You are on page 1of 1

ISSUE: 20180307- Re: Freedom of speech-calls to kill infidels-homosexuals, etc & the constitution

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

While beyond doubt I have been a vocal opponent to the changing of the Marriage Act and
maintain the view it was not constitutionally valid and so ULTRA VIRES nevertheless I oppose
anyone to call for the killing of homosexuals or other so called infidels, etc.
US: Muslim Calls for Murder Increasing
by Judith Bergman
March 6, 2018 at 5:00 am
More significantly, in Canadian and European mosques, calls for murdering Jews have become
increasingly commonplace. In Europe, such preaching has had murderous results. In Copenhagen, a Muslim
listened to a sermon similar to the ones issued by the American imams, then murdered a Jewish guard in
front of the city's synagogue. Calls from imams in mosques to murder anyone should set off alarm bells that
murders are in the works. Instead, these calls go largely ignored. That indifference applies as much when the
calls are directed against homosexuals or other Muslims, as against Jews.
Reality is that not just the Quran and the hadisths seem to justify the killing of others but so the
Bible and other religious text do so. As such, I view, we need a blanket ban on any person of
any religion or non-religion to promote the killing of innocent civilians. It is when
State/Territories and Federal Parliaments provide criminal legislation that we may avoid a lot of
prospective followers to follow this call up to kill. While I am at the forefront that our
constitution includes FREEDOM OFSPEECH it should not be confused with the right to
promote criminal conduct. FREEDOM OF SPEECH never can be deemed to be exercised
when the person promoted any kind of violence against an innocent person.
Hansard 7-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-I have an amendment to move on behalf of Tasmania, and also an
amendment of my own. The clause we have before us says that a state shall not make any law prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion. It is quite possible that this might make lawfull practices which would otherwise
be strictly prohibited. Take, for instance, the Hindoos. One of their religious rites is the "suttee," and
another is the "churruck,"-one meaning simply murder, and the other barbarous cruelty, to the
devotees who offer themselves for the sacrifice.
Dr. COCKBURN.-The Thugs are a religious sect.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Yes. If this is to be the law, these people will be able to practise the rites
of their religion, and the amendment I have to suggest is the insertion of some such words as these:-
But shall prevent the performance of any such religious rites, as are of a cruel or demoralizing
character or contrary to the law of the Commonwealth.
When parliamentarians fail to legislate against this promotion of violence then their silence is to
be perceived to endorse violence, and this I view violates their obligations to their constituency.
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 7-3-2018 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: For further details see also my blog at Http://