index

[2]

Page 1 of 4

A Bill of Rights Not Privileges Preservation of Life – Community Protection Bill

admin@cpb.LIFE Admin POLCPB P.O. Box 4025 Rockhampton Hospital Qld. 4700

[3]

Petition - linked to item D page 3

[4]

[1]

Objective and Function: The creation of a statutory body funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments through an Intergovernmental Agreement. The function of the statutory body is to develop a national policy on the development and enactment of legislation consistent with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR ), signed by Australia in 1948. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security.

The human right of the security of a person - acts or omissions by the State (a human right) is different to the right of self-defence - acts or omissions by a Person (a legal right).

Page 2 of 4

Treaty: The UDHR falls under customary international law and not a treaty. However, Australia later signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR is a multilateral treaty, and "security of the person" within the context of UDHR Article 3 requires the Australian Government to create appropriate legislation. However, the Australian Government is yet to complete this legislation. Referendum: The following questions are the context for the development of the Community Protection Bill of Rights for inclusion in the next national referendum:

Research Questions: A: Self-Incrimination - Onus of Proof upon the State, not the Accused Are we a society with a hidden layer of violence that permeates and pervades life to such an extent that we need laws that extinguishes citizens' privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence? B: Presumption of Innocence and the Right of Silence for Everyone Are mental privacy and respect no longer recognised, and do we need laws that extinguish the common law of the right to silence and presumption of innocence as if these rights should not exist? C: The Right of the People to Endorse or Reject Certain Laws Should politicians have the power to create authoritarian laws that erode the pillars of Australia's democracy, or should the people have the ability to accept or reject proposed regulations through State-based digital referendums? Has lawfare against the people made them afraid of doing much more than conforming, submitting, and surrendering? D: The Right to Resist an Armed Occupier A foreign power declares war and invades Australia. Should we have in place national security legislation to readily delete and resist? Legislation that empowers the Prime Minister to instruct Police Commissioners to delete all firearms registries to provide an ability to create a civil defence resistance under the direction of locally surviving military officers to diminish the endurance of an armed aggressor.

Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4

Human Rights are Universal to All Human: The Parliamentary Education Office advises that a referendum is a vote of the Australian people to change the Australian Constitution. Their fact sheet on the webpage below outlines the process of referendums and plebiscites in Australia: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/having-your-say/elections-and-voting/referendums-and-plebiscites/ As part of the Australian Government's commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the Australian Government will hold a referendum in this term of Parliament to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution. The proposed Bill is a separate matter. However, human rights under Article 3 are universal. Therefore, hearing the voices of all the people of Australia is timely, given that 'security of person' issues are paramount at this time of increasing instability in the world and the rise of authoritarianism. Declaration: The proposed people’s bill has no affiliation to any particular political party. It is subject to change and addition within the context outlined on pages one to four by way of political consensus between parties in consultation with the peoples of their electorate. L. Lyons Research Coordinator www.cpb.LIFE

The paper by Dr Cosmas Moisidis titled "The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Considerations for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM)" contains comprehensive information about this privilege. The proposed Community Protection Bill intends to define specific rights and freedoms within the context of self-incrimination that all citizens are entitled to have. Elements of common law become statutory laws.

A: Self-Incrimination - Onus of Proof upon the State, not the Accused The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental and substantive common law right, not just a rule of evidence.[1] It reflects 'the long-standing antipathy of the common law to compulsory interrogations about criminal conduct'.[2] In 1983 the High Court described the privilege as follows: A person may refuse to answer any question or to produce any document or thing if to do so 'may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal'. Traditional rights and freedoms in connection to self-incrimination are rights that counter authoritarianism.

Recent legislation in various areas, including national security, has attacked common law protections. In addition, several examples of less immediate areas of law and practice serve to re-examine and undermine previously assumed freedoms. The proposed Community Protection Bill intends to define specific rights and freedoms within the context of the right to silence that all citizens are entitled to have. Elements of common law become statutory laws.

B: Presumption of Innocence and the Right of Silence for Everyone The paper by Rosie Lambert titled “The Right to Silence” – is controversial because there is no single entitlement. This “right” includes the privilege against self-incrimination but encompasses other freedoms linked to the presumption of innocence, including the right to a fair trial.

C: The Right of the People to Endorse or Reject Certain Laws Lawfare uses legal tools to achieve the same or similar effects as those traditionally sought from martial law without declaring "Martial Law". These are compliance-leverage devices used by those in power without negotiating with the community, i.e. consultation. Instead, community consensus is replaced by propaganda that the laws are needed. Lawfare is a tool of those that seek an authoritarian state. Perhaps the answer to diminishing an authoritarian state and making it more democratic is to introduce a process that activates digital referendums not to create laws but to prevent their enactment when a court of appropriate jurisdiction recognises certain conditions exist. The proposed Community Protection Bill intends to investigate what that process would look like and what the initiating conditions should be.

D: The Right to Resist an Armed Occupier A foreign power declares war and invades Australia. Senator Jim Molan has warned Australians must begin to "look after ourselves" as the United States indicates it has "no confidence" in handling a war with China over Taiwan. In the past, the thought of a foreign power invading Australia was challenging to imagine. Today it is a remote possibility. Senator Molan and other military subject matter experts have emphasised that our nation will be vulnerable if we prepare for the wrong war. Historically it is a nation that defends itself. There is the resource of registered and non-registered firearms along with competent and intelligent people that surviving military can train to become an effective resistance force. However, history tells us that an invader first goes to the local police station to learn who can resist. Currently, there is a push towards a national firearms database. Therefore it is time to consider legislation that empowers a Prime Minister to delete that database in the event of an invasion by a foreign power. The divisionary flight or fight statements called Gun Control Vs. Victim Disarmament are irrelevant to the above as the initiating event that changes everything is the invasion. The proposed legislation called, “Delete and Resist” gives Australians a fighting chance on home soil should they choose to resist an aggressive invader. Without the means there is no people’s choice, there is only surrender and tyranny.