A presentation to special interest groups, victims of crime, and political parties of Australia. This page last updated 23/05/2021
A Bill to create Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia (POL-CPA).
A statutory body funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments through an Intergovernmental Agreement.
The function of POL-CPA 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.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and
security of person.
The UDHR falls under customary international law and is not set down in treaties or other documents. However, Australia later signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is a multilateral treaty and “security of the person” within the context of UDHR explanatory notes is a requirement upon the Australian Government to create appropriate legislation.
The two primary aspects considered by the Bill are:
(1) The human right of the security of person, acts or omissions by the State; and
(2) The lawful right of self-defense, acts or omissions by an individual.
Human rights and lawful rights are different but related concepts.
The following is about why we need strategies to preserve life, protect the community, strengthen democracy, and enhance the trust of the public in the justice system.
Page 1 of 6
Security of Person (Human Right) and Self-Defence (Lawful Right) – A Bill of Rights not a Bill of Privileges
Part One - The Problem
The Preservation of Life – Community Protection Bill (POL-CPB)
Page 2 of 6
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?
Are mental privacy and respect no longer recognised, and we need laws that extinguish the common law of the right to silence and presumption of innocence as if these rights should not exist?
Have those that advocate for authoritarianism chipped away at and eroded the pillars of Australia's democracy?
Has lawfare against the people made them afraid of doing much more than conforming, submitting, and surrendering?
Public confidence is fundamental to the operation of the criminal justice system. The system depends on the participation of victims and members of the public who participate as witnesses and jurors. Low levels of public confidence also lead to disrespect and dissatisfaction with those responsible for administering the system. The political debate surrounding dissatisfaction has become well established over the past decade.
Relevant to the above is this assessment given in Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 387, Australian Institute of Criminology:
Also relevant is the chair’s foreword given on page vi of report 57 by the NSW Legislative Council issued April 2021 regarding proposed legislation titled, "Provisions of the Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment (Criminal Use) Bill 2020”
It extinguishes citizens' privilege against self-incriminationn and the common law ‘right to silence’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ as if these rights shouild not extend to licensed and lawful firearm owners. Prominent legal experts have given evidence to other Upper House committees highlighting the utmost importance that legislation, particularly delegated legislation, must be checked against internationally agreed human rights to prevent it being used to harm the interests of individuals.
The following explanation about human rights to protect the interests of individuals is relevant to the above:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by Australia in 1948:
Different jurisdictions around the world have considered if the phrase “right to liberty and security of person” should be construed as referring to one right with two facets, or to two distinct, if conjoint, rights. The Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 6 (1982) on Article 6 of ICCPR (which protects the right to life) states “It is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. Emphasis must be placed on the phase, “not be interpreted narrowly”. European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have found that what is protected is “physical liberty” and “physical security.”
Page 3 of 6
An example case of the human right of “security of person” being prohibited by the State:
On the 14th September 2017, a farmer went to the back door of his house with an unloaded 22 rifle, after hearing someone trying to get in. The farmer disarmed the intruder and arrested him. The intruder was carrying a long length of wood (a club) and a knife. Police were already looking for the knifeman because the farmer’s neighbour had reported seeing him earlier. The Police met the farmer and took the intruder into their custody. All was good until the Police turned up at the farmer’s place the following day to seize his licensed firearm. The Police also served a notice on the farmer’s wife restricting her from storing her licensed firearm at the property. The story received national and international coverage as diminished security for a farmer and his family.
The Police wrote to the farmer and said, “It is important that you understand that the legislation prohibits you from possessing or using a firearm for the purpose of personal protection” (NSW Police reference no. 1110 53032/IR:SG). Look carefully at the police terminology, […] LEGISLATION PROHIBITS YOU. […]. It was not illegal for the farmer to do what he did, however he was prohibited from using a firearm to do it.
Some may say, “The farmer had other options”. There is, for instance, the kitchen chair, or a steak knife, the frying pan on the stove. The problem with all of these things is that one risks engaging in hand to hand combat when there is no necessity to do so. The entire purpose of the farmer producing an unloaded firearm was to deter the knifeman and preserve life, namely his own, his wife, his children, and the criminal.
On the balance of probability, was life preserved because the farmer possessed a firearm for pest control used as a deterrent in extraordinary circumstances?
Page 4 of 6
The threat to physcial security ignored by the State
The State ignored the threat to the citizen who has arrested an armed intruder. The act of the State was to remove the visual deterrent in the possession of the arresting citizen that kept the knifeman from entering the family home in the first instance.
At a later date this criminal may read in the newspapers the story of his victims disarmament. Equally plausible is that a future event of a like kind will occur and the armed intruder runs only so far as to be concealed in bushes. They then watch the police disarm their victims and return to carry out their original criminal intent because the security of that person has been diminished by the actions of the police.
“The best division of right, one kind to be natural, and the other voluntary calls it a lawful right in the strictest sense of the word law, and sometimes an instituted right. Of this kind is the evil of certain actions compared with the nature of a reasonable being.” Aristotle
The farmer had a natural right to disarm and arrest an armed intruder (the evil doer), and the State uses it’s instituted right to take from the farmer the deterrent not because the farmer’s actions were unreasonable, but because the farmer is prohibited from using a firearm to preserve life.
End of Part One of the Explanatory Notes
Page 5 of 6
Return to Page 1
Part Two of the Explanatory Notes - The Solution
The function of the proposed statutory authority, Preservation of Life - Community Protection Australia, is to develop and enact legislation consistent with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR ) signed by Australia in 1948. They are the solution provider.
Research conducted for the past 18 months indicates that the lawful right of self-defence is the most challenging aspect of the Bill. Offensive or defensive position on the lawful right of self-defence exists.
Rationales mutually exclusive, neither the prevailing wisdom in every situation.
In summary, some feel the police are obligated to have circle of force options. However, all citizens prohibited to access any of these options. The rationale, people will misuse or have stolen a device (the capacity) if not adequately secured. Conversely, others feel that locks are for honest people, which means that only the outlaws have them when options are outlawed—knowledge (to manufacture) not eradicated by legislation.
Paradoxically the solution, the probability of each position representing a solution is the sum of their possibilities.
What is a Debate?
A debate is a kind of a formal and serious discussion on a certain topic. It presents opposing and counter-arguments to support a particular claim or argument. Such a discussion should be held at a place where there are audiences and a panel to fairly review the arguments that are put forward.
Every debate has some basic elements that include:
The logical consistency of the argument;Supporting evidence;Factual accuracy; andEmotional appeal.
At a later date further information will be provided on this page about topics and public venues.
Perhaps polical parties will consider open debates as an appropriate venue to have their policies and plans considered and discussed by the general public?
First Category - Community Services:
Not-for-profit Community services that met the expectations of POL-CPA include but are not limited to:
consultation services to prevent domestic homicide;
secure transit services to prevent domestic homicide;
safe area patrol services for the homeless;
call-by security patrol services for the elderly;
call-in coded mobiles for vulnerable persons;
social clubs (at risk terrorism targets) discrete protective services; and
churches, mosques, and other places of worship (at risk terrorism targets) open protective services.
Addendum 09/12/2020 – CovID:
Accredited training in contract tracing, isolation and
support, and risk assessments.
POL-CPA endorsed as meeting the not-for-profit security standard when specific community services performed:
There is a security business that is for-profit performing no community services provided – unendorsed.
There is a security business that is not for profit performing community services – endorsed.
The for-profit business allocates 10% of activities to approved community services – conditional endorsement.
First Topic of debate:
Is the claim that self-preservation is the first law of nature, false or true ?
AND THE HERITAGE OF
REFUGEES and MIGRANTS
Debate Category Two:
Will we become a united or divided country if the need arises?
The function of POL-CPA is to develop a model Code of Practice concerning the human right, the
security of a person, and the lawful right, self-defense of a person.
The tenets of traditional policing in order of priority are:
Preservation of Life;
Protection of Property;
Detection of Offenders;
The apprehension of Offenders;
Maintain Law and Order.
The tenets of POL-CPA are:
Preservation of Life; and