Harper, Rudd Jew Palestinians Again...

Main Page | Report this Page

Politics Forum Index » USA Politics Forum » Harper, Rudd Jew Palestinians Again...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Harper, Rudd Jew Palestinians Again...

Author

Message

Kixi...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 am

Guest

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/320a091ccf2e32bd8525766600536a4b?OpenDocument

Note that the countries voting against have strong Jew lobbies which
corrupt their politicians. And please also note that the jewsmedia do
not report how the country voted.

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44
abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy,
Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New
Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:
Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao
Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

docremington...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:45 am

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

B J Foster...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:18 pm

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

"The terms of reference were crafted to ignore the hundreds of rockets
deliberately aimed and fired by Hamas at civilians in Israel prior to
the Gaza war, and to pillory Israel for defending its citizens.

Even the head of the mission, Richard Goldstone, has since denounced
what he called a 'one-sided mandate' that was 'stacked against Israel'.

He was so repelled by the bias that he only accepted his appointment on
the basis of a verbal *assurance* by the president of the UNHRC that the
mission would also be empowered to investigate violations of
international law committed by Hamas during the Gaza conflict.

It is now clear that in accepting this assurance Goldstone allowed
himself to be deceived. On October 16, 2009, when the UNHRC resolved,
without the support of a single western democracy from among its 47
members, to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, the text of the
resolution was directed exclusively at Israel and made *no* *mention*
whatsoever of Hamas. It closely reflected the wording of the original
mandate that Goldstone himself had rejected".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-blind-eye-to-hamas-atrocities/story-e6frg6zo-1225794831291

Shortly after the ceasefire:
'"Today, Hamas Gangs Are Unleashed Like Packs of Animals on the Streets
of Gaza Against Fatah Members" Yasser Abd Rabbo: "Yesterday, we heard
Khaled Mash’al talking from Damascus about new, additional preconditions
for national reconciliation – the only goal of which is to hinder the
achievement of reconciliation'.
Al-Jazeera, January 2009

"He [Abu Marzouq] said that they have [captured] collaborators, and they
have already executed some, while others await their turn".
(Abu Marzouq, interview with Qatari Al-Sharq newspaper)

The 'collaborators' being anyone who criticizes the policy of Hamas.

The reality is that Hamas have committed atrocities against:
1. Israeli civilians (with indiscriminate rocket attacks)

2. Their political opponents - by murdering members of fatah

3. Their own people - by taking (i.e. stealing) UN aid and fuel,
including fuel destined for the hospital

4. Their own children - by using them as human shields

WHY ARE THESE ATROCITIES NOT BEING INVESTIGATED?

THE UN IS THOROUGHLY COMPROMISED

Quote:

Note that the countries voting against have strong Jew lobbies which
corrupt their politicians. And please also note that the jewsmedia do
not report how the country voted.

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44
abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy,
Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New
Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:
Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao
Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

B J Foster...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:22 pm

Guest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLjwe2b40YA

B J Foster...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:34 pm

Guest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&feature=channel

Kixi...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:51 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 10:45 am, docremington <docreming... at (no spam) safe-mail.net> wrote:

Quote:

Kixi wrote:
By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

Well much of the UN's material is now published electronically - so
never mind the forests..

I should have included Prime Minister Brown in the anti-Palestinian
action. His delegate abstained. Australia and Canada voted against.
Typically, our corrupt leaders vote with Zionism. Even on the question
of Palestinians' rights to their properties our reps vote against. But
Harper, Rudd and Brown need not worry. The jewsmedia will never inform
the masses that we officially oppose certain property rights.

Pvt. Wilhelm Scream...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:45 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 9:25 pm, B J Foster <bjfos... at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

My kick was meeting with a group from one of my Value Added Resellers
the other day.

I work for one of the world's largest IT providers and when discussing
things with the owner, he said "does your solution work with Windows
3.1?"

I said "I have no idea!" "Why?".

It turns out that the company he was referring to as a prospect was
Olympia Tile, which became "Olympia and York", they built the
institution in London England's docklands. You may know of Canada
Place. Once owned by Paul Riechmann and his family.

Apparently they're really cheap! Still on Windows 3.1 with printers
that are 15 years-old! Paul lives not far from where I do in a Jewish
suburb of Toronto, and (as is well known) lives like a middle class
person in a middle class home, in a massive Jewish neighbourhood.

He was in the news back in the 1990's when his neighbour, Bonnie
Lindros, took him to court over a fence.

Bonnie is the mother of a famous Canadian ice hockey player, Eric
Lindros! (the Lindros parents were known to be "oft litigatious")

And we all thought that rich Jews lived in massive houses!

So, anyway. Paul was forced out of the Docklands property just this
year. And still lives in a 2,000 square foot house in a Jewish area
of Toronto.

He's a Hasidic (Orthodox) Jew, BTW.

There's an old picture in black / white of Paul and his brother having
a ciggie in front of the Toronto Star building at One Yonge Street
back in the 1960's that they owned, and it's a couple of guys who look
like Jake and Elwood Blues, smoking a butt!

B J Foster...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:25 pm

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 6, 10:45 am, docremington <docreming... at (no spam) safe-mail.net> wrote:
Kixi wrote:
By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

Well much of the UN's material is now published electronically - so
never mind the forests..

Drivel nevertheless.

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc

Quote:

I should have included Prime Minister Brown in the anti-Palestinian
action. His delegate abstained. Australia and Canada voted against.
Typically, our corrupt leaders vote with Zionism. Even on the question
of Palestinians' rights to their properties our reps vote against. But
Harper, Rudd and Brown need not worry. The jewsmedia will never inform
the masses that we officially oppose certain property rights.

docremington...

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:15 am

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

docremington:
Kixi wrote:
By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

Well much of the UN's material is now published electronically - so
never mind the forests..

And drivel?

Quote:

I should have included Prime Minister Brown in the anti-Palestinian
action. His delegate abstained.

Worthless coward.

Quote:

Australia and Canada voted against.

Sanity prevailed.

Quote:

Typically, our corrupt leaders vote with Zionism.

Great minds ... .

Quote:

Even on the question
of Palestinians' rights to their properties our reps vote against.

Well, redistributionism is in vogue now, isn't it?

Quote:

But Harper, Rudd and Brown need not worry. The jewsmedia
will never inform the masses that we officially oppose certain
property rights.

Indeed, brits are all pedophiles, unless officially declared otherwise.

Kixi...

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:21 am

Guest

On Nov 6, 6:25 pm, B J Foster <bjfos... at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

Kixi wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, docremington <docreming... at (no spam) safe-mail.net> wrote:
Kixi wrote:
By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

Well much of the UN's material is now published electronically - so
never mind the forests..

Drivel nevertheless.

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc

I should have included Prime Minister Brown in the anti-Palestinian
action. His delegate abstained. Australia and Canada voted against.
Typically, our corrupt leaders vote with Zionism. Even on the question
of Palestinians' rights to their properties our reps vote against. But
Harper, Rudd and Brown need not worry. The jewsmedia will never inform
the masses that we officially oppose certain property rights.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

B J Foster is engaged in diversion of course ... trying to change the
subject ..... but I'll go along anyway.

Search the Web for "Goldstone Report" and you can get at the top of
the list

www.ungoldstonereport.com/index.html
www.thegoldstonereport.com
www.goldstonereport.org

None are official sites for the report. They are all part of the jew
effort to flood the WWW with the message that Goldstone (a Jew) was
biased. Don't be deceived by the official-looking web addresses. They
are funded jew propaganda creations. One even used the UN logo.

Dig deeper and you will find the actual Goldstone Report under the Jew
propaganda

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

Check the Table of Contents to find

PART THREE: ISRAEL
XXIV. THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND
MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN ARMED
GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL .................................. 1594-1691
page 346

Yes it's a big bluff by the jew lobby to say Goldstone never dealt
with the rockets from Gaza because the jews don't mind lying.

docremington...

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:25 am

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 6, 6:25 pm, B J Foster <bjfos... at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Kixi wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, docremington <docreming... at (no spam) safe-mail.net> wrote:
Kixi wrote:
By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
Typical UN deforestation-promoting, worthless paper-generating drivel.

Well much of the UN's material is now published electronically - so
never mind the forests..

Drivel nevertheless.

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc

I should have included Prime Minister Brown in the anti-Palestinian
action. His delegate abstained. Australia and Canada voted against.
Typically, our corrupt leaders vote with Zionism. Even on the question
of Palestinians' rights to their properties our reps vote against. But
Harper, Rudd and Brown need not worry. The jewsmedia will never inform
the masses that we officially oppose certain property rights.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

B J Foster is engaged in diversion of course ... trying to change the
subject ..... but I'll go along anyway.

Search the Web for "Goldstone Report" and you can get at the top of
the list

www.ungoldstonereport.com/index.html
www.thegoldstonereport.com
www.goldstonereport.org

None are official sites for the report. They are all part of the jew
effort to flood the WWW with the message that Goldstone (a Jew) was
biased. Don't be deceived by the official-looking web addresses. They
are funded jew propaganda creations. One even used the UN logo.

Dig deeper and you will find the actual Goldstone Report under the Jew
propaganda

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48..pdf

Check the Table of Contents to find

PART THREE: ISRAEL
XXIV. THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND
MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN ARMED
GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL .................................. 1594-1691
page 346

Yes it's a big bluff by the jew lobby to say Goldstone never dealt
with the rockets from Gaza because the jews don't mind lying.

So, Goldstone lies.

farother...

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:55 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 12:37 pm, Kixi <Kixi_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gazahttp://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/320...

Note that the countries voting against have strong Jew lobbies which
corrupt their politicians. And please also note that the jewsmedia do
not report how the country voted.

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44
abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy,
Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New
Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:
Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao
Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

I have never heard such anti-semitic drivel in all my life! You are a
prime example of an ignorant, anti-Semitic moron. You are in good
company with the winners who voted for the UN motion - Saudi,
Afghanistan, Serbia, etc -those are real protectors of human rights.
Interestingly, none of the countries who voted for the motion have
enlightened 'jew lobbies' who PROTECT human rights (mainly against
schmucks like you).

Why don't you crawl back under the slimy rock where you came, you
schmendrick?

B J Foster...

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:01 pm

Guest

Kixi wrote:

Quote:

Nice diversion.

Where are the follow-up actions to address Hamas atrocities -
indiscriminate targeting of civilians with rockets, using children as
human shields, murdering political opponents, starving their own people,
etc etc?

(rest ignored)

Quote:

www.ungoldstonereport.com/index.html
www.thegoldstonereport.com
www.goldstonereport.org

None are official sites for the report. They are all part of the jew
effort to flood the WWW with the message that Goldstone (a Jew) was
biased. Don't be deceived by the official-looking web addresses. They
are funded jew propaganda creations. One even used the UN logo.

Dig deeper and you will find the actual Goldstone Report under the Jew
propaganda

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

Check the Table of Contents to find

PART THREE: ISRAEL
XXIV. THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND
MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN ARMED
GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL .................................. 1594-1691
page 346

Yes it's a big bluff by the jew lobby to say Goldstone never dealt
with the rockets from Gaza because the jews don't mind lying.

Kixi...

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:21 am

Guest

On Nov 7, 5:55 pm, farother <stevenmka... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 6, 12:37 pm, Kixi <Kixi_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

By Recorded Vote, General Assembly Urges Israel, Palestinians to
Conduct
Credible, Independent Investigations into Alleged War Crimes in Gazahttp://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/320...

Note that the countries voting against have strong Jew lobbies which
corrupt their politicians. And please also note that the jewsmedia do
not report how the country voted.

Vote on Report of Fact Mission on Gaza Conflict

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations
Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44
abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile,
China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy,
Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru,
Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain:
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New
Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:
Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao
Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

I have never heard such anti-semitic drivel in all my life! You are a
prime example of an ignorant, anti-Semitic moron. You are in good
company with the winners who voted for the UN motion - Saudi,
Afghanistan, Serbia, etc -those are real protectors of human rights.
Interestingly, none of the countries who voted for the motion have
enlightened 'jew lobbies' who PROTECT human rights (mainly against
schmucks like you).

Why don't you crawl back under the slimy rock where you came, you
schmendrick?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please be careful with the anti-semetic smear. Judge Goldstone is a
Jew

Goldstone Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

Chapter XXIV
THE IMPACT ON CIVILIANS OF ROCKET AND MORTAR ATTACKS BY PALESTINIAN
ARMED GROUPS ON SOUTHERN ISRAEL

Chapter VII.
ATTACKS ON GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND POLICE

Chapter X
INDISCRIMINATE ATTACKS BY ISRAELI ARMED FORCES RESULTING IN THE LOSS
OF LIFE AND INJURY TO CIVILIANS

hapter XI
DELIBERATE ATTACKS AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION

Chapter XII
THE USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS

Chapter XIII
ATTACKS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF CIVILIAN LIFE IN GAZA: DESTRUCTION OF
INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, FOOD PRODUCTION, WATER INSTALLATIONS,
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND HOUSING

A. The destruction of el-Bader flour mill
B. The destruction of the Sawafeary chicken farms
C. The destruction of water and sewage installations
D. The destruction of housing
E. Analysis of the pattern of widespread destruction of economic and
infrastructural targets

That is zionism for you. They set back the development of Gaza as a
civil society in order to help then colonize Palestine.

The jews set back Lebanon "20 years" for the same reason.

The jews crippled got USA to destroy Iraq for the same reason.

The jews are now agitating for the crippling of Iran for the same
reason.

Kangaroo Court Australia...

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:30 am

Guest

Playing the Whiteman's game of Judicial Bullshit: High Court Australia
(French, Hayne, Gummow, Crennan), Senate Constitution and Legal
Affairs Committee (Barnett and Crossin)

Dear Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka,

I believe that we have had this discussion previously:

1. There is NO doubt that the framers of the Constitution wanted to
safeguard freedom, rule of law, justice and the will of the people.
2. Your "interpretation" is that the framers wanted it ALL for the
Whiteman; I DO NOT DISAGREE.

My contention is that point 1 must be maintained whilst point 2 should
be interpreted as "for better governance" s51(xxvi).
Point 1 makes for civilised society whilst point 2, drives us back to
savages; "for better governance" is another discretionary clause which
can easily be abused (as in the NT intervention, i will get to later)

With due respect sir, your reading of the"intentions" of the framers
of the Constitution is an anachronism: the Constitution by itself does
NOT discriminate based on RACE in an adverse way.

If a referendum on multiculturalism (for argument sakes) were to take
place, chances are the idiots would vote to get rid of it. But here is
what would happen, the International Community would ostracise
Australia, and the Chinese would buy mineral ore from South America,
leaving Australia with dirt ! Where would the Lucky Country be without
the global community.

Global Community means global laws: unlike the US, Australia has not
only signed UN human rights treaties, ICCPR and ICERD, inter alia,
they also signed up to the International Criminal Court's Rome
Statutes. (Whiteman and treaty DONOT go together to well)

Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this with the will of the
Australian people, as in a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.
Has the Commonwealth of Australia done all this in order to only help
White Australia, through a referendum? Thats NOT my problem.

My ONLY concern is with the rule of law and justice:

After having signed the UN Human Rights Treaties, the Commonwealth
enacted 2 local laws to implement the 2 treaties, namely

1. Race Discrimination Act 1975
2. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; inter alia

The Art of Perverting Justice, & of Racism by White Australia:
Documentary
How the Australian judiciary and the Australian High Court conspire to
pervert justice, dispense with the rule of law, and using the police
to harass and victimise australians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

Well you can say those laws discriminate based on race but is
"discrimination" the correct term when the effect is positive.

Is the law discriminatory for the jewish "people" if it sends people
to jail for denying the existence of the Holocaust?

You, sir, need to define the term "discriminate", if not "race".

We challenged the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs Committee
(chaired by Barnett and Crossin) to secede from the 2 UN Human Rights,
and they have refused. They have NOT enacted any "discriminatory"
laws, they just renamed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Act 1986, with the
intention of removing the "Equal Opportunity" part so that their
corrupt commission and judges can apply the Act in an arbitrary way,
ie sending people to jail for standing up for freedom of speech in
denying the existence of the Holocaust.

The Commission and the Judges dont have discretionary powers at all,
they must comply with the two UN Human Rights Treaties as enshrined
"discriminatorily" by the 2+ local laws RDA1975 and HREOCA1986.

We are not interested in playing or participating in the Whiteman's
game of "Judicial Bullshit" (TM) as you seem to be doing; what we ask
is for the rule of law to upheld, and not having the legal goalpost
continuously being moved !

M142 of 2007 Pham vs French & ors, is about a high court judge (Hayne
J) running the case for an absent respondent; where in the
Constitution does it say a judge can run a case for any persons before
the court? ICCPR 14.1 enforces an independent and impartial judiciary.
Not only that but Hayne J modified the Writ of Mandamus into a Writ of
ceratori, without our authorisation. Where in Constitution, does it
say a judge can modify the frame of reference of the court
application?

The French we are talking about is none other than our current Chief
Justice of the High Court, Robert Shenton French. Kevin Rudd knew
about a Application for Mandamus against French J, and yet made him
the Chief Justice. Where is the separation of powers of executive and
judiciary as enshrine in the Constitution?

Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00YzNlLTg0ZjQtOWUxN2M3YTRjZjkw&hl=en

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00NmE0LWJhZWMtOGNhYTQ4ZDZiMTUx&hl=en

Senate.Enquiries.update. 31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00ZjI3LTlkZTItZDliMzAyMWI0ZjJl&hl=en

The Racist Hypocrites are not enacting "discriminatory" laws, they are
applying Human Rights laws discriminatorily based on which of their
friends they can save.

eg. they slander the Indigenous people with child abuse (which occurs
in all cultures), got their mates in the High Court to suspend the
RDA1975 arbitrarily, enacted Marshall Law in the NT, just so they can
set up Nuclear dumps.

Can you not see abuse of the Constitution without relying on an
incorrect reading of the s51 (XXVI) ?

Look up case Pham vs COMCARE and read the decision of Senior Member
John Handley, and see the abuse of the Evidence Act, in the AAT
jurisdiction. John Handley abuses facts (fabricating facts, and
evidence) so that Appeals cannot brought on facts (one of the worst
case of conspiracy to pervert justice by the Australia Judiciary); we
brought it on judicial bias which their corrupt judges including
French decide to do extra-judicial fudging of the book.

Leave to Appeals is the worst abuse of discretionary powers in
Australian Judicature, is it permissible in the Constitution; it will
be tested in the High Court.

These judges are corrupt and useless; whenever they do not have legal
responses they then install "deputy" registars and prothonotary to
deal with questions of law (Gummow and Crennan, Byrne JJ); Does the
Constitution allow these administrative officers to act as a judicial
officers?

As a matter of fact: are Australian Judges even appointed legally by
order of the Privy Council and the Queen, through your precious
Constitution? If NOT then the Australian "judiciary" is acting
extra-judicial and ultra vires (a term i have introduced to you, and
glad to see you using).

Anyone charged with sedition or terrorism, should challenge the
validity of the judges or just use a defense of Citizen's Arrest of
corrupt judicial officers and government officials.

If i am incorrect about any of this, feel free to enlighten me: I will
test it out in the court of law in case

VID 91/2009 Pham vs DEWR
on the 26th October 2009 at (no spam) 10:00 am
6th Floor (?)
Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts Building
305 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Telephone (03) 8600 3333

This case was presented to the Senate Constitution and Legal Affairs
and they decided to sweep it under the carpet;
Inquiry into Australia’s Judicial System and the Role of Judges
Inquiry into Access to Justice
They haven't enacted any discriminatory laws, the Racist Hypocrites
want their cake and eat it as well, by "acting" discriminatorily in
excluding ethnics from having a say in those 2 INQUIRIES, in carrying
out their duties as law makers for the "better governance" of
Australia under the Constitution and the RAD1975 and HREOAC1986.

This case is once again from John Handley, Senior Member AAT, abusing
discretionary powers which he doesnt have, abuse the Evidence Act,
with the hope not to have an Appeals heard on facts, perverting
justice and fabricating evidence, and of course apprehended bias.

Come see your Constitution in action and whether the Rule of Law is
dead in Australia.

cheers

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

- Hide quoted text -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka
<inspector_rikati at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Chas,

I read your reference to Pham v French and you comment about
racism but what I found was;
Pham v French & Ors [2008] HCATrans 3 (24 January 2008)
QUOTE
HIS HONOUR: The Racial Discrimination Act makes quite plain that
racial discrimination is unlawful.
END QUOTE
.

It should be understood however that the federal Parliament has no
powers to override the constitution and s.51(xxvi) specifically
provides that the Commonwealth can enact special laws against any race
and so can discriminate!

As such, in that regard also racism is constitutionally
permissible (even so I oppose this personally) and any legislation
purporting otherwise is ULTRA VIRES.

Hence, the federal parliament can enact any legislation against
any specific race and is entitled to do so.

.

What however is the problem is that a special legislation against
a race can only be discriminatory against that race subjected to this
legislation and must be applied to all people of that race.

.

The 1967 referendum in regard of s.51(xxvi() was grossly deceptive
in that it failed to inform electros and so also Aboriginals of the
true meaning of this section and how it’s amended format could be used
against Aboriginals.

.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am well aware of the expressed intentions
of the Framers of the Constitution’s intention that the Commonwealth
is prohibited to enact any race legislation against the general
community.

While the High court of Australia claimed that the Racial
Discrimination Act is not enacted within s.51(xxvi) but within
external powers the Framers of the Constitution made clear that any
legislative powers within “external powers” were and could only be
derived of legislative powers already provided in the constitution. As
such, the commonwealth could not for example make some treaty about
education with a foreign country and then claim it now has legislative
powers to deal with education because it is not in principle a
legislative powers that was provided to the Commonwealth. The
legislative powers of the Racial discrimination Act cannot eventuate
merely because the commonwealth fancy to make some treaty with
whomever because of that principle were adopted then there was
absolutely no need for the Framers of the Constitution to provide
specific legislative powers within s.51 and s52 because all it needed
to do was to give it original powers in all matters.

.

The Framers of the Constitution for example specifically stated
that “environment” was to remain State legislative powers. Hence,
“external powers” cannot override the limitations and cannot by some
backdoor manner provide the Commonwealth with legislative powers it
was specifically denied by the Framers of the constitution.

.

Another example is that the Commonwealth has no legislative powers
to determine the nationality of a person born within the Commonwealth
of Australia as none of the s.51 subsections permit for this. The
Commonwealth can naturalise aliens but again you find no legislative
powers to determine the nationality of any child born within the
commonwealth of Australia as they are by the legal principles embedded
in the Constitution “subject of the British Crown.

.

It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the
Constitution are; “British subject”, “to make persons subjects of the
British Empire.”, “with the consent of the Imperial authority”, “What
is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to
say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the
Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.”.

It is beyond the Parliament and also the High Court of Australia
to alter the nationality of any subject of the Queen.

The High Court of Australia is constituted by the constitution and
as such cannot override the legal principles embedded in the
constitution. As such, the Sue v Hill and the Tasmania Dam decisions
were without legal force as the High Court of Australia exceeded its
judicial powers.

.

Aboriginals supported the 1967 referendum to amend s.51(xxvi) so
they too could be discriminated against, precisely what the Framers of
the Constitution sought to prevent, and as such Aboriginals cannot now
complain about racial discrimination where they supported the
referendum for this.

What however Aboriginals can complain about is that the Northern
Territory Intervention not being a law against all Aboriginals
(consider Hindmarsh case) then it is invalid in law. Either all
Aboriginals anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia were subjected
to special legislation or none at all.

.

Likewise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Act is
unconstitutional as it deals with more then one race!

.

Do keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution made it very
clear that s.51(xxvi) was specifically to avoid any problems with
International law as they were aware that International law cannot
override constitutional provisions.

.

While it is a bit complicated to explain in this response you
would in my view have a better option to try to rely upon the European
Union’s Human Rights provisions provided it doesn’t conflict with
Commonwealth law, as it can only be applied as a complimentary
legislation. Again, to explain this is too lengthy for this response.

.

I am well aware that so to say various Federal government and also
the courts couldn’t give a hood about what is constitutionally
appropriate where it doesn’t serve their purposes, but still we need
to pursue matters within the context of the constitution. The
constitution doesn’t belong to the government or the courts but
belongs to the people!

.

HANSARD 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-

Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary
not only that the administration of justice should be pure and above
suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion

END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the
Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles
embedded in the Constitution;

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record
of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties
which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal
government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

END QUOTE

.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much
remains unwritten,

END QUOTE

And

QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

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

And

QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this
Convention are about to commit to the people of Australia a new
charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna
Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I can conceive of
nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of
the world than this question upon which we are about to invite the
peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the
barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be
given by the people of Australia to themselves.

END QUOTE

Again;

QUOTE

This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to
themselves.

END QUOTE

.

I can understand the utter frustration you and others may endure
in your fight for JUSTICE but try to channel it through the right
processes and base your arguments upon what is constitutionally viable
and then I suggest you recommence whatever you pursue.

.

If for example you were to pursue the unconstitutionality of the
Northern Territory Intervention that it should also be applied
otherwise to other Aboriginals including lawyers who are living in
cities like Melbourne and Sydney, then you might get far more
attention as to have this unconstitutional legislation defeated. Do
you really think lawyers would want to be dispossessed of their rights
of property, etc, they more then likely may join your cause! Once you
succeed in that regard then you can build upon this succeed to tackle
other issues.

.

Gerrit

.

Mr g. H. Schorel-Hlavka

.

15-10-2009

.

.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, GUARDIAN
(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)
107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia
Ph (International) 61394577209
.
Email; mayjusticealwaysprevail at (no spam) schorel-hlavka.com
help at (no spam) office-of-the-guardian.com (constitutional matters only)

"CONSTITUTIONALIST" and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI®
series on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
.
EITHER WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR WE DON'T!

.
Website;
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Blog;
http://profiles.yahoo.com/inspector_rikati

"JUSTICE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER AND CLOUDED BY HIS/HER
SIGHT DEFICIENCY" .

From: chas x <nwn.webmaster at (no spam) gmail.com>
To: eewr.sen at (no spam) aph.gov.au; legcon.sen at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.hogg at (no spam) aph.gov.au; Julia.Gillard.MP at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
Malcolm.Turnbull.MP at (no spam) aph.gov.au; R.McClelland.MP at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
laca.reps at (no spam) aph.gov.au; jsct at (no spam) aph.gov.au; ewr.reps at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
AOCC-Information-Processing at (no spam) afp.gov.au; ag at (no spam) ag.gov.au;
rob.hulls at (no spam) parliament.vic.gov.au; corbell at (no spam) act.gov.au;
minister.stirling at (no spam) nt.gov.au; records at (no spam) justice.tas.gov.au;
attorney at (no spam) ministerial.qld.gov.au;
office at (no spam) hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au;
attorney-general at (no spam) agd.sa.gov.au; jim-mcginty at (no spam) dpc.wa.gov.au;
lara.giddings at (no spam) dhhs.tas.gov.au; minister.porter at (no spam) dpc.wa.gov.au;
senator.crossin at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.barnett at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.farrell at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.Feeney at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.fischer at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.ludlam at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.Trood at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.marshall at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.bob.brown at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.Hanson-Young at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.milne at (no spam) aph.gov.au; senator.siewert at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
senator.xenophon at (no spam) aph.gov.au; Peter.Hallahan at (no spam) aph.gov.au;
complaintsinfo at (no spam) humanrights.gov.au
Sent: Thu, 15 October, 2009 12:55:43 PM
Subject: How the Australian Human Rights [sic] Commission
conspires to coverup Human Rights abuses including unlawful racial
discrimination; Why the Australian Judiciary should never be allowed
near the Bill of Rights, Jury needed in ALL Human Rights Matters

Dear ALL,

This email contains snippet of how the Australian Human Rights
[sic] Commission

1. conspire to pervert the Australian de facto Bill of Rights,
Australian Human Rights [sic] (and Equal Opportunity Commission) Act
1986

(You will note that the Senate Committee for constitution and
legal affairs chaired by Barnett and Crossin have removed the Equal
Opportunity part, since our exposing their unlawful discrimination);

2. covering up for their mates in the field of public health:
protected species if you are white and have friends who can pervert
the system;

3. give false and inadequate information: Notice how Ms Jane
Thomson refuses to deal with human rights issues of healthcare as a
separation from unlawful discrimination (which becomes intertwined
when you consider the hippocratic oath); which is what they are paid
to do!

4. she then tries to patronise us with the "you didnt mention your
race", which may be true but it was Burt who mentioned it initially.

5, This is the reason why you NEVER EVER allow the Australian
Judiciary anywhere near the Bill of Rights, not least since M142 Pham
vs French & ors, their abuse of discretionary powers is legendary that
Kirby J called the High Court racist....arbitrary and prejudicial
extra-judicial determination of legal processes and abuse of the legal
principal.....Fight the Federal Attorney General's attempt to give the
Bill of Rights to the Judiciary to handle; the Victorian Bill of
Rights shows that unelected judges are NOT fit to handle the Human
Rights legal aspects.

6. further complaints to the Human Rights [sic] Commission
regarding Senate Committee for constitution and legal affairs chaired
by Barnett and Crossin (which have been emailed previously), and the
Victorian Medical Board's covering up for Mr Burt, will be filed.

(You will remember the 4 year old Aborigines girl who died after
being refused medical care by the Qld hospital)

Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from
a
Corrupt, Racist White nation

Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00YzNlLTg0ZjQtOWUxN2M3YTRjZjkw&hl=en

Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00NmE0LWJhZWMtOGNhYTQ4ZDZiMTUx&hl=en

Senate.Enquiries.update.
31July2009.web.pdf

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00ZjI3LTlkZTItZDliMzAyMWI0ZjJl&hl=en

7. there are subtle and not so subtle (if you know what to look
for) institutional, systemic unlawful racial discrimination, and human
rights violations, to health, to education, to employment, as
enshrined in ICCPR and ICERD and enforced/able under HREOCA1986;

8. Its time for the International Criminal Court to look at abuse
of the legal system and legal principles from the Australian Judiciary
and system and parliament, in perverting justice and conspiring to
cause injury, arbitrary extra-judicial decisions, under the Crimes
against Humanity clause in the Rome statutes of the ICC.

9. Remember that HREOCA1986 is as close to common law as you can
get whilst implementing ICCPR and ICERD, the 2 human rights treaties;

10. Les Malezer (Aborigines "leader" and recipient of Human Rights
Medal 2008) was asked to enquire about racial discrimination in Geneva
at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. After having
arrived back in Australia, Les Malezer has gone silent and refusing to
return phone calls; it seems Robbie Thorpe is correct that these black
"leaders" get fat in selling out their own people.

11. Robbie Thorpe and I will file a High Court challenge to the
australian Human rights [sic] commission's abuse of HREOCA1986 46PO as
a tool to violate ICCPR article 14.1, to coincide with

STOP TOXIC RACISM
Richard Downs and Harry Nelson Indigenous Speaking Tour In
Melbourne
PROTEST MARCH – Friday 16 October 2009 at (no spam) 10:00 am
at (no spam) 184 Gertrude Street Fitzroy-
March to Parliament

12. copy of complaint against Mr Burt follows:

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: chas x <nwn.webmaster at (no spam) gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against
Mr Peter Burt [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
To: Complaints Info <complaints.info at (no spam) humanrights.gov.au>

Dear Ms Jane Thomson,

I had asked you specifically to terminate this complaint, under
HREOCA1986 46PO, I had not asked you to determine it at all. And you
are lying that its NOT indirect racial discrimination as a threshold.
This is why i want this in the Courts as a precedence.

There will be a further complaint of racial discrimination against
the Medical Board of Victoria, that i will ask you to determine, and i
expect ALL correspondence to be in writing and on the Human Rights
Comissionn letterhead, even if the email is legal tender.

Right now I am expecting the termination papers as required by law
against Mr Burt.

I will send this to the Attorneys General and the PM's office, for
public record. Feel free to publish it widely

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Complaints Info
<complaints.info at (no spam) humanrights.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Mr Pham

I refer to your email complaint received on 7 October 2009 in
which you raised concerns about the actions of a medical specialist Mr
Peter Burt. You stated that you believe that his actions amounted to
racial discrimination.

This Commission can look into complaints of discrimination
under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in specific areas of
public life including in the provision of a service. Race
discrimination may occur where a person is treated less favourably
than another person in the same or similar circumstances and the
reason for that less favourable treatment is the person’s race.

In order to support a complaint of race discrimination, it is
not enough for a person to show that he or she is from a particular
racial background and has suffered some sort of unfair treatment. He
or she must show that the unfair treatment was based on or linked to
his or her race in one of the areas covered under the RDA.

While I appreciate that you believe that Mr Burt refused to
provide you with his service because of your race, you have not
clearly set out how the actions or behaviour of Mr Burt was linked to
your race. You state that Mr Burt accused you of "playing the race
card" however you have not stated why you believe that the reason he
treated you the way he did was because of your race. You have also not
stated what racial background you are from.

If you believe you have further information which would
support that Mr Burt's actions occurred because of your race then the
Commission would be happy to consider this information.

The Office of the Health Services Commissioner may be a more
appropriate body to deal with this complaint as it can take complaints
about the actions of doctors generally. Its website is:
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/hsc/. Ph. 1800 136 066.

If you would like to discuss this email or would like any
further information about our laws please contact me on 1300 656 419.

Yours sincerely

Jane Thomson

Complaint Information Officer

Complaint Handling Section

From: chas x [mailto:nwn.webmaster at (no spam) gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:06 PM
To: Complaints Info
Subject: Complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against
Mr Peter Burt

Dear Australian Human Rights Commission,

Attached is the complaint against Mr Peter Burt. Please have
the President terminate it immediately, as a matter of urgency and
public interest.

cheer

PHAM

administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/

***********************************************************************
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of
any part
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this
email in
error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you
notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email,
together
with any attachments.

***********************************************************************

"

Unprofessional conduct and unlawful racial discrimination of Mr
Peter Burt Provider

No. 016892CX

1. I give notice of unprofessional conduct of Mr Peter Burt;

2. Mr Peter Burt wants me to make a complaint against him; I
am making a full formal complaint against Mr Burt’s unprofessional
conduct;

3. Mr Burt wants me to accuse him of racial discrimination; I
am accusing Mr Burt of unlawful racial discrimination;

4. Mr Burt wants me to make the complaint public; I will make
the complaint very public;

5. Mr Burt wants me to make it personal; I will make it
personal;

6. Mr Burt freely admitted that my case was an emergency case;

7. On the 8th of July 2009, I presented at Mr Burt’s surgery;

8. I noticed his waiting room was full and busy;

9. I waited around for over one hour and 45 min to see Mr
Burt;

10. In his office, I made an off the cuff remark, that more than
30 min wait was beyond tolerable;

11. Mr Burt then made some remarks about emergency surgeries at
the hospital;

12. I have contacts with many health professionals, and I know
sometimes professionals just say things to appease the patients; I
made another off the cuff question seeking how many surgeries he had
done, especially when Mr Burt was standing there in his pinstripe
suit;

13. Mr Burt then got all flustered and pulled in one of his
assistants, just to clarify his 7 “emergency surgeries”;

14. Mr Burt then accused me of playing the “race card”; which
means he was the one noticing race;

15. By this time, 10-15 min had passed and I was getting eager
to have the session over with;

16. Mr Burt then refused to carry through with the consultation,
citing he was “insulted and that (I) haven’t apologised”;

17. I am now accusing Mr Burt of racial discrimination, for lack
of duty of care, violation of his Hippocratic Oath and being a total
disgrace to the memory of Dr Fred Hollows;

18. Mr Burt refused to see an emergency patient, in violation of
all professional codes of conduct; Mr Burt noted that I had bleeding
at the back of the eyes;

19. Mr Burt then fluffed me off to a junior physician, who had
to refer me to another specialist; I have no idea if I have been
treated correctly;

20. Given my emergency status, I could have sustained serious or
life-threatening or long-term injury;

21. By passing me onto another physician, Mr Burt inconvenienced
another patient, which I had clearly indicated to Mr Burt;

22. Now I did mention to Mr Burt in front of his assistant that I
am willing to go through with the examination, if Mr Burt was
professional enough to act like a health professional;

23. Mr Burt obviously indicated that he wasn’t professional
enough and shouldn’t be allowed to rort public purse for his pinstripe
suits;

24. Especially if Mr Burt has a personal system of punishment for
“difficult” patients;

25. Mr Burt then had the nerve to charge me for services in his
name and provider number;

26. I find that fraudulent; I had a suspicion that Mr Burt rushes
through many patients without providing proper care and attention in
order to rort the health system and/or medicare;

27. It may be that Mr Burt does not need Hippocratic Oath, but I
want to see if he has a duty to care;

28. Mr Burt will be sent this formal complaint, for his response;

29. I am now seeking a full and public apology; to be sent to
myself and posted in B3 size in front of his surgery: for lack of
professional conduct, and duty of care, unlawful racial
discrimination,

"
.././.

-----------------------------------------
why little Johnnie Winston Coward Howard?

why must you cover up for your crooked white mates like crooked high
court judges French, Hayne, Gummow and Crennan JJ ?

Senate Enquiries: Whitewash
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/judicial_system/in...
iWitness: Judicial Corruption Australia
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/index.php?/topic/2217-y...

Heres a Documentary on how these corrupt judges conspire to pervert
justice and fabricate documents, include the newly appointed Chief
Justice Robert Stenton French

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ

The little Johnnie Winston Coward Howard neverending Magic Pudding
therapy,
where feckin white pedophiles with the nerve to accuse blackfellas !!!

Crooked racist white Australia ^^

http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/index.php
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyj_gWqdDWQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/user/fightKangarooCourts

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:57 am Politics Forum Index