Guest Post: Denis HArdiman – None of the Above

Why is it that there is no provision on any Australian Electoral Commission vote card whereby a voter can mark “None Of The Above” nor write in the name of a proferred candidate?

Why is it that the Australian High Court can make a ruling that is not passed into law by any Parliament?

Why is it that Australian “Diplomats” make International Agreements yet none are presented for any electoral consideration?

Why is it that “Common Law” no longer exists?

The Law… What Is It Good For?

Australia is the largest Island Nation under attack from all the righteous of the world.

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Guest Post: Denis HArdiman – None of the Above

  1. Dot says:

    There was a left Labor MP who proposed that Ambassadors be elected, a stalking horse for a more obviously elected President.

    I think perhaps treaties should be approved by CIR, after Parliament approved as well.

    Ironically, most of your rights exist now only because of treaties.

    Thank the good lord for the ICCPR & ICESR. Your constitutional & common law rights otherwise have been attacked relentlessly in the last 50 years by a full court press.

  2. Mak Siccar says:

    Why indeed! Democracy usurped incrementally. And I’m not aware of ANY political party that actively stands against this. Poor fella my country.

  3. Kneel says:

    “Ironically, most of your rights exist now only because of treaties.”

    Indeed – should they attempt to introduce a vaxxine mandate, international human rights that Aus. has signed up to prevents that. Actually may even prevent the “we only open up after x% are vaxxed”, should someone care to challenge it.
    Of course, that may change by the simple expedient of them making the vax officially approved, which would limit what you can complain about.
    I need to check, but I believe international human rights allows for anyone to reject medical treatment of any sort for any reason, and not be unduly punished as a result, and not be subject to coercion prior to deciding whether or not to have said treatment. If this is so, then the current crop of “open after x% vaxxed” statements by, eg, Gladys, would be in breach of those laws. Maybe.

  4. Truth-in-Fooynotes says:

    Australians all cannot Rejoice,
    for we are Chained, not Free.
    We have no Right of self-Defence,
    that Smacks of Slavery.
    Our Nanny-State, it Regulates
    our Words and very Thoughts;
    through 18C We are not Free.
    Oh Weep Australians.
    We are not Free, not You, not Me,
    Oh Weep Australians.

  5. Chrism says:

    Australian citizen-initiated referenda (‘CIRS’)

    There have been proposals to legislatively introduce citizen-initiated referenda since before federation, and the enthusiasm for such an idea remains current. Along with variations in detail, the theme, at some time, has been policy in almost all states and by all parts of the political spectrum, over the years. This citizen-empowered option is almost universally proposed from opposition, and when power is eventually gained by proposers, the push for increased citizen power is quietly abandoned.

    In 2013 the Senate, through its committee process, considered, in some detail, a proposed bill for a citizen-initiated method (CIRS) to establish referenda, (on issues related to legislative matters), and that if adopted, referendum proposals would then be debated by legislators, which ‘may avoid some of the pitfalls of conventional CIR processes by deliberately retaining Parliament’s central role in approving citizen-initiated proposals’.

    The reasons considered to promote such a process included ‘increased openness and accountability in public decision-making’, and laws developed would be by consent of the governed and also that improved legislative engagement by citizens would occur. In decision the committee recommended that the bill proposed not be passed.

    The reasons noted the proposal was ‘modest’, and did not ‘threaten’ Australia’s ‘robust constitutional system’ and argued however that it may promote only a ‘narrow form’ of democratic participation and may provide a means to display divisive or narrow agendas, tie down politicians in debate, empower lobbyist groups and noted that these were (said to be) the negative outcomes in California. A number of objections were made that the proposed change was ‘technically deficient’ and also potentially expensive for the Australian Electoral Commission.

    It remains problematic to have a legislature evaluating alternative system models that would, if introduced, decrease such a bodies’ own power, influence and prestige. The assessment role is better suited to a panel of independent law reform commissioners and also lay interested parties from different political, ethnic and social groups; ideally it would be decided, both proposal and result, by all electors.

  6. incoherent rambler says:

    Noyce post Denis

  7. John Bayley says:

    I believe international human rights allows for anyone to reject medical treatment of any sort for any reason, and not be unduly punished as a result, and not be subject to coercion prior to deciding whether or not to have said treatment.

    That was ‘then’ – when laws actually applied to all (or almost all). It also used to be the case that new medical drugs were pulled after only a dozen or so fatalities.

    Now we need ‘permits’ just to cross state borders, or even to walk further than some arbitrary distance from our homes.

    And we are all to be subjected to ‘vaccination’ by experimental substances, which don’t even work and which have already demonstrably killed tens of thousands, in order to be given back at least some rights that never were the state’s to take away from us in the first place.

    Depressingly, a very large portion of the populace is perfectly in agreement with this.

  8. Rabz says:

    Why is it that there is no provision on any Australian Electoral Commission vote card whereby a voter can mark “None Of The Above”

    I’ve done this regardless in the last federal and state elections for the lower house.

    Just draw a box on the ballot below the candidates and add the text “None of the above”, put a 1 in the box and it’s done.

    You will feel some satisfaction after doing so.

  9. rickw says:

    Australia is sooooo fucked……

  10. Speedbox says:

    Why is it that Australian “Diplomats” make International Agreements yet none are presented for any electoral consideration?

    Broadly because they are a façade. Australia has signed up for all kinds of international agreements but they aren’t converted into the law of Australia. That’s why we don’t really have enshrined ‘rights’ (as an example) notwithstanding that Australia is a signatory to numerous human rights agreements at the UN.

    There are some exceptions such as Human Slavery and so on but most never make it into our laws so they don’t apply.

  11. Pete of Perth says:

    Sorry Rabz..accidentally pressed report comment on your summary if Oz current condition

  12. Pete of Perth says:

    Sorry Rabz.. accidentally pressed report comment. Didn’t mean to. Fat Fingers.

  13. Entropy says:

    That well known serial candidate Noni Theabov?
    I have heard, but do not approve, of many people pencilling her in.

  14. Bar Beach Swimmer says:

    Depressingly, a very large portion of the populace is perfectly in agreement with this

    That’s because whatever the issue/concern/possible removal of rights is that many citizens haven’t thought the thing through and politicians deliberately ignore/refuse to explain the downside. Have a discussion with someone and point out what the concern is and where it could end and sometimes there’s a bit of an awakening. Unfortunately, that’s not the way to retain rights.

  15. PeterW says:

    This continues to happen because we – the voters – fail to punish Governments for doing it… where it matters, at the ballot box.

    We cannot make useful changes until we identify the point of failure.
    It is not the system that is broken, but the voting population. No changes to system will fix it as long as the people continue to vote for bread and circumstances.
    Whining about preferential voting, compulsory voting, length of terms or anything else is completely useless as long as a majority of voters are happy to be bought off.

    As for Rights…. if you think that they are given by Government, then you don’t understand the concept. Basic human Rights belong to us because we are human. That is why we consider it W. R. O. N. G. for governments to deny them. Governments can only recognise and defend Rights. They cannot grant them.

    Ours came to us via Common Law – that body of law which was held to be given by God and was to be found in the traditional Rights and Freedoms of the English. It was believed to be unnecessary to write them all down because a Parliament elected by the People could not deny them without being defeated at elections. ….
    It’s no worse an idea than the one that a Bill of Rights written by politicians will not be interpreted by politicians to mean anything they damned well please.

  16. PeterW says:

    Depressing how commonly idiots on social media try to portray anyone defending their Rights as “selfish”.

    No understanding that they are the same Rights applying to all of us. The same Government that can deny my Rights, can AND WILL deny yours as soon as it is convenient.

  17. Roger says:

    “Ironically, most of your rights exist now only because of treaties.”

    ——————————

    Treaties which have no application Australian law.

    Think of them as aspirational rather than legal documents.

    We should have pushed for a Bill of Rights back in the 1980s/90s while there was still a possibility that a reasonable document could have been drafted and passed into legislation.

    Some of us conservatives did so but we were defeated by the fools on our own side who thought Common Law was a sufficient guarantor of the natural rights we are heir to by virtue of being God’s creatures.

    How’s that working out for you now?

  18. Dot says:

    “Treaties which have no application Australian law.”

    Except when they are made law; re entered into force.

    *We should have pushed for a Bill of Rights back in the 1980s/90s while there was still a possibility that a reasonable document could have been drafted and passed into legislation.*

    Yes.

  19. PeterW says:

    “Some of us conservatives did so but we were defeated by the fools on our own side who thought Common Law was a sufficient guarantor of the natural rights we are heir to by virtue of being God’s creatures.”

    If you were honest, you’d admit that there was far more too it than that.

    Including a deep and abiding suspicion that any such document produced by the politicians of the day would leave them with all the escape clauses and “emergency” powers that they required.
    Not to mention the well-founded belief that any such list of Rights would be treated as limiting our Right to only those listed, and that after they had been lawyered into meaninglessness.

    One only has to look at the “interpretations” of the US BOR by various activist judges. Do you actually trust the band on unelected, unaccountable ex-lawyers who sit at the High Court bench?

    At least we get to sack politicians, even if we are – collectively – too corrupt, apathetic and downright stupid to do so.

    It’s not the system, dummy, it’s the voters.

  20. Dot says:

    Classical republicanism exhibiting sortition, demarchy, recall elections, ostracism, participatory democracy, minor franchise qualification, ostracism, confederalism and subsidiarity is the best way forward.

  21. Mak Siccar says:

    In addition to a ‘none of the above’ box, I would definitely like the option of numbering as many or as few boxes as I wish. Thus, if I don’t want to give any particular candidate any vote whatsoever, even last on the list, then I can do that and not invalidate my ballot paper. Regrettably, this will never happen because numbering all the boxes advantages the uniparty.

  22. Mak Siccar says:

    There is a strong case against a Bill of Rights by someone who should know.

    https://spectator.com.au/2021/07/the-last-thing-we-need-is-a-bill-of-rights/

  23. John A says:

    Why is it that there is no provision on any Australian Electoral Commission vote card whereby a voter can mark “None Of The Above” nor write in the name of a proferred candidate?

    Because our founding fathers mistakenly assumed a level of intelligence within the population which is no longer borne out by the facts of modern-day politics.

    Why is it that the Australian High Court can make a ruling that is not passed into law by any Parliament?

    Because the High Court makes judiciary decisions, not law (yes, I know, activist judges etc.). Meanwhile, our Parliaments make statute law because they are legislation factories.

    Why is it that Australian “Diplomats” make International Agreements yet none are presented for any electoral consideration?

    Because the Westminster system determines that treaties are agreements between governments. Our Federal Parliament ratifies such agreements and then implements them or ignores them as it, in its collective”wisdom,” so chooses.

  24. Dot says:

    *There is a strong case against a Bill of Rights by someone who should know.*

    He’s wrong though.

    Bill of rights by Dot

    Article I

    All Public Health Acts are hereby repealed and any act effectively enforcing Public Health Orders the same as or similar to those set out in the NSW 2010 Act and implemented in 2020 and 2021 are hereby ultra vires and thus void as law.

  25. Apologies Truth-in-Fooynotes re your excellent rewrite.

    Mistakenly pressed the Report Comment link.

    Adam, please ignore.

  26. PeterW says:

    “ Bill of rights by Dot

    Article I

    All Public Health Acts are hereby repealed and any act effectively enforcing Public Health Orders the same as or similar to those set out in the NSW 2010 Act and implemented in 2020 and 2021 are hereby ultra vires and thus void as law.”

    Self-contradicting argument there, my friend.

    Any supposed BOR that allows you to impose the Law on the rest of us by dictat, is obviously not worth the paper it is written on.

    You’d do well to study the decline of the Roman Republic. The Romans went from fierce republicans who fought fanatically against rulership, to electing a Dictator.
    They elected corrupt politicians on the basis of self-interest.
    They descended into factionalism as opposed to the National Interest.
    They grew apathetic and morally lazy and elected a Dictator, because he could “get stuff done”.

    ……. and he did. And so did his successor. But by the time they got to the seriously mad and bad dictators, there was no easy way to get rid of them.

    The US Founders were convinced of two things. The first was that a Republic would only endure as long as the people were morally virtuous. The second was that when they ceased to be virtuous, they would destroy the Republic.

    You want to impose the forms of a Republic without providing the foundation – a virile population with shared core values. You are pissing into the wind.

  27. PeterW says:

    I also think it fair to ask whether Victoria – which has its own Bill of Rights – has been less locked-down than the rest of us.

Comments are closed.