Search the Senate
A letter sent to The Minister for Climate Change - Minister Wong
Search the Senate |
|
|
|
Thank you for your time. |
ooo000000000000000000000000ooo
A letter sent to The Federal Attorney General Mr. McClelland on the 3/11/2008
Dear Sir, We have considered and carefully examined these issues and we have debated these issues in our branch meetings and as the chairman of the Newcastle, Wallsend and Charlestown Branch of the Christian Democratic Party I am empowered to write to you to seek that you act to disallow the Victorian abortion act to the extent that it is inconsistent with the international agreement of which the federal parliament has adopted within the UN charter of the rights of the child. Sir you will find the letter pasted below for you urgent attention. It is our prayer that you will act to protect the unborn child as you are empowered to so do. Thank you Yours in Good Faith Milton Caine
Milton Caine
Chairman of the Newcastle, Wallsend and Charlestown Branch
Christian Democratic Party
(address supplied)
Ph. 0410027593
The Federal Attorney General
Parliament House
Federal Parliament
Canberra
ACT.
3/11/2008
Dear Sir,
At our last meeting we discussed the issues related to the Victorian Government’s Decision to enact legislation to permit the abortions “up to birth” with the agreement of two doctors. We are concerned about this horrid decision and therefore ask you to act and to disallow this under the power you have as the Federal Attorney General.
We understand that where a State law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law then the State law is overridden to that extent it is inconstant. I understand that treaties signed by the Federal Government are an effective fence to protect the rights of Australians.
In this case the Federal Government singed the United Nations charter of the rights of the child and I seek protection for the unborn child at risk of abortion in Victoria under this important treaty. I will copy the text that I am relying on and I believe that will enable you to act.
“BEARING in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;”
It is the contention of both my branch and myself that this section of the Charter determines that a child is a child both before and after birth and the rights are extended to the same extent to the child in both states of residence.
An aborted child is denied legal protection.
An aborted child is denied protection against infant and child mortality
An aborted child is denied medical assistance and primary health care
If it is accepted that the unborn has no such protection as we contend then with the same reading then we must also support the killing of unwanted children, from birth to 18 years of age, as being the right of a mother with the consent of two doctors; as the treaty treats both the unborn and the born child in the same manner. In support of this I will attach other supporting words of those who were apart of the delegates involved in the formation of the charter.
“However, in this article, we will argue that Alston’s contention, far from being certain, is almost certainly false. First, during the drafting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 an amendment, to article 6, submitted by Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Morocco [37] led to a discussion as to whether the right to life should be protected by law "from the moment of conception". "Those supporting the amendment maintained that it was only logical to guarantee the right to life from the moment life began." [38]
The amendment was rejected. [39] It was pointed out that the legislation of many countries accorded protection to the unborn child. On the other hand, the amendment was opposed on the grounds that it was impossible for the State to determine the moment of conception and hence, to undertake to protect life from that moment. Moreover, the proposed clause would involve the question of the rights and duties of the medical profession. Legislation on the subject was based on different principles in different countries and it was, therefore, inappropriate to include such a provision in an international instrument. [40]
The toleration of abortion played no part in the rejection of the amendment. Secondly, in the context of the CRC, Malta and Senegal proposed an amendment to draft Article 1 to explicitly protect the rights of the unborn child from conception. [41]
These proposals were not rejected by the Member States but were withdrawn by Malta and Senegal "in the light of the text of preambular paragraph 6 as adopted" which referred to the rights of the child "before as well as after birth." [42]
Thirdly:
26 For example, Malta and Senegal. In the United Nations ratification information concerning the CRC, Ecuador expressly declared:
In signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ecuador reaffirms . . . [that it is] especially pleased with the ninth preambular paragraph of the draft Convention, which pointed to the need to protect the unborn child, and believed that that paragraph should be borne in mind in interpreting all the articles of the Convention, particularly article 24. While the minimum age set in article 38 was, in its view, too low, [the Government of Ecuador] did not wish to endanger the chances for the Convention’s adoption by consensus and therefore would not propose any amendment to the text. [Doc. A/RES/44/25]
The Holy See also declared:
. . . that the Convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the ‘Declaration of the Rights of the Child’ [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention.
The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. [Doc. A/RES/44/25] According to a UN Glossary of Terms "states make ‘declarations’ as to their understanding of some matter or as to the interpretation of a particular provision. Unlike reservations, declarations merely clarify the state’s position and do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty. Usually, declarations are made at the time of the deposit of the corresponding instrument or at the time of signature." These two quotes were the only references in the formal ratification information concerning the unborn.”
In light of all of the above I believe that you have he power to act but we the public await your determined courage to act for those who cannot act for themselves.
The question is will you act or will you deny the rights of the child you have sworn to protect by being the holder of the office that you hold.
We await your most urgent and considered action on this matter.
If you wish you may phone the author Milton Caine on 0410027593.
Yours In Good Faith
Milton Caine (Chairman)
(copies will sent be to persons and media as determined by the author)
000000000000000000000000000000
A letter to Senator Bob Brown sent by email on 9/11/2008
Dear Sir, I will attach your comments to prevent capital punishment which I do not have a real problem with yet when I understand you and your party support abortion even up to almost the point of birth. These two positions mean that a baby in the womb has zero intrinsic value and is able to be disposed like a bit of unwanted garbage; while a person guilty of multiple murders and remaining committed to killing because a person is of a different faith (or even a different branch of the same faith) has intrinsic value so that they ought to live and die a natural death though in jail. can you show me justification for this or even how you pretend to justify this in your own mind. This is beyond my capacity perhaps your wisdom is greater than mine in this area. If there is no God or God like power then why not for the greater good determine a right to exist. It is also true that your party supports euthanasia and yet not capital punishment? I am trying to understand a balance the ideas you present in the political world. Again the wisdom you have may be able to shed light on these issues and I hope you can and I will anticipate your considered reply. Your in Good Faith Milton Caine
AAP
November 09, 2008 01:20pm
AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Bob Brown said today the execution of the Bali bombers was a sorry end to a "sad and distressing and terrible affair".Senator Brown said the Greens supported indications from Foreign Minister Stephen Smith today that Australia would co-sponsor a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.
“I am with the government and opposition in saying the death penalty is never warranted,” Senator Brown said in Brisbane today.
“It dehumanises us all a little that the death penalty is allowed even for mass murderers.”
Senator Brown said he believed the three Bali bombers – Mukhlas, his younger brother Amrozi and Imam Samudra – should have faced life imprisonment rather than death.
“My view is that these murderers should have been kept in jail for the rest of their lives and never released,” he said.
“I think that not only is a more appropriate penalty but would have been one which would have raised our general reverence for life on this planet.
“And of course there's the potential for some martyrdom effect, which would be counter-reactive.”
He also called on the government to lobby for members of the Bali Nine on death row in Indonesia to be spared the firing squad.
“Everything should be done to ensure that that doesn't happen,” he said.
AAP
November 09, 2008 01:20pm
AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Bob Brown said today the execution of the Bali bombers was a sorry end to a "sad and distressing and terrible affair".Senator Brown said the Greens supported indications from Foreign Minister Stephen Smith today that Australia would co-sponsor a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.
“I am with the government and opposition in saying the death penalty is never warranted,” Senator Brown said in Brisbane today.
“It dehumanises us all a little that the death penalty is allowed even for mass murderers.”
Senator Brown said he believed the three Bali bombers – Mukhlas, his younger brother Amrozi and Imam Samudra – should have faced life imprisonment rather than death.
“My view is that these murderers should have been kept in jail for the rest of their lives and never released,” he said.
“I think that not only is a more appropriate penalty but would have been one which would have raised our general reverence for life on this planet.
“And of course there's the potential for some martyrdom effect, which would be counter-reactive.”
He also called on the government to lobby for members of the Bali Nine on death row in Indonesia to be spared the firing squad.
“Everything should be done to ensure that that doesn't happen,” he said.
ooo000000000000000000000000ooo
A letter to the Federal Minister for Education sent on the 11/11/2008
Milton Caine (address supplied) 0410027593 11 / 11 / 2008
Julia Gillard Minister for Education Parliament House Canberra
Dear Minster,
Today the NSW Government brought down a mini budget that will have impact on the attendance of young people at our schools in NSW and I understand that you believe that schooling is important and so you brought in a policy to encourage parents to send their children to school and if there is a history of poor attendance then some penalties would apply. These penalties would be a reduction in Government support payments. Today the shameful government of NSW has removed free transport for school travel. It is true that I do not know the details but the impact will mean for those most vulnerable due to the economic problems will not have the funds to pay for transport for their children to attend school. This shameful government has failed NSW and because of shameful managements of the state funds an assault on the most vulnerable is needing condemnation. I ask you to condemn the Rees Government on the removal of free transport for school children. Looking to your leadership on this matter. Thank you Yours In Good Faith Milton Caine
ooo000000000000000000000000ooo
Dear Minister, With the mini budget handed down yesterday where it has been demonstrated that NSW is now a failed economy and you guys have little idea how to run the state I have decided to send to you a improved transport policy than the direction that you going and this will assist in getting the children to school in comfort and at a reduced cost. We recognise tat you do not believe that education is important and so I would suggest that you draw up plans to close down the schools and we could also create housing for the homeless in the former school classrooms. You will perhaps find the photo below amusing but it is very serious. Your job is to see that no barrier is placed in the way of children to get the best education that is possible and today you have degraded the education system. You could have saved far more by a modest reduction to the payments to the former members of parliament and if their income was means tested to a $60,000 per annum you would have had greater savings than what you have made in this mini budget. Why should some luxuriate while others who are struggling be hit again and again. The oath you took govern for the good of NSW is torn up and in the garbage bin today. If there is any fibber in you of any value tell the Premier that you cannot support this mini budget. Yours shocked out of my socks Milton Caine (address supplied) Ph. 0410027593
|