Video 3 - Human Rights and the Rule of Law

[@bella_oio]

Love it ❤️ thank you for the video

[@rjvsngh09]

You should do more of these. I like the way you break things down into simple terms. Doesn't hurt to have such enchanting beauty as well :)

[@sparkaleshish]

would love the transcript :)

[@mansidasgupta7104]

Madam. Please. Launch. List. Of. Rules. For. Human. Rights. For. General. Public. And. For. Animals. Also. In. All. Over. The. World. Launch. Printed. Banners. For. This. One.

[@jacaranda4u]

There seems to be a missing fourth concept (or sub concept) from one of the existing three concepts of the principle of the “Rule of Law” in what professor A.V. Dicey in 1885 had defined as the “Rule of Law”. Although the “Rule of Law” has always been meant to be fair, impartial and NON contradictory, professor Dicey could not (in 1885) have had the foresight to make the prediction that first line lawyers in Australia - in the 21st Century we live today - would find a way of circumventing the three concepts of what professor Dicey had stated in 1885 to constitute the “Rule of Law”. In English speaking countries like e.g. the USA, Canada, South Africa, India or Australia, people are familiar with the colloquial expression : “There is something DICEY about this or there is something DICEY about that” - meaning that something is either risky, ambiguous, unclear or is reliant on the factor of chance, like e.g. the result obtained by the rolling of a DICE. In other words, something that relies on the unpredictable factor of chance cannot be said to be free of risks, concise, predictable, stable, definite or clear. That missing fourth concept (or sub concept) in the principle known as the “Rule of Law” is that the “Rule of Law” should rely essentially and unequivocally on the true, correct and most importantly, on the ACCURATE definition of the words that constitute all individual laws that are contained in the Acts of Parliament written in the language that is employed when the said individual laws are written. Even though the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Berne Convention are universal agreements that most of the English speaking member countries mentioned above have ratified, first line lawyers in Australia conveniently and unscrupulously declare - seemingly with a lack of integrity - that the rights under the Declaration of Human Rights and the rights under the WIPO convention definition of IP Law (that is incorporated in the Berne Convention) are rights that DO NOT EXIST as Legal Rights. In fact, first line lawyers in Australia have taken the liberty - against the notion that the “Rule of Law” CANNOT be contradictory according to professor Dicey’s definition - to profess that they have the exclusive privilege of “having it both ways” ... meaning that the rights under international agreements which have been ratified by Australia are only subordinate (or are only accessories) to Australia’s domestic Statute Laws, and therefore cannot challenge (or overrule) - [on what grounds - to satisfy Australia’s silent discriminatory policies??] - the Legal Rights contained in the said domestic Statute Laws enacted by the Australian Parliament. Is not the “Law” supposed to be a tool of the Justice System (anywhere and everywhere in the world) that ensures that Justice is done when the “Law” is applied?? Just like his Honour Justice Michael Kirby has said to the students studying “Law” at the university of New South Wales during orientation week in 2013 : “If the Law did not have Justice, then the Law would have lost its meaning”. Taking into account that the sovereignty of Parliament is SUPREME (or PARAMOUNT as some say) anywhere and everywhere in the entire world, the distortion of the true meaning of key words contained in the enactments put in place by the Legislative Governments of some English speaking countries, seems to make a mockery of the principle known as the “Rule of Law” by making it so obvious that the principle can conveniently become a paradox when or if need be. Consequently, the distortion of the true definition and meaning of key English words, so as to avoid the responsibility to administer Justice, certainly does not establish the SUPREMACY of the people who surreptitiously engage in this sort of underhand practice. This kind of underhand practice instead degrades the people who use it, down to an inferior level that is consistent with people on the edge of society who have not received a high level of education. The words which make up the Australian English version that is widely spoken by mainstream Australia very often have different and sometimes opposite meanings to their equivalent counter parts when the true and authentic King’s English is spoken, like e.g. in the UK. It needs to be remembered, however, that Australia’s OFFICIAL language has never been Australian English, but has always been instead the English version that is spoken in the UK. It is interesting to note that in Australia the word “tea” means an evening meal and the word “scallop” in some Australian states means a circular slice of potato dipped in batter and deep fried in vegetable oil. In reality, however, the shell fish known in England and other English speaking countries as a “scallop” has been conveniently given a different spelling in Australia to read “scollop” (pronounced SKOLLOP) ... which incidentally happens to be underlined in red by both the UK and American Microsoft spell-checks. Also, in Australia the definition of the word “Author” in Part IX of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968 in relation to cinematographic films is said to be the film maker and NOT the veritable author who had created (i.e. conceived) the original material (meaning the ORIGINAL story and/or the ORIGINAL screenplay) upon which a cinematographic film is based. In addition to these inconsistencies in the Australian English version that is widely spoken in Australia, the word “integrity” is subject to limitations imposed by the selection of ONLY SOME Government departments which have - exclusively - been made to come under the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner in the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act, 2006, but in contrast conveniently excludes ALL other Government departments. Since the Berne Convention is written in French and the correct and accurate definition of the French word “Auteur” (when translated into English) has exactly the same meaning as that of its equivalent English counter part by the word “Author” - i.e. a person who creates (meaning conceives) an original artistic work from scratch, Australian lawyers would - in a similar context - insist that according to Australian Law, the legitimate mother of a new born child is the mid-wife and not the biological mother. This insistence by first line lawyers in Australia would be in brutal contradiction with the true meaning of the French word “Auteur” or English word “Author” for people who are fluent in both French and English, with regards to the true meaning of the French expression : “Les auteurs de nos jours” … which literally means “the authors of our days” - i.e. our parents. Once again, it needs to be remembered that Australia’s OFFICIAL language has never been Australian English, but has always been instead the English version that is spoken in the UK. To allow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ratified terms of the Berne Convention to be OVER POWERED by domestic laws that rely on the distortion of the true English definition of the words they consist of, would be a stark contradiction of the concept expressed in the “NON contradictory” nature of the principle of the “Rule of Law” that professor A.V. Dicey had so virtuously defined in 1885. It needs to be remembered also that the word “independent” in the context of the separation of powers - which states that members of the Judiciary are “independent” from the Legislative and Executive Governments - does NOT mean that members of the Judiciary can, and in fact, enjoy the right of surreptitiously acting in a manner that would be considered to be so conspicuously autocratic and dictatorial in any other democratic country - instead of acting in a manner that is truly independent from the other two arms of Parliament - or could enjoy immunity from the scrutiny of the Legislative, the Executive or even the Senate (or Congress) in their respective countries, when there is collusion between the Judiciary and another arm (or arms) of the same Government. In fact, it is the responsibility, function and duty of the other two arms of Government to make sure that Australia - as a State - has an efficient Justice system which operates with 100% integrity and is unconditionally free from any form of corruption whatsoever - and more so, free from any possible corrupt acts perpetrated by lawyers, judges and/or politicians who have taken the oath of allegiance to the current Head of State, or who will take the same oath of allegiance to the proposed new Head of State, if Australia becomes a Republic in the future. How could Australia’s trading partners worldwide possibly place their trust in Australia’s integrity in relation to the mutual trade agreements that they and Australia have signed, if Australia refuses to honour its ratification of the most relevant universal agreement - in terms of economic growth - which is the Berne Convention. Since the rights of the people are better protected under Common Law (as professor Dicey said) it is not difficult to conclude that the highly contrived principle known as the “Rule of Law” in Australia must be set aside and Justice - INSTEAD - should be administered in accordance with the set of virtues that each and every single decent, respectable, well-bred and honest person in the entire world is born with. One does not need to be a lawyer, a judge or a politician to know the difference between right and wrong.

[@incomearner2]

The Honourable Justice Sir Garfield Barwick’s famous statement that he had made when he was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, has never been MORE RELEVANT in Australia today … in light of the forthcoming general elections which will evidently be strongly influenced by the current on going increase in the cost of living which shows no signs of slowing down. The Honourable Justice Sir Garfield Barwick’s famous statement that he had made when he was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia was : “The ultimate Court of Law in the land is the voting public”. For economic reasons in Australia in particular, the primary concept that the “Rule of Law” must NOT be contradictory, should be observed without fail to recognize the validity of ALL universal agreements that have been signed by Australia, including trade agreements (within reason) and most importantly the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which incorporates the Berne Convention ratified by Australia) as is stipulated in its preamble ...

[@shirleymcfarlane124]

Scallop to Scollop This uneducated adjustment to the true English version of English that is spoken in the UK, was to avoid any confusion for the newly arrived European migrants to Australia after the second world war, when orders were placed by customers at the counter of the fish and chips shops run by these migrants in NSW and Queensland. This confusion for the Non-English speaking migrants was caused by the simple fact that the same method was used to cook both scallops shell fish and circular slices of potato.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

Capitalism democracy human rights rule of law….. and bipartisanship…..

[@sini573rfox7]

Why are these rights inherent..... because to alienate them would b a crime either by the party that forces someone to alienate them under duress or the party that contracts them away wilfully is actually committing a crime against not just individual self but humanity as a whole. That’s why anyone that forces these rights to be transferred to a political body like a parliament is actually a criminal even consenting to in party or as an individual to have these rights deprived of oneself or another has committed the most foul act of criminal intent and has brought himself-herself into contempt of the whole human race.... happens every day in our country ....for they know not what they do .... forgive them father!