W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New

 CHAPTER 8

THE LAZY LAW

Some of the errors, vulnerabilities, injustices, inequities of action in the augmented form (1995) of the Racial  Discrimination Act (1975) are these.

1) In Roman times, Emperor worship could be invoked, so that it was discrimination against the State,
befouling of State basics and assault against it, if one would not worship that person.

Now consider the comparison in 2015 in this modern land. 

In this area of Section 18c) in the Act noted, it is the human psyche to which legal obeisance is made.

This psyche, it is a matter of its cultural place, for its sensitivities,
responses are to become a law of judgment.

Offend these and it resembles refusing to evaluate the emperor as required, a few thousand years ago..
Here and in the current instance, the psyche rules, past  all religious morals, all questions of justice,  fact,
intention, concern. Like the Emperor, it is now an absolute, displacing all  other morals, convictions,
matters of belief, prioritisation, and of course, the truth which becomes ephemeral or irrelevant.

2) This overleaps therefore (in theory) Bible,  Koran, and every moral authority,  religious or secular.
It is thus its own morality, ethics, source, elevated beyond all else in its priority, sense of equity and justice, (for the  country does not admit it is conscientiously being unjust here);

and hence it is a displacing religion,
given preference by the Commonwealth,
which in so doing, evacuates the actual Constitution of the nation, at Section 116.

Law ? this alas is not law, but lawlessness, which breaches the Constitution
within which its authority exists,
and contrary to which it is void.

To establish its own religion or abort other ones, usurping or controlling their testimony,
is not given to the  Commonwealth.

3) A similar affront and rebellion exists, as shown in Chapter 6 above, in the choice of teaching
in other features of religious basics, such as origins and meanings, where anti-scientific method joins with pedagogic fixity to make Galileo's problem, that for many now. We are not sliding up the scale (that takes some doing), nor is the DNA for this found making itself in actual observation for the funding and finding of more elevated results, but our genome is languishing, here a little, there, degrading, and the time for dysfunction is not vastly in the distance, as noted there. Down is not up; bad copying is not good development; and though the Creator put in place wonders to help the copying for each generation in DNA, to that the testimony is given that editing for accuracy is necessary for the very existence^*1  of such procedures as those noted, on which our physical life depends. 

	Tangling with untruth is not fitting for the teaching of the young,
	intolerant the trumpeting,
	inexact the formulations,
	unobserved the grounds of the claimants.

Thus there are two major inputs.

Taken together these overflowingly
constitute an unacknowledged, subversive and multi-partite rejection, ignoring or vaulting over the
Constitution of the land, for each binds its part of the new overall idolatry or forced religion,
clandestine its introduction, appalling its presumption.

4) In all fairness, it is also  often unworkable.

Thus consider the 18c) matter.  If someone pleads that another  person has upset the psyche,
transgressed the  feeling calm or desideratum in that field, his/her words offensive,
then this becomes a charge or challenge implying amongst other
things that the ethical, moral or cultural standards of the alleged offender are debased,
inadequate, to be reprimanded
or  adjusted or  replaced;
and that would almost certainly be  regarded as insulting, offensive, humiliating,
degrading and so forth, by the one brought before the law!

In other words, the words or emotions or intimations or whatever expressive mode is deployed,
in  each case upset the other, are not appreciated, and may indeed with or without reason,
be depreciated. 

Hence in making the criticism,  very often the critic, the complainant would be committing the exact, same offence as the person  to whose expression objection is being made.

Hence each challenge could be  counter-challenged, and the thoughtless  idea of using your own basis as a ground for criticising that of someone else, in the event that person
is following a different set most carefully, can be frequently met
by a counter-challenge evoked by the first one. Is it "I said it first,"
as with spiteful  children, or warring juveniles ?

To  so trivialise mature persons' actions is in itself insulting to the standing of the nation,
its reliability and its reasonableness.
It is a form of legal terrorism and worse by far, indeed.

5) Thus, people may be compensated for upset to the psyche.
There can be  stress, depression, tension and countless psychological or psychiatric complaints,
to be satisfied, and appeals costing the alleged offender, but not the complainant,
almost unlimited sums as exemplified in the extensive article
in The Australian, November 28-29, 2015.Inquirer p. 19).

These gifts to the one dissatisfied with the conduct of the other,
can thus sustain the bank accounts of the accuser,
while progressively emptying those of the accused.
If the intention is to be unjust, that is just fine, and well done! It succeeds;
but is this result, readily found, the intention!

The law as given works admirably if this be so, some sort of revenge or legal sadism may be aided,
just as readily as any actual breach.

If however fair play,  even fields, just equality for presentation, even-handed treatment, ensuring that each has equal access with equal stress or distress to financial costs in the case:
if these be in mind (such as Legal Aid is intended no doubt in part
to cover in the interests of justice normally),
then this is a profoundly unjust procedure.

Worse yet again, it means that since human
beings have been known often to be dishonest, scheming, devising subtle means of escaping work or trouble from or through others by deceit or deviousness, or of imposing trouble on those resented, or for revenge and many other reasons, here is something close to a governmental INCITEMENT
to this type of weakness to which man is often victim, that it be used and abused.

A competitor, challenger, someone resented, or deemed worthy of vengeance and so on and on and on, could be marked off and even inveigled into such speech, or  watched with a view to his demotion or demolition, while his 'standards' are inferentially assaulted, his money misused to help the assailant, and progressive persecution  legally enabled.

In short, it is prone to  persecutory misuse, to injustice, to inequity,
shallow in wisdom, assailing the name and fame of this nation,
to degrade it, make it unsafe, exploitative, its citizens a ready prey to disorder, contempt,
even in the alleged effort to  prevent this.
 

As a Law therefore it is  reprehensible in the extreme. Good government must seek to protect without persecution  of others, to bring peace without inciting disorder and degradation^*2, confront contempt
without leaving vast spaces open to create it anew, by the law itself as here.

The present situation is not unlike a bomb thrown into a crowd, hoping that it will harm only the  wrong  doers. Certainly some are irrational in their views of this or that  race, and generalise ridiculously, treating all on the basis of what is done by only some. Racism like virtual deification of innovative moral law (implicit or explicit), these are both errors. To invent the second to give redress to the first is not only rough and ready, but ready to exploit, insult and offend with the law as an aide!

In fact, this is no excuse for allowing this very same injustice and contempt, exaction of far more than hurt feelings (but NOT LESS), on the part of others, making new those to be exploited, in a careless extravaganza of sanctioning swipes, instituting a new religious absolute and careless even of  truth, with bases making man in the psyche department an absolute determinant. At the very least, there  would need to be a  referendum, not only to change the Constitution, so that the Commonwealth is made welcome to such religious fostering and  favouring, together with oppression but to warn of the innovatory grossness of the incorrect corrective installed.

If the people actually WANT such a charade, psychic feeling metres as ruin regulators, then many could set about leaving a deluded land, one not only breaching election promise to reform, but one forgetting justice, peace and order in its very endeavours  to remember them, choosing religious grounds with no logic for their adoption, unless to change the patterns by which people may be (rightly or wrongly) offended or insulted.

Small wonder  the Liberal Government, when it last  went to  election promised to amend this law! though it has not yet done so; that it is leading to gross injustice and harassment, that the Institute of Public Affairs exposes it, and a long series of newspaper articles has protested, exposed, arisen like an ocean wave at this double disaster.

What DOUBLE disaster ? This, that not only are the morals, ethics and religious affinities or preferences of many trivialised in terms of a subjective sweep (only amplified by finding and in this way funding the cultural aggregation most currently popular), a lazy law that shows no tempering to truth, but tampering with it; but it is one which for many would incite to abuse through its sweeping subjectivities. But it is a TRIPLE  failure: for it is in manifest and multiple collision with the Constitution of this land, which once had aspirations towards freedom and independence, not for legislators only, but for its people.

NOTES

*1

Journal of Creation, 28(1). pp. 91-97 cf. pp. 122ff., 28(2) and 21(3).

On allied topics including technical special data, see Department of Bible ...
Volume 9, Ch. 2, Ch. 5 above,
Volume 5, Appendix to Ch. 6,
Volume 6, Ch. 4 (includes Professor Lewontin concession),
The Divine Sublimity ... Ch. 6, for example,
Glory, Vainglory ... Ch. 1.

*2

See parallel effort bringing down legal penalty on necessary liberties for articulate and non-conformist material, where that to which
conformity is required is a social preference,
outrageously intrusive into the liberties of spirit and substance
which help to make man human, instead of robotic, tyrannical runt, or scenario for servitude, virtually
subject of political leucotomy.

That failed.

What is now in view, in Commonwealth law, not rescinded, left operative
is of its kind a more unreasonable, unrefined, undisguised
psychic image, if not explicitly for worship, then implicitly for conformity,
bowed down to, made a source of negative
sanctions and pseudo-moral instruction.