20240905-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator Claire Chandler - FREEDOM of SPEECH
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka20240905-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Senator Claire Chandler - FREEDOM of SPEECH
Uploaded by
Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-HlavkaPage 1
1
2
3 Senator Claire Chandler 5-9-2024
4 [email protected]
5
6 20240905-Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Senator Claire Chandler –
7 Re FREEDOM OF SPEECH
8 Clair,
9 I happen to download a short video about your statement in the federal Parliament about
10 Tasmania re your past statement and usage of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
11 As a self-educated constitutionalist it appears to me something is drastically wrong.
12 As you are a Federal Member of Parliament you are entitled to speak out regarding your views!
13 A State cannot interfere with the rights and freedoms of a Federal Member of Parliament in
14 regard of using FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
15
16 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
17 Australasian Convention)
18 QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-
19 What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious
20 liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably
21 aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also a charter of
22 peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will
23 embrace and unite.
24 END QUOTE
25 And
26 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
27 QUOTE
28 Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to
29 commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to
30 commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can
31 conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the
32 world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to
33 vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This
34 new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
35 END QUOTE
36 And
37 HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
38 QUOTE
39 Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed
40 as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for
41 no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that
42 those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the
43 Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
44 Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making
45 a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or
46 infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not
5-9-2024 Page 1 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which
2 it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you
3 are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
4 tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,
5 under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the
6 states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.
7 END QUOTE
8 While you are elected as a Senator representing the State of Tasmania, nevertheless as like any
9 other Australian you are entitled to exercise your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
10 At my https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati blog you will find I have extensively written about
11 FREEDOM OF SPEECH and that it is a legal principle embedded in the Commonwealth of
12 Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
13 As a widowed great-grand father I have ample of experiences as to what goes on in life. I accept
14 that ample of people may have different views, customs, traditions, religious and other desire
15 that may conflict with those I hold, and they are entitled upon them provided however that they
16 do not seek to force them upon me. We all can freely exercise out FREEDOM OF SPEECH
17 but again as long as we do not use it to inflict harm upon fellow human beings. Meaning, having
18 different views is not the issue, but to promote something that is to harm another person, not
19 mere imaginary but in reality, is what makes a FREEDOM OF SPEECH lawful or not.
20 While I personally do not desire to hold any weapon, I accept that others may do so and are
21 entitled to express themselves about this as much as I can, however if a person was to state to use
22 a weapon to specifically harm a person, then this no longer is exercise of FREEDOM OF
23 SPEECH. My view is that the sex of a person is conditionally upon having a xx or xy. Others
24 may claim otherwise but I am entitled to express myself without harming anyone. For anyone to
25 claim that somehow imaginary I may hurt the feeling of another person then well let us rebuild
26 sanatoriums and place them in there.
27 Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
28 Convention)
29 QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-
30 "religion is ever a matter between God and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the
31 greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
32 END QUOTE
33 Meaning, that any person may use FREEDOM OF SPEECH to express his/her views about his
34 particular god, if any, but to use this claimed God for promoting and/or committing violence then
35 this violates the basic principle of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which is you can use FREEDOM
36 OF SPEECH as long as in the process of doing so you respect the rights of others likewise.
37 In AEC v Schorel-Hlavka I (representing myself) twice defeated the Commonwealth and 9
38 Attorney-Generals that the part of “compulsory” voting was unconstitutional and succeeded on
39 19 July 2006 in both cases! And the important underlying issue was I so to say did my
40 homework to research the true meaning and application of the legal principles embedded in the
41 constitution!
42 “The principle of the constitution is that of a separation of legislative, executive and
43 judiciary functions, except in cases specified. if this principle be not expressed in direct
44 terms, it is clearly the spirit of the constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted
45 on by every friend of free government.” —Thomas Jefferson (1797)
46
47 We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!
48
49 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
50 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
51 (Our name is our motto!)
5-9-2024 Page 2 © Mr 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
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
[email protected] See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
