20160830-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. - IsSUE - Was The High Court of Australia Right About Marriage Issues, Etc & The Constitution

ISSUE - Was the High Court of Australia right about marriage issues, etc & the constitution?
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution.
My previous PRESS RELEASE was:
Does Mr Michael Kirby really expose the truth about homosexual marriage constitutional problems?
The documents can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/document/322419281/20160829-PRESS-RELEASE-Mr-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-WB-IsSUE-Plebiscite-Referendum-or-Parliamentarian-Vote-on-Homosexual-Marriage-Etc-the-Const
ISSUE - Plebiscite, referendum or parliamentarian vote on homosexual marriage, etc & the constitution
No doubt many will claim that the High Court of Australia http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/c... The
Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 (12 December 2013) held that the
marriage power in the constitution does enable the Parliament to legislate what a marriage is about.
As I have set out below, there are countries where you not only can marry but could be forced to
marry an animal if it was held one had sexual inter course or some kind of bestiality with the
animal. As such, parliament can accept that what are customs in other countries then why not
apply the same standards in Australia? Well this appears to me how the High court of Australia
seems to argue to some degree. Just that it isnt as simple. Its judgment surely does relate to
marriage but as I pointed out we have the next section dealing with divorce, custody, etc. And
as such while they are separately listed they must be read as one at times. Originally it was as one
until in 1897 this was spilt up as some delegates commented that this was not first approved by
them but the committee had done so, and the custody and guardianship could very well relate to
inmates of asylums. Well most asylums have been closed down and it appears to me they may
very well now occupy the benches of the courts and the Parliament, but I will not delve into that
now.
As I previously quoted:
QUOTE Thu, 31 Oct 2002 Email His Honour M Kirby J to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
Thank you for your letter.
There is no bias, any more than there would be for a woman judge sitting in a case involving women or a
male judge in a rape case.
Your views on the Constitution appear to have overlooked s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. If that power
were not enough, and none of the other heads of power sufficed, it is true that an amendment of the
Constitution might be required. Alternatively, there are cooperative schemes for parallel legislation. Ours
is a cooperative federation, as the Constitution itself envisaged.
Sincerely, Michael Kirby
END QUOTE Thu, 31 Oct 2002 Email His Honour M Kirby J to Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
His Honour Michael Kirby J (as he then was) I understood to be a practicing homosexual, in
violation of NSW laws while adjudicating upon others appearing before him in the courts as to
violating legal provisions. To me this was hypocrisy on its best.
At that time His Honour Michael Kirby J obviously didnt seem to hold that the marriage power
in the constitution was applicable for homosexual marriages. Why refer to Ss51(xxxvii) if the
marriage power all along provided for the legislative power?
If the marriage power is not at all restricted to what was applicable at the time of federation then
what does the constitution stands for, I ask?
p1
30-8-2016
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
Upon the wimps of judges it can be turned into anything!

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 (12 December 2013)
QUOTE
FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE JJ. The only issue which this Court can decide is a legal issue. Is
the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, inconsistent with
either or both of two Acts of the federal Parliament: the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975? That question must be
answered "Yes". Under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law (as a
majority of the Territory Legislative Assembly decided) is a matter for the federal Parliament.
END QUOTE
The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 (12 December 2013)
QUOTE
8. Although the Commonwealth and the Territory both submitted that s 51(xxi) gives the federal Parliament
power to make a law providing for same sex marriage, their submissions do not determine that question.
Parties cannot determine the proper construction of the Constitution by agreement or concession.
END QUOTE
Again The only issue which this Court can decide is a legal issue well Sue v Hill in my
view was anything but a legal decision within the confines of the constitution! There not the legal
principles embedded in the constitution but whatever the judges fancied themselves to me
seemed to be what the judgment was about.
http://huzlers.com/supreme-court-rules-you-can-legally-marry-anything-you-love-including-animals-and-material-objects/
QUOTE
Supreme Court Rules You Can Legally Marry Anything You Love Including Animals And Material Objects
WASHINGTON June marked a victory for gay marriage when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry
nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. This was a huge victory for the LGBT
community but not everyone is happy some people feel left out.
One of those people is Michael Hughson who has been in a serious relationship with his dog Shady for over 4 years. Him and many
other people have been sending letters and protesting outside Washington asking for the same freedom gays are receiving. Michael tells
us he is only asking for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Supreme court later ruled as people you have to right to marry whom or
whatever you love. Michael Hughson says if love is love and everyone wants equality then everyone should have to right to marry
anything and whatever they love.
Michael Hughson plans to legally marry his dog Shady sometime in August.
END QUOTE
If marriage is not to be taken as to what was at the time of federation well next time one of my
computers die I might just seek for funeral expenses as after all I be widowed by this death. Not
that I think this equality will then apply.
As indicated below a person married a cow. Well, what if some disease results to the cow
required to be killed to avoid possible spread of say foot and mouth decease. Hey, you are killing
the matrimonial partner of a human being and so will criminal laws be altered for making this a
murder? Will the surviving partner be able to claim crime compensation if someone kills this
cow ruthlessly.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-animals/
QUOTE
HobartStinson 2 years ago
Good article. The gay agenda is still being rammed down the throats of the public through entertainment. I
cant stand watching tv shows with gay gay gay in your face. As if it were normal. It is not normal but
abnormal. Homosexuality should be suppressed just as all unsocial and damaging behaviors are.
END QUOTE
And this is what has been done, saturate society with this homosexuality issue ongoing and in
particularly pervert the minds of children and well we have now accomplished that as was
reported people including children even commit suicide because a same gender person doesnt
like the attention in homosexual format.
And now with this ever going on drive for homosexual marriages to be legalize to what does this
result to, I wonder?
If the bounds of marriage can include anyone or anything besides one man and one woman, then
why have a Census that ask in question 3 is the person male or female?.
p2
30-8-2016
If the Census was to have statistics then surely the various different genders would be very
important for businesses and indeed for Governments as the more non-gender people are existing
the more laws and facilities may be required to accommodate for this.
As such, the homosexual marriages referred to same sex marriage would exclude non-gender
people as they might be a non-gender desiring to marry a parson of a different gender, being man
or woman. (Male or Female).
Ok, we have people migrating into Australia which are lawfully married in their home country
with more than one person of the opposite gender. Say one man with one woman, and may have
fathered numerous children with those wives. Where is the marriage equality for them when
they are denied equality to be recognized with every lawfully married wife, regardless if the child
is a mere 9 years old, as after all the High court of Australia is looking at other countries about
their marriages and so why not then allow people to marry as much as they like whomever.
And why stop by just marrying a human being and not some animal? Or for that a computer
(thing). Boy, you marry your computer and well it dies a natural dead (as computers often do)
and well you apply then for a widow/widower pension because your matrimonial party died.
Come to think of it as De Facto marriages are recognized for Centrelink purposes, I was a fool
not to apply for widower pension whenever any of my computers gave the ghost. I must add in a
natural manner and not that I somehow for the sake of a widower pension terminated the
computers life at an earlier time than otherwise would have eventuated.
It becomes now clear why way back in 2001 the Australian Democrats were running a political
election campaign with barking dogs, as they might have been using their spouses! Perhaps the
Australian greens and the Australian labor Party are to follow with their spouses?
For employers it will become a nightmare as to if the person is of a gender or not and new
employment contracts might be needed as to how heavy loads can be carried by any
specific gender or non-gender. Or we just make it gender equality and reduce the
maximum weights for males to be also a mere 5 KG.
I below set out how I was in management and how pending the gender of an employee certain
weights were set. Are we now going to have male equality that they no longer have to do
25KG boxes but a mere 5KG as females are limited to?
.
https://theconversation.com/profiles/g-h-schorel-hlavka-o-w-b-6179
QUOTE
QUOTE
The respondent uses, and these reasons use, the personal pronouns "she" and "her" to refer to the
respondent.
END QUOTE
In the judgment the court refer to Norrie at least 15 times to "her" and once to :"herself" and 5 times to
"she" but did make clear
QUOTE
"correct or eliminate ambiguities relating to the sex of the person"
END QUOTE
QUOTE
was to the effect that the sex affirmation procedure had not eliminated the ambiguities relating to Norrie's
sex.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
to register Norrie's change of sex by recording the change from classification as male to non-specific.
END QUOTE
Where then the sex affirmative procedure had not eliminated the ambiguities relating to the sex of Norrie
then I view it was a failure. While Norrie may then pursue and the court accepted to refer to "her', "she",
Herself" it was not a judicial determination that Norrie was a "she", "her" or "herself" as it merely echoed
what Norrie had preferred to be referred to. If Norrie had requested to prefer to be referred to as "he",
Him" "herself" then the court would have likewise done so as again it made no judicial decision as to what
sex, if any, Norrie was. Indeed it could not do so where Norrie seems to hold that the physical sex
p3
30-8-2016
affirmation procedure had not removed any ambiguity.

and the Court referred to that Norrie was "indeterminate sex"/"intersex" as such being neither male or
female. This I view can be held to have been implied as otherwise it could not have held a "non-gender" to
be applicable. Nothing prevents Norrie to refer being a "she", "he" or "it". after all Norrie can use the name
to Smith, Peter Pan or whatever, like anyone else provided it is not done for illegal purposes. In my view
however where a person is neither "male" or "female" then the person may be referred to as "it" being a
non gender classification.
ordinary a person is born female or male albeit the reproductive organs may at times not be sufficient
formed at time of birth due to whatever medical issues. In my view, where the gender of the child is not
properly known then it shouldn't be forced upon the child to be recorded as male or female but let
appropriate medical procedures be used to determine the gender of the person.
QUOTE'
9. Norrie was born in Scotland with male reproductive organs. In 1989 she underwent a "sex affirmation
procedure
END QUOTE
Clearly, the Court held that Norrie at birth was a male, with male reproductive organs. As such, unless
Norrie attains "female reproductive organs" I view Norrie never can be deemed or become a "female"
irrespective what kind of medical procedures are applied.
For this I view that while Norrie for the Court may have preferred to be referred to as "she" and "her" the
Court made no determination that Norrie was a "she" or "her" and in fact found that Norrie was an
"indeterminate sex"/"intersex", at least I conclude this from the courts judgment.
To me in plain language it means there was a failure of a "sex affirmation procedure" and if anything I view
this may underline the dangers associated with changing the sex/gender of a person. Indeed, 60 Minutes
had once a program where a male person desired to become a "female" and had "sex affirmation
procedures" and then not long thereafter the person regretted to have done so and wanted to be a "male"
again and grew a beard, etc. Therefore, the mind may play games with a person and then result into a
change of gender where in the end the change of gender (albeit without altering the reproduction system)
can result in what some may refer to as a "freak" who is neither male or female.
While this was a N.S.W. case it may not be the same for other states if its legislation for the Registrar is
different then that of N.S.W. regarding the recording of a person's gender.
QUOTE
whose birth is not registered under this Act or a corresponding law,
END QUOTE
In my view corresponding law can include country of birth. After all the legislation also provides for
registration of a person not born within N.S.W.
Where a person has obtained a driver licence that stipulates the sex of the person then I view one cannot go
through a backdoor manner to try to change this using a change of birth certificate.
Indeed, to allow for this may undermine matters as a person who is not a "male" or "female" may then
selectively use either gender for purposes that may otherwise not be available.
As clearly the court didn't hold that the "sex affirmation procedure" was deemed not to have been
successful then any person, not just Norrie, could use this kind of claim to get into women's or men's
changing rooms, etc.
When I was in management I had males being allowed to lift $25 kg parcels but women were restricted to a
mere $5kg, albeit having equal pay. It means that a person claiming to be of a non-specific" gender can
selectively choose to be a female to avoid having to perform heavy work. Trade Unions now will have to
consider if a "non-specific" gender not being either "male" or "female" then should be provided with
specific category of provisions. In my view the Court failed to consider the social and economical impact on
a person of adult age to be "non specific". also, are we going to have "non-specific" persons now going to
sue whomever in the courts for having failed in their "sex affirmation procedure" to have a conclusive
gender?
While Norrie may for the court have preferred to be referred to as "she" and "her' it cannot imply that
anyone else has to do so. Indeed, in my view nothing of that sort is implied by the court. In my view Norrie
being gender/sex "non specific" therefore ought to be referred to as "it".
In my view this case if anything underlines that those involved in "sex affirmation procedure" would do
better to get a better understanding of the mental state of the person to which the medical profession
contemplates to apply a "sex affirmation procedure".
Where the court held that Norrie was born as a "male" because of the "male" reproductive organs then I
view the medical profession would do better to establish first if a person wanting to undergo a "sex
affirmation procedure" has male or female reproductive organs. In my view a child born without specific
p4
30-8-2016
male or female genitals doesn't become a male or female just pending what some members of the medical
profession may create at the time but rather what the child has as reproduction organs.
Some parents, so to say may brainwash a child to dress in a certain manner because they like the child to be
of a certain gender. The child then will grow up so to say with a twisted mind not really knowing being a
male or female. And I know from personal experiences how this can lead to suicide, as my late brother in
law ended up with!
I have not read all relevant documents of the case regarding Norrie, nor are they all available, but safe to
say that where the Court didn't refer to it in their reason of judgment, other than that there was no need
for medical statements for the Registrar, even so required within the provisions of the act:
QUOTE
13. In conformity with s 32DB, Norrie's application was accompanied by statutory declarations from two
medical practitioners. Each medical practitioner stated that Norrie had undergone a sex affirmation
procedure. Each also stated, in a pro forma sentence in the declaration, that he supported the application of
Norrie to have her birth record altered showing the sex now to be non-specific. Despite the provision in the
statutory declaration for a statement of support, it had no apparent statutory significance as it was neither
required nor provided for by the Act or the regulations made under the Act.
END QUOTE
In my view, the mere fact that the legislators made it mandatory for statements to be provided must imply
they should be considered by the registrar.
In any event, if the gender/sex of a person is not to be established by the genitals of the person then we
obviously have a major problem. A person then could simply register as "non gender'; even so born a male
and having male reproduction organs but mentally having the view that this person is neither a "he" or a
"she".
In my view this makes a mockery of what registrations are about.
In my view the courts are not there to play social; commentators or to introduce into legislation social
advancements, as the court may hold them to be on their contemporary views, as too often has already
eventuated in the past, but must remain strictly according to the law. Therefore, where a "sex affirmation
procedure" is implied to have failed then the "male" must be deemed to remain a "male" or the "female" be
deemed to remain s a "female" as the "indeterminate sex"/"intersex" didn't exist as such at the time of
birth. A failure to successfully perform a "sex affirmation procedure" in my view must be deemed to then
left the person to be the sex/gender as was before the procedure. How can anyone undergo a "sex
affirmation procedure" if this is not in the end successful despite the procedure was as was planned? Again,
this can only underlines something is drastically wrong with those eager to undergo or to be involved with
"sex affirmation procedure" and the question is if this is too easily provided for because taxpayers are
caused to fund if not all most of it?
But, as I made clear from onset to me the appropriate reference to Norrie is "it" as "he" refers to "male"
and "she" refers to "female" and clearly Norrie claims to be neither.
END QUOTE
We might also consider the following where links allow to check all relevant details:
QUOTE
In a dissent from that opinion, State Supreme Court justice Marvin Baxter said: The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient
and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such
relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
END QUOTE
Humananimal marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humananimal_marriage
Humananimal marriage is a concept not recognized in law by any state, although attempts to marry humans to other animals have
been recorded. The topic ...
Supreme Court Rules You Can Legally Marry Anything You Love ...
huzlers.com News
Michael Hughson plans to legally marry his dog Shady sometime in August. o-SLOBBERY-ANIMAL-KISSES-facebook. Michelle
James and her lover Tyrone the ...
12 Unbelievable People Who Married Animals - ODDEE
www.oddee.com/item_98774.aspx
Nov 13, 2013 - The Man Who Married His Pony (1992) ... The Millionaire Woman Who Married a Dolphin (2005) ... The Indian Man
Who Married a Dog to Get Rid of a Curse (2007)
Court told: Humans could marry animals - WND.com
www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-animals/
p5
30-8-2016
Nov 10, 2014 - Court told: Humans could marry animals. 'This is ... The legal history of these disparate classifications, i.e., immutable
racial discrimination and ...
ENDTIME California Allows First Ever State Recognized Human ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2Efj5RuNw
Apr 9, 2014 - Uploaded by nollygrio
According to this report, a man in San Francisco has legally married his ... as the first-ever state recognized ...
MarryYourPet - The pet and people wedding specialists
www.marryyourpet.com/
Specialists in catering for those who would like to demonstrate a long-term commitment to their pet.
QUOTE
Just_me_and_God skwills 2 years ago
Bestiality
Is there a proper Muslim way to have sex with animals? Indeed, there is! Guidelines for sex with animals can
be found in the writings of Ayatollah Khomeini. Two excerpts from his writings serve to clarify the matter.
"A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he
has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to
the next door village should be fine."
(Don't the buyers deserve a discount of some kind?)
Khomeini's "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become
impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as
possible and burned."
(What if it was really good and invites another lap or two? Must animals always be one-night stands?)
The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN
number 0-553-14032-9, page 47 -- Look it up. This is for real!
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afr...
END QUOTE
QUOTE
th105053 2 years ago
In 1862, the USA passed laws against 'Plural Marriage', intended to cause Mormons to stop that practice,
U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in
1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives
during the 1880s. The Government literally destroyed many families, taking children from their parents and
jailing the Husbands - leaving no means of support for these families.
Now, apparently, anyone can marry anyone - which seems to open the door to plural marriage again. Worse
yet, the general lack of morality is leading us to a society where people can 'marry' animals !?!
The more the Government gets involved, the worse it seems to get...
END QUOTE
Let there be no mistake about it father and son marriage already eventuated in the USA, and so why not in Australia
if the High Court of Australia considers what is applicable in other countries as to twist and pervert the true meaning
and application of our constitution?
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act which
is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution.
Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of the
British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their representatives, the
power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of securing absolute
freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than that which we
contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from
interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution
he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily determination of the
question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of freedom in this Constitution.
There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen.
p6
30-8-2016
How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the
critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for them. 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.
We have provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and
with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court
of Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not
provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the
people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of
its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? 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. Having provided for
all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.
END QUOTE
QUOTE
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON (South Australia)[9.21]: I trust the Drafting Committee will not fail to
exercise a liberal discretion in striking out words which they do not understand, and that they will put in
words which can be understood by persons commonly acquainted with the English language.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
Again and that they will put in words which can be understood by persons commonly
acquainted with the English language. . I for one have absolutely no doubt that at time of
federation the electors voting in the referendums at no time perceived that marriage could be
other than between one man and one woman, and hence a referendum would be required as then
His Honour Michael Kirby J himself seemed to acknowledge.
As always be careful what you are seeking because perhaps your child might tell you one day
that you opened the door to marry an animal, thing or whatever!
Homosexual marriages have nothing to do with equality because it is different than being a
man and a woman in a matrimonial relationship! And where the Census doesnt provide for any
other gender like non-gender, it, etc, then the Census is clearly not up to date and a waste of
monies. As any statistics failing to recognise non-gender, animals, things, etc as a partner might
be out of touch with the 2016 HCA rankling.
If a referendum was to be held and approved (not that I seek to imply it will) by the voters
within the requirements of Section 128 to provide for a marriage type of status for other than
p7
30-8-2016
man and a woman, including perhaps bestiality kind of marriages and objects marriages then
well so be it. I do however view that unless and until any such successful referendum was to be
held we must not twist and pervert the existing constitution to suit some group of people and
have the minority rule the majority.
QUOTE

I am!
At least I know what I'm talking about!
How about you?
Which so-called religion allows the males to:
(A.) Have intercourse with 9 year old girls, if you first marry them,
(B.) Have up to four wives at a time,
(C.) Quickly divorce your wife with just a simple repetition of a phrase,
(D.) Torture and/or kill any female because she refused to marry you,
(E.) Torture and/or kill your wife if she refuses to have sex with you,
(F.) Have a pleasure marriage with a PAID wife by legalized prostitution (the marriage can last for as
little as 30 minutes), Nikah al-Mutah (temporary marriage)
(G.) Rape any women captured in battle or rape your slave,
(H.) Rape any woman, who is not properly dressed
(I.) Rape any woman who is not accompanied by her husband or a male relative,
(J.) Have sex with your wife for up to 6 hours after she has died,
(K.) Sexually molest young boys, and/or what they call Bacha Bazi or Dancing Boys, where women are for
babies and boys are for pleasure boys are groomed as sexual partners and companions,
(L.) Rape domestic animals like donkeys, camels, goats, and chickens,
(M.) Engage in practically any kind of bestiality possible, except with pigs, dogs and monkeys!
(N.) They are allowed by the tenants of this religion to engage in practically any kind of sexual perversion
possible!
(O.) (EXCEPTION: If you have sex with another adult male they will hang you!)
All of these (A.) through (O.) are grievous sins against the Ten Commandments, which Faithful and
practicing, Jews and Christians try their best to abide by.
END QUOTE
QUOTE

Bestiality
Is there a proper Muslim way to have sex with animals? Indeed, there is! Guidelines for sex with animals can
be found in the writings of Ayatollah Khomeini. Two excerpts from his writings serve to clarify the matter.
"A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he
has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to
the next door village should be fine."
(Don't the buyers deserve a discount of some kind?)
Khomeini's "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become
impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as
possible and burned."
(What if it was really good and invites another lap or two? Must animals always be one-night stands?)
The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN
number 0-553-14032-9, page 47 -- Look it up. This is for real!
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afr...
Qur'an
In contrast with what secular and non-Islamic religious sources say about bestiality, this is what the Qur'an
has to say on the subject:
That's right - absolutely, positively nothing. Unlike the Qur'an's clear-cut rulings on the morality of
homosexuality, Polygamy, rape, and pedophilia, the permissibility of bestiality seems to have been left open
to interpretation.
If Islamic teachings were truly opposed to such a practice, then this omission is somewhat surprising when
you consider that, historically, bestiality was indigenously accepted in the Middle-East.
p8
30-8-2016
Hadith
There is no prohibition against bestiality to be found within the two Sahihs. The following hadith is taken
from the Sunnah Abu-Dawud collection, not Bukari or Muslim.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (piss be upon him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an
animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offense can be
attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such
a thing had been done to it. -- Abu Dawud 38:4449
The very next hadith states:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with
an animal. -- Abu Dawud 38:4450
This is a clear contradiction. How can one hadith say kill the person committing bestiality, and the very next
one say there is no prescribed punishment for the same person? Both statements cannot be true.
see more
END QUOTE
QUOTE

Does all of the videos that are on Facebook and the internet of MudScums poking donkeys and sheep count
for ignorance?
Does studying the practices and tenants of Sharia Law and the Koran since the USS Cole attack, count as
"Ignorance"?
I have over 233 pages of information about Islam, that I have personally collected.
I am NOT "ignorant" about Islam!
Now the ball is in your court, tell me specifically what is incorrect about what I have listed in my "Laundry
List"?
Islam is a Religion of Peace
We will kill anyone who says otherwise!
Islam is completely disgusting and barbaric towards all their women.
Let the Qurans view of women speak for itself...
# Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
# Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are a degree above them. 2:228
# A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
# Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3
# Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
# Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
# You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
# Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
# All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. You
cant have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do
whatever you like). 4:24
# Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex
with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
# Dont pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
# Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
# They invoke in his (Allahs) stead only females. 4:117
# A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129
# Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females. 4:176
# When its time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman be sure to wash up. If you
cant find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
# When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget
their babies. 22:1-2
# You dont have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls that your right hand possesses. 23:6
# If you accuse an honorable woman of adultery, be sure to bring four witnesses. Otherwise you will receive
80 lashes. 24:4
# A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
# Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal
themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
# If Muhammads wives are good, Allah will give them an immense reward. 33:28-29
# The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30
p9
30-8-2016
# The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33
# When Allah or Muhammad decides that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36
# Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Moslems would know that its OK to
marry your adopted sons ex-wife. 33:37
# Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
# If men must speak to Muhammads wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever
marry one of his wives. 33:53
# But its OK for Muhammads wives to talk with certain people. 33:55
# Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
# Those who did wrong will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they
behaved). 37:22-23
# But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
# Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
# Allah will reward faithful Moslems after they die with fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. 44:54
# Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
# Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27
# Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched
before them. 55:56
# Allah will reward believing men with fair ones (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
# Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
# Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
# Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
# Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
# Allahs rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty. 65:4
# Muhammads wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with
better ones. 66:5
# The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire.
66:10
# Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Moslems) and those who preserve their
chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from the fires of hell that are eager to
roast. 70:1-30
# You dont have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls. 70:29-30
- - Source: Quran
Sounds like they are male chauvinist pigs!
- - - - A few more reasons that Islam has no respect for women:
1) Stoning them for being raped
2) Forcibly performing genital mutilation (clitoral removal, sewing the vagina almost closed, and other
procedures)
3) Devaluing their testimony as witnesses
4) Various punishments including throwing acid on them for seeking an education
5) Denying them the freedom and choices that males make.
6) Not allowing them to talk to males outside of the family.
No, Islam enslaves women and has no respect for them.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (6:301) - [Muhammad] said, Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?
They replied in the affirmative. He said, This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
Bukhari (6:301) - continued - [Muhammad said] Isnt it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during
her menses? The women replied in the affirmative. He said, This is the deficiency in her religion. Allah
has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.
Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hells occupants. This is important because the only
women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A
weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).
Bukhari (62:81) - The Prophet said: The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which
you are given the right to enjoy the (womens) private parts (i.e. The stipulations of the marriage
contract). In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her
legs.
Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive,
so he donates her on the spot to another man.
Moslem (4:1039) - Aisha said [to Muhammad]: You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses
p10
30-8-2016
Abu Dawud (2:704) - ...the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: When one of you prays without a
sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in
front of him at a distance of over a stones throw.
Abu Dawud (2155) - Women are compared to slaves and camels with regard to the evil in them.
Ishaq 593 - As for Ali, he said, Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another. Ali was
raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammads
presence without a word of rebuke from him.
Ishaq 593 - From the captives of Hunayn, Allahs Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called
Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another. Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out slave girls to his cronies for
sex.
Ishaq 969 - Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no
control over their persons. - This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.
Tabari Vol. 9, Number 1754 - Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not
possess anything for themselves. From Muhammads Farewell Sermon.
Sounds like they are MALE CHAUVINIST PIGS!
I have been made victorious through terror. -- Muhammad, founder of Islam
END QUOTE
LET IT BE VERY CLEAR THAT EQUALITY MEANS PRECISELY THAT THE

SAME DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS, ABILITIES, ETC. As such, anyone desiring equality can
only claim this if willing and able to do the same as to whom they desire to be equal to.
And it would be sickening, in my view, if we were to adapt foreign customs and traditions such
as set out above as examples. Surely women who have attained the equality of men and woman
do not desire to be subject to laws applicable in some religious doctrine as part of marriage? Well
you cannot cherry pick the benefits that suit you but may not suit someone else.
While todays Western society might be ruling we do not know if tomorrow it might be an
Islamic society and then our descendants might end up in tyranny because those who now
pursued to twist and infringe upon the constitution laid the path for other religions to expand on
that.
HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.
The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub clause. It is proposed by the
legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the Council and Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause
should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments than those which the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with
reference to lunacy. The hon. and learned member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear for
the exercise of that power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear that it might be exercised to the
fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power exercised at all, we should find strong arguments used for the
taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a strong argument would be offered for the state
taking over the whole of the benevolent institutions of the various colonies which have to deal with children, and they would become
federal institutions. If you do that you must do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you interfere with the children in these
institutions you will have to take over the institutions for the infirm and the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to any
federal interference with what the people conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this colony a law modelled
upon the English law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights. That question of parental rights is one which
opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of interference between parents and their children under a proposal of
this character. The state laws, up to the present, have been perfectly effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon.
members against applying federal action to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply those arguments
now in my vote.
[start page 1083]
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are some of the other matters in
the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that if the commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the
subject of marriage and divorce without having the power to legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may
arise-that the judge, having to pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of the
custody of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one law with respect to the issue
relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the custody of the children will have to be under a totally
different and varying law.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned member suggests, my objection
will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I think the difficulty might be overcome by inserting before
the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at the end of the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto."
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the federal parliament power in
relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns parental rights and the custody and guardianship of
infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems to me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with
marriage and divorce, which involves everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that, also to
p11
30-8-2016
regulate the custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to think is in the minds of many
who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal authority to interfere with domestic relations in some
mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a position of slavery. This is a control that seems to me to be consequent upon
marriage, and which might come into operation, perhaps, in relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce,
and might depend simply on marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better to leave the sub-clause as it
is and consider the matter further later on.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what I forgot, namely, a
suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would involve the probability of the commonwealth
having to take over the control of the institutions?
Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics!
Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used against him. It would be
just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say that the federal authority are to take control of all
institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that hon. members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the
cases, and, that as this affects one part of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law
and under federal control.
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand, "custody and guardianship of
infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without any qualification, would apply to destitute children. It
would be better for the state authorities to control the custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot.
They have opportunities of inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their condition if they are destitute
and neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and allow the sub-clause to remain as proposed to be amended by
the leader of the Convention.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-clause as it is. I can understand
that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws with respect to parental rights and the custody and
guardianship of children; but supposing that the children went into another state, and were thus taken away from the law of
which the previous state approved, and came under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing
with such matters, and under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the guardian was not able to
again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed under his own law. His own law might be good
enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed against would be out of the jurisdiction of his state.
Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however good his own law was, he
would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying character.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in this matter.
Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good enough as a record of the
action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court in the other state; nor would it make the law of the
other state subsidiary to the law of the state which contained that record.
The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as meaning proof?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain enough.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:
The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and judgments of the courts of the
states.
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has jurisdiction.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given the most sacred of all
relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it follows, as a matter of course, that we must do this.
Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the commonwealth. The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a
uniform law.
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is a corollary as far as
marriage is concerned.
[start page 1085]
The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the parent over the child!
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights, why not the obligations?
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the hon. gentleman wants to
exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws of all the colonies are exactly the same in respect to
the matters mentioned here, and there is very little probability of their being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and
guardianship of infants are concerned. We want to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal
parliament power to legislate on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the enforcement of state laws
through the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent or guardian, and being out of the jurisdiction of the
court of the state in which the parent or guardian resides, and I think it is necessary to have one uniform law on this matter as
well as in regard to marriage and divorce.
The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about substance. I believe that
the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as regards parental rights and the custody and,
guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned, power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much
further and includes the whole region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children.
The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and guardianship of children
have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I think that the amendment
suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole ground.
The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:
That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."
This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce suits. The other matters to
which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.
p12
30-8-2016
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal with the service and process
of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in another, it will be just as well for the Drafting Committee
to consider the aspect of the case in relation to deserted wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is
carried, I think we might leave the matter to the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
END QUOTE
Lawyers/judges can twist words to whatever their desire is but in the end we must return to what
was understood at the time of federation to be the meaning of marriage in the context that
was recorded during the Constitution Convention Debates, and not that some judges may fancy
on a contemporary basis.
..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give effect to what
Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this
Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in
which they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago
by people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that
those decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of
its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words
should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which
they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as
language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
As with the 14 November 2006 WorkChoices judgment the judges somehow (albeit taking out of
context the Hansard quotations it used) to seek to justify this legislation where previously the
court never held so. It is not that the court cannot discover errors:
QUOTE Duncan v Queensland (1916) 22 CLR 556, 582 (per Griffith C.J.)
That case (a previous decision of the High Court, Foggit, Jones & Co v NSW (1915) 21 CLR 357) was very briefly, and I regret to say,
insufficiently argued and considered on the last day of the Sydney sitting..... The arguments which now commend themselves to me as
conclusive did not find entrance to my mind. In my judgment that case was wrongly decided, and should be overruled.
END QUOTE
As such matters may be subsequently argued in a different context then may have previously
been done and in that manner a court could revisit a former decision. However, it must be
aligned to what is constitutionally applicable and not cherry pick items from foreign jurisdictions
or otherwise as to try to twist and pervert the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Those women (including homosexuals) may live the day to regret any expansion of the word
marriage beyond what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution if some government
decides it can also introduce foreign meanings to the word marriage as set out above. Then the
fight for equality turn out to become inequality.
In my view, a new section might be needed (I do not seek to recommend this to be done, as I
view personally only a marriage between a man and a woman would be held acceptable) to
provide for marriage other than that between a man and a woman which then allow the
Commonwealth Parliament to legislate specifically for special kinds of marriages (such as with
animals, things, and whatever) without affecting those marriages that are between a man and a
woman.
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!)

p13
30-8-2016

20160830-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. - IsSUE - Was The High Court of Australia Right About Marriage Issues, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20160830-PRESS RELEASE MR G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. - IsSUE - Was The High Court of Australia Right About Marriage Issues, Etc & The Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSUE - Was the High Court of Australia right about marriage issues, etc & the constitution?

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

Upon the wimps of judges it can be turned into anything!

affirmation procedure had not removed any ambiguity.

Just_me_and_God skwills 2 years ago

Just_me_and_God skwills 2 years ago

Just_me_and_God skwills 2 years ago

LET IT BE VERY CLEAR THAT EQUALITY MEANS PRECISELY THAT THE

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

You might also like