The full text of the Letter to the Editor, is below.
I refer to the letter published 15 July 2010, with the title "Flawed voting system", and its reference to issues involving compulsory voting and racial discrimination and inequity in the electoral system.
Australia is a country that is built on, and governed by, human rights violations and corruption.
Human Rights and Australia, are mutually exclusive. It is that simple.
The federal constitution embodies racial segregation, as did South Africa, in its Apartheid days. The federal constitution involves the federal parliament enacting laws specific to any race, in much the same way as Hitler set up the ghettoes for Jews, and the USA set up concentration camps for Japanese people, who were USA citizens.
Apart from that part of the federal constitution, under Australian law, a person who has Australian citizenship, and any other citizenship, is required to vote in federal elections, in which the person is banned from being elected. So, a person is required to vote in elections for positions to which the person is banned from being elected, due to racial discrimination. And, I have been unable to get from members of the federal parliament, the answer to the question "How many registered federal electors are of dual citizenship, and thus, required to vote for positions to which they are banned from being elected?". And, trying to get an answer to the question "Are all of the members of parliament, Australian citizens without any other citizenship?", has been impossible, for the last twenty years. Why? Because the members of the parliament are unaccountable to the voters, and protect each other.
And the federal parliament, amongst all of the other frauds that it imposed, set up, as a complete fraud, the National Human Rights Consultative Committee, which showed that the people of Australia want Internationally agreed human rights to be guaranteed by law in Australia, and the parliament determined that Australia would not have human rights, in defiance of the wishes of the people who spoke out. And, it will not go to referendum.
It is much like when the WA state parliament set up the WA Water Forums, as an equivalent massive fraud. When it came out, on the first day, that the feeling of the participants appeared to support the building of the much mentioned Ord River Pipeline, to use the abundant water up north, to ensure that the South West of WA had sufficient clean water of sufficient quality, the then state premier went on television, and effectively said "We are not doing that. Who cares what the people want? We are the government, we have already made up our mind, and we are not accountable of the people of WA, we will not do anything reasonable to deal with the water shortage, and the Water Forums, are just a big show, to satisfy the gullible people of WA.". And so, we have inadequate water, that is corrosive, and risky to drink without filtering and boiling it first, like swamp water.
The federal Human Rights fraud is a bit like the monumental electoral fraud imposed by the federal parliament, when it decided that Australians should be denied the choice of whether Australia should become a republic.
The parliament set up a "referendum", designed to deliberately deny Australia the choice, by conspicuously avoiding the simple question being put to the voters; "Should Australia become a republic - Yes or No?".
And, the news media aided the federal parliament in the electoral fraud, by deliberately misrepresenting the facts, and, the news media deliberately misled the world, by saying that Australia had voted against becoming a republic, when the question was deliberately prevented from being put to the voters.
And, with the frauds and corruption, and human rights violations, in he absence of a statutory guarantee of human rights in Australia, is the issue of income sharing, of married and defacto couples.
For tax purposes, income is not shared by partners in such a relationship, which would otherwise allow the incomes of the partners in such relationships, to be summed and then shared by the partners, so that, for example, if one partner had an income of $50,000 per year, and the other partner had none, both partners would be taxed on an income of $25,000 each, allowing the work of the non-income earner in supporting the income earner, to be taken into account, amongst other things. But, no, the income tax is not shared between partners of a marriage or defacto relationship. However, when it comes to paying entitlements like "social security", the income of the partner earning more, is the deciding factor. Income is to be shared, when it is a question of the government paying money, but, not when it is a question of the government robbing the people. It is yet another matter of human rights violations and fraud and corruption, by the federal parliament.
And, these issues are quite apart from the other various human rights violations and corruption, like when Haneef was harassed and maligned, because he looked like he might be a muslim. No WASP Australian has ever been charged with terrorism, despite having committed acts of terrorism within Australia. Australia only regards people as terrorists in Australia, if they appear to not be WASP's. It is a bit like the British death squad, that got away with assassinating the Brazilian electrician, in the busy British railway system, because he looked like he might be a muslim.
And then, we have the sinister anti-bikie laws; from what I understand, per person of the group, more members of parliaments commit crimes, than bikies. The members of parliaments just get away with it, because they are not accountable. Likewise, it appears that more police officers commit crimes, per person of the group, than bikies. And, certainly, it appears that more priests commit crimes, per person of their group, with the full support of their organisations, than bikies. But, are they subject to the same harassments that are enacted in Australia, against bikies? No. Why? Because, Australia has no Human Rights, and, bikies are not as powerful as the other groups that I have mentioned.
And, here in WA, where money buys members of parliament, the parliament, including most of the parties in power - both government and opposition, have supported legislation, whereby, if a person wants to be able to indecently assault anyone the person wants, and get away with it, all the person has to do, is become a police officer, then the person is free to indecently assault any person that the person wants to indecently assault, without ever being held accountable for the indecent assault.
It is all part of a country that is built on, and, is governed by, human rights violations, and, fraud and corruption, and I challenge any newspaper editor "who is worth their salt", to publish this letter in its entirety, to show that the newspaper is willing to raise valid concerns of its readers, about "the sad state of affairs" in the state and country.