisions and case law were summarised by the High Court as follows in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2013] HCA 58:



In Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, it was said that the concept of representative government in a democracy signifies government by the people through their representatives: in constitutional terms, a sovereign power residing in the people, exercised by the
representatives. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation confirmed that the implied freedom of political communication is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government for which the Constitution provides. The Constitution does so by directing that the members of the two Houses of Parliament shall be directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and States. Sections 7 and 24 and related sections of the Constitution are therefore to be seen as protecting the freedom of political communication in order that people are able to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. In Lange, it was also said that the freedom of political communication is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of the system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution.

The High Court in Unions NSW also observed:

In a passage from Archibald Cox's text [The Court and the Constitution (1987) at 212], to which Mason CJ referred in ACTV[, it was said that: "Only by uninhibited publication can the flow of information be secured and the people informed ... Only by freedom of speech ... and of association can people build and assert political power".


**************************************************
Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA     

Email: http://HaigReport.com/eml.html
**************************************************

2 attachments



 
PeterRoneyFraudAdmissionReDoctorPsychiatristTwoStatDecsJobRE_Cr01.jpg

301K




;20151122_20090925CatherineBransonQC_InfluenceHumanRightsJudicialDecisionMakingFederalMagistratesCourt2009Plenary25September2009.pdf
99K

Menu: Probability that Order Of Malta Mafia is CORRUPT: