Go back to the homepage Go back to the homepage
Go back to the homepage Contact IFLRY Photo Gallery of Previous Events IFLRY's document archive
Welcome to IFLRY Sign in | Register
About IFLRY Member and Partner Organizations The Issues: Policy and Campaigns Upcoming Events: Get involved! The Libel: IFLRY's quarterly magazine Free Speech: Online Forums

What is the Rule of Law?

Last post 02-15-2008, 3:31 by expat101. 1 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  10-23-2007, 13:47 1067

    What is the Rule of Law?

    In order for Liberal Democracy to work in the way that it is intended to work; there are four pre-requisites. Firstly the democracy must be a constitutional democracy, where the constitution of the state is clearly available to, accessible to and understandable by the citizenry; and this constitution must be the supreme law of that state.

     

    Secondly the democracy must enshrine a charter of human rights that clearly illustrate the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of each and every individual citizen; to grow and develop to their individual optimal potential. This charter of human rights must be the foundation upon which all laws are phrased and upon which all public and private policy and contracts are based.

     

    Thirdly the democracy must establish within its constitution, the separation of powers, so that the legislative parliaments are independent of the executive cabinets and ministries and of the judicial courts.

     

    Fourthly the democracy must provide for the respect for the mutual agreements reached between and among people, irrespective of how those agreements are reached (i.e. irrespective of whether they are verbal, written, formal or informal agreements) and irrespective what these agreements cover, provided that the agreements do not seek to enforce illegal actions.

     

    It is through this combination of these four elements that a constitutional democracy becomes a Liberal Democracy. However in order for this system of checks, balances and counter-balances to work; the citizenry and the leadership must have respect for the Rule of Law.

     

    The Rule of Law is distinct from the Rule BY Law which is how fascist and military regimes operate. Rather the Rule of Law assures each and every person a fair trial, an independent judiciary and consistency. That is to say that the Rule of Law prevents arbitrary decisions, such that the weak and powerless are punished while the strong and powerful are exonerated.

     

    By removing this arbitrary decision making from government, the judiciary and civil society; we remove the potential for decisions to be made in favour of people paying or accepting bribes or other unethical inducements. By doing this we guarantee that in a Liberal Democracy, each and every person is assured of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.

     

    Further to this, the Rule of Law requires that the citizenry and the leadership accept the outcome of the judicial and legislative process, provided that the procedures for the protection of the rights of all people have been followed and provided that the methods of equality before the law were implemented as and when they should have been.

     

    Questions:

     

    1.                  In terms of the above, explain why the Rule of Law is vital for the existence of Equal Opportunities for Each and Every Single Person?

    2.                  In terms of the above, explain why the rehabilitation of convicted criminals is so important for a functioning, vibrant, dynamic and growing Liberal Democracy?


    Avishkar Govender

    eThekwini-Durban
    KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
    SADC - AU
  •  02-15-2008, 3:31 1212 in reply to 1067

    Re: What is the Rule of Law?

     According to the HIGH COURT AUSTRALIA, rule of law is WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY

    High Court Australia 2008 White Australia Policy Reaffirmed!

    HIGH COURT 2008 WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY REAFFIRMED!

    when will the HIGH COURT'S WHITE AUSTRALIA be apologised for??

    Affidavit against White Australia Policy

    http://rapidshare.com/files/90804544/IN_THE_HIGH_COURT_OF_AUSTRALIA.affidavit.08february2008.web.pdf.html

     

     

    make oath and state that :

    1. The Defendants failed
      to serve Notices of Appearance, except the SSAT Members who declined to be
      heard on summons;
    1. On 24th
      January 2008, No defendants came forth to challenge the proceedings;
    1. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne was asked
      what jurisdiction he was applying for the directions hearing without the
      representation of the Defendants; “High Court doesn’t allow these
      hearings” was all he could proffer. White Australia Policy had been dispensed
      with and Racial Discrimination Act came into force in 1975, with the Human
      Rights and Equal Opportunity Act in 1986;
    1. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne was told “Peremptory
      Stay of Proceedings” had been enforced with challenges of jurisdiction at
      the lower courts; as such the Plaintiff did not want to seek leave for an
      Appeal against unconstitutional and non-legally binding decisions of the
      lower courts; and further sought to be heard at the FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH
      COURT on constitutional grounds;
    1. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne erred by refusing
      to consider aspects of the Notices of a Constitutional Matter; thereby
      confirming and endorsing unlawful discriminatory acts of the Commonwealth
      and the Statutory bodies;
    1. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne erred by
      refusing to consider aspects of an Injuction against lower courts and
      Tribunals on Constitutional grounds;
    1. The Justice failed to
      award court costs for the Defendants’ non-appearances and for costs arising
      from Fees regulations 8.2, 9, 10, 11 and the unconstitutional conducts of
      the deputy registrar Mussolino; The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne admitted
      to having seen the affidavit against Mussolino;and was told of the
      regulations;
    1. According to the
      Deputy Registar Ms Denise Weybury, The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne has
      refused to authenticate his decision to dismiss the Application in
      writing;
    1. I have suffered
      financial hardship due to the Judicial crisis created by The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne;
      depriving myself and my business from functioning under the laws of the
      Commonwealth of Australia;
    1. I have been made
      homeless by The Honorable Kenneth
      Madison Hayne; deprived of Australian citizenship unlawfully;
    1. The Honorable Kenneth Madison Hayne
      sanctioned the continued conspiracy to pervert justice by the
      Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Senior Member John Handley, and the
      Commonwealth of Australia Lawyer Tim De Uray, in fabricating facts and
      evidence, abusing jurisdiction and positions of trust, at hearing at the
      AAT on 7 February 2008;

    Sworn
    at , in
    the State of Victoria

    this day of 2008

    Before me

    Signature:
    Date:

    -------------------

    http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com

    http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/judicial-crisis-and-treason-high-court-australia

View as RSS news feed in XML