CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AS TO INTERNET FILTERING

The issue is if the Commonwealth of Australia has legislative powers to block information from being accessible via the Internet.
.
It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution gave basically unlimited powers to the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to telecommunication, as the constitution specifically provide for this, however, the issue obviously is if the legislation it proposes to limit access and/or block certain websites is within its legislative powers.
.
In my view the Commonwealth of Australia cannot take over or otherwise interfere with the civil rights of individuals.
.
The issue is that the proposed legislation is not as to enable telecommunication to be provided but rather as to prevent it in certain circumstances.
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
.
As a severe critic upon various governments (of all political colour) I may assume that I be blocked out immediately and this because of exercising my political rights and not at all because of causing problems with the communication highway.
I view that it is simply not for the government to interfere with our lives in such manner and the aim of the legislation is to interfere with the democratic rights of individuals.
.
I do not need to access porn sites but still it is my constitutional right to make that decision and not that some overzealous government denies me my right to make that decision.
.
I do not need to download horrible pictures about the misuse of children, etc, but that is my choice and the government should but out of this argument.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON’T!
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have defeated the commonwealth, such as on 19 July 2006, after a 5-year epic legal battle that it had no constitutional powers to legislate as to make registration and/or voting compulsory. Again, I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth! As author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I have also published all documents of those cases!
.
Consider some of the following quotations of the statements of the Framers of the Constitution:
.
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR.-
We must remember that in any legislation of the Commonwealth we are dealing with the Constitution. Our own Parliaments do as they think fit almost within any limits. In this case the Constitution will be above Parliament, and Parliament will have to conform to it.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Under a Constitution like this, the withholding of a power from the
Commonwealth is a prohibition against the exercise of such a power.
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-The particular danger is this: That we do not want to give to the Commonwealth powers which ought to be left to the states. The point is that we are not going to make the Commonwealth a kind of social and religious power over us.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on
the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
And
Mr. BARTON.-
QUOTE
The position with regard to this Constitution is that it has no legislative
power, except that which is actually given to it in express terms or which is
necessary or incidental to a power given.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE
.
And
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
And
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
And
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE
.
The obvious danger is that the commonwealth can secretly block political opponents and then if found out claim it was an error. We must never agree to this.
.
While I am aware there will be people who will argue that for some issues the Commonwealth should be allowed to control the material, such as child pornography the problem with this argument you cannot have a half baked solution.
It is like a woman is either pregnant or not as she cannot be pregnant for one thing and not pregnant for other things.
.
Therefore, if it is unconstitutional then it is for all such purposes and you cannot allow some how unconstitutional conduct to flourish while on the other hand oppose it in regard of other matters.
.
As it is embedded in the constitution of having political and religious liberty and civil rights the Commonwealth when exercising what may be otherwise legislative powers nevertheless has to ensure not to infringe upon those right.
.
There is absolutely no control over what the Commonwealth of Australia may dictate from time to time as to websites to be blocked and so I might be quickly one of them being blocked by an overzealous government wanting to conceal what I seek to expose. They obviously wouldn’t have a system in place to request my permission to block my website! And considering an election then the government can obviously with out intent (so they will pretend) block out political opponents websites and by the time it is all sorted out the election is more then likely over and done with.
.
This is not just about blocking some material but a total attack upon our rights and liberties that have been guaranteed and embodied into the constitution.
.
Only an utter fool would go along with this because once they commence to do some of it then bit by bit they find excuses to extend it to every facet of your life.
.
We had soldiers dying to protect the very constitutional rights we now have and so to say we would disgrace their sacrifices by failing to stand up against any government that seeks to deny us our constitutional rights.
.
See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)
.
CONSTITUTIONALIST, Author, Publisher, Consultant, Attorney.
.
17-12-2009
.