ISSUE: Is prosecution for expression of non-violent political views constitutionally permissible?

Regardless what your personal views might be as to homosexual marriages we must never
undermine the constitutional rights of another person. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view
that regardless if it is Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Reverend John Harrower, the
Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous or anyone else we must respect their right to cast
their views. In particular where this also is a political issue then we should keep in mind Monis v
The Queen, Droudis v The Queen, [2013] HCA 4, 27 February 2013, S172/2012 & S179/2012. I hold
the view that the word marriage can only be amended as to a successful referendum because
the word must be understood as to what it stood for at the time the constitution was enacted.
As it is a political issue it must be clear that anyone, including religious leaders, are well entitled
to cast their views. I do not practice any religion but accept that they are entitled to their views as
much as I am to mine and the same regarding their constitutional rights.
I cannot accept that a State Anti-Discrimination Board can undermine or otherwise interfere with
a persons constitutional rights. The moment we allow such persons to disregard the constitution
as if it is worthless we end up in dictatorship as then others will do likewise.
And, if it is acceptable to indoctrinate people with homosexuality issues then likewise it should
be with heterosexualitys. As such people be better careful before seeking to silence opponents as
they might just create a system that they themselves could be silenced. What we need is a
government with some balls who stand their grounds as Ministers and will not tolerate any state
being it NSW, Tasmania or otherwise to undermine a persons constitutional rights. Suiting on
the side doing nothing is not why we pay a Federal Attorney-General. If he doesnt understand
his legal obligations then let him vacate the job to have some more competent taking the job.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention) Mr. DEAKIN.- QUOTE 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
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which
would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.
Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
.:.. 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)

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!)
p1
7-10-2015
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