Many articles are now appearing lamenting ‘the suicide’ of Western Christendom and people are mystified as to how it came about so suddenly. Not so. The white-ants started the process many years ago...
LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARD
by Eric D. Butler, 18 January 1974.
Unless people understand how they have reached their present situation, they have no hope of understanding where they are going, or what steps they should take to avoid even worse disasters than those they have already experienced. Nineteen seventy-three was a year of momentous and convulsive developments, but now mankind is threatened by a year whose convulsions will certainly dwarf those of the past. Those who believe that any type of stability is possible under present finance-economic policies are deluding themselves. Every day brings new manifestations of conflict, national and international, and social disintegration. Monetary inflation was a major feature of the internal disintegration of the Roman Empire. Effective resistance to the storming barbarians became impossible.
H. G. Wells wrote of how when he was writing his Outline of History, he became convinced that the basic cause of the internal rot was the heavy indebtedness of all social classes and the crushing burden of taxation. Wells wrote prophetically before the Second World War “It is dreadful to watch how gradually the same symptoms of decadence become visible in the great empires of the modern world.”
HEADLINES PROMPTED SEARCH OF ALoR ARCHIVES
“Murphy Scandal to be Laid Bare” The Australian, 12 September 2017
“All the political intrigue and underworld connections behind the Lionel Murphy saga are set to be revealed more than 30 years on.”
SENATOR MURPHY’S FRAUDULENT “HUMAN RIGHTS” BILL
A good memory is essential for Australians. They can’t possibly have some understanding of present political events, without knowing what went before. The following article appeared in a League journal nearly thirty years ago. The chickens have now come home to roost!
Few Australians had heard about Senator Lionel Murphy’s Human Rights Bill, 1973, until some of the Church leaders protested that the wording of the legislation could result in a restriction of the freedoms of the Churches. And although the Human Rights Bill is designed to bring Commonwealth legislation into line with the requirements of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it was pointed out by the Church spokesmen that the Covenant clause concerning the rights of the family had been deleted from the Murphy legislation.
While the protests of the Churches are legitimate, they have tended to obscure the more far-reaching implications of the Bill. The Human Rights Bill recalls the famous satire, Animal Farm, by the former Communist George Orwell, in which the animals find that their Bill of Rights, written up on the farm barn door, did not protect them against the ruthless exploitation of the pigs after they had overthrown the farmer. It was true that it was still stated that “all animals are equal”, but now it also read that “some animals are more equal than others!”
Division of Power and Common Law Rights
Under the guise of protecting Australians’ rights and freedoms, successfully protected until now through the division of power and Common Law rights, upheld by an independent judiciary, the Human Rights Bill seeks to expand enormously the power of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States, and the individual. It is an attempt to violate the Federal Constitution by the use of the External Affairs power.
Clause 5 of the Human Rights Bill “binds Australia and each State”. If implemented Federal officials will be able to force the States to conform to the pattern of law established by the Commonwealth. The implications are explosive.
The roots of the Human Rights Bill go back to the establishment of the United Nations, and the dominant role of the Communists. In the numerous conferences concerning human rights, there was a clear-cut cleavage between the Western and Christian view that certain rights are inalienable, derived from God the Creator and not from the State, as argued by the Communists.
Dr. Charles Malik, Chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has pointed out that a study of the discussions of the Commission reveals how the Soviet influence dominated. He observed that “The concept of property and its ownership is at the heart of the ideological conflict of the present day. It was not only the Communist representatives who riddled this question with questions and doubts; a goodly portion of the non-Communist world had itself succumbed to these doubts.”
The Communists reluctantly permitted the right to own private property (clause 17) to appear in the wordy Declaration of Human Rights, but by the time the Covenant was drafted, clause 17 had disappeared! There is no reference to property rights in Senator Murphy’s Human Rights Bill. It reflects the humanistic philosophy of those who drafted the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If individual rights are granted by the State, then it is obvious that what the State grants it can also take away.
In view of some of the actions of the Whitlam Government, it is rather hypocritical for Senator Murphy to be stressing how concerned he and his colleagues are about the individual’s rights.
They have mastered George Orwell’s “double-speak”. Section 11, sub-section (2) states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to speak, receive and impart information and ideas of all.
Mr. Stanley W. Johnston, head of the Criminology Department at Melbourne University, and chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations Association of Australia, is concerned that the Murphy legislation does not go far enough. He provides, however, a picture of how the internationalists plan to give individuals the “right” of direct appeal to the U.N. Human Rights Committee.
An example is the eleven European States who have agreed to allow 150 million Europeans to approach directly the European Commission on Human Rights. No evidence is provided to show that Europeans with this right are any better off than Australians. But Mr. Johnston does see the Murphy Bill as a step in the right direction because “It might effect a transfer of certain, mainly criminal, lawmaking powers from the States to Canberra”. It is this prospect which has caused even Dr. Bray, Chief Justice of South Australia, well-known for his liberal views, to join with other jurists in expressing concern about the impact of the Murphy Bill upon criminal law in Australia.
Although Geoffrey Sawyer, Professor of Law in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian University, favours “the insertion in the Australian Constitution of a comprehensive Bill of Rights”, he also states that “I am against the mealy-mouthed exceptions and rhetorical declarations of policy in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and surprised at the adulation accorded that document by defenders of Senator Murphy’s proposed Human Rights legislation”.
In a constructively critical article in The Age of February 12, Professor Sawyer makes the important point that “The U.N. document is the result of a long process of compromise between about a hundred negotiating governments, most of which have no respect for or intention of protecting individual liberties...
And yet Senator Murphy’s supporters claim that Australia must accept his Human Rights Bill in order to “keep face” with the “international community”. Do they really think that the Communist dictators, or perhaps “General” Amin of Uganda, are impressed with the passing of a Human Rights Bill in Australia!
The biggest threat to Australians’ rights and liberties is the policy of centralising all power at Canberra and the destruction of the Federal system of Government, which was designed to keep power divided between the Federal and State Governments.
Senator Murphy’s Human Rights Bill, introduced into the Senate on November 21, is an attempt to further the centralising process through a misuse of the External Affairs powers of the Commonwealth Constitution. Australians concerned about their real rights and liberties should insist that their representatives at Canberra reject the Bill completely as un-Australian.