The issue with the Native Title framework is similar to the issue with the proposed Voice to Parliament. It requires original people here asking for permission to use something they never gave away.

The Australian Government has no authority to grant or deny land use and access to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

If they claim they have authority via terra nullius – that was a lie. If they claim they have authority via conquest – that was a war crime.

So where is the authority? What permission is needed to do what they were already previously doing for hundreds of thousands of years?

I do understand why some original people use and engage in the Native Title system. But I also understand why many Elders simply refuse to engage in a system which, as a condition of entry, asks them to submit to the authority of a Crown they’ve never bent the knee to.

https://theconversation.com/the-albanese-government-has-ordered-an-inquiry-into-native-title-why-is-it-needed-232696

Days like 'World Refugee Day' shine a light on how we often confuse symbolic gestures with meaningful change. How our conscience can be peacefully subdued, rendering us docile to tokenism. Or conversely (and common amongst us today), triggered to hostility based on a groupthink mentality of them versus us, rather than what is right for humanity as a whole.

We celebrate, yet avoid the realities of refugee life, what (and who) caused it.

Being grateful that people can flee the atrocities of war is one thing, but what is the true utility of a ‘world refugee day’ whilst governments and their industry benefactors around the world pour infinite resources into the machinery and business of war?

By celebrating such days, do we risk downplaying the reality of war? Do those responsible for orchestrating and benefitting from war seek to neutralise our disgust by making us think they actually care about its human consequences?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world-refugee-day-2024-merely-104500824.html?guccounter=1

https://x.com/dystopian_DU/status/1805443993611944183

One of the framings we can apply to Covid-19 is that it exposed the impotency of Australia’s legal mechanisms for protecting fundamental human rights. Liberty of movement; the right to freely consent to medical procedures; the right not to be discriminated against; even the cardinal right of self-determination: all of these were promptly and firmly put on hold whilst desperate individual citizens were declared powerless to do anything about it.

This approach may be consistent with Australia’s illegitimate founding as a prison colony on fraudulently declared vacant land, but it is still a damning indictment of any progress the Government claims has been made in the 250 years since.

Importantly, it is a lesson all Australians should remember: we cannot rely on the Government to recognise our human rights. In modern society, cross-culturally, it has always been up to the people to advocate for themselves. This means that individuals and communities of individuals must support themselves and avoid dependency on external systems and frameworks that can be used as leverage against them.

Find Rebekah's article here:
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/human-rights-were-violated-during

The AHRC is asking for your story about what happened to you during Covid. Submissions are open through to Sunday 30 June.
https://humanrights.gov.au/have-your-say/how-were-you-affected-covid-measures

#ahrc #humanrights #haveyoursay #maatsmethod #truth #whathappenedtoyou

news.rebekahbarnett.com.au

Human rights were violated during Covid

Ask any Australian why they got vaccinated against Covid. “I had to get it to keep my job.” “I needed to travel interstate to bury my dad.” “I needed to visit my mum in hospital.” A conversation I will never forget - a woman tearing up when she told me it…

The Online Safety Act 2021 is a statute typical of the Australian Government. It seeks to give an unelected bureaucrat as broad and unchecked power as possible to curb anything at all that the Australian Government does not like, using something that does not exist as justification for it.

In this case, that non-existent imprimatur is the well-worn classic; ‘safety’.

The term “safety” and “safe manner” are mentioned constantly throughout the Act, but no such specificity surrounding what determines safety, or its manner, are provided. Using “social media services and electronic services in a safe manner” is a redundant phrase if “safe manner” is not itself defined.

In any case, the illusion of safety is as much of a false dawn in the online space as it is in nature. There is no such thing as ‘safety’, because one thing might be safe for one person but dangerous for somebody else. In addition, there is no growth and no humanity without harm and without suffering, because such is the human condition. The idea that anybody needs to be kept safe is not only infantilising, because we are capable of encountering and processing danger, but a profound misinterpretation of the human experience, because we have to encounter and process danger in order to grow.

In the language of human rights law, there can be no ‘self-determination’, the cardinal principle of the seven primary international human rights treaties and covenants Australia is signatory to, without the freedom to place oneself, or find oneself, in danger.

#safety #humanrights #selfdetermination #onlinesafetyact #ausgov #redundant

Read the latest Substack article, including our submission to the Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021 here: https://open.substack.com/pub/maatsmethod/p/020-the-online-safety-act-doesnt?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Maat's Mail

020 - The Online 'Safety' Act doesn't make any sense

Because 'safety' does not actually exist

My initial jobs as a lawyer were in institutional abuse cases. The simple fact is that Australia has a disgusting and ongoing history of paedophilia. It is a sickness that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent children being molested by trusted authority figures and family members. It pervades most religious institutions and state run institutions. The fact that a statutory scheme was set up to compensate victims is itself a testament to how pervasive it is; and the Scheme is overrun.

If you are a survivor of child abuse: physical, sexual or psychological: please get in touch with Maat’s Method, as we can help.

In general – the fact that such repellent forms of abuse exist in our society must be acknowledged as an outcome of this society. There is something about the society we live in that causes and/or allows this kind of conduct to occur and persist over a span of hundreds of years.

The sickness runs deep.

https://thenightly.com.au/australia/mounting-backlog-of-institutional-liability-cases-in-victoria-after-civil-claims-time-limits-scrapped-c-14992979

The Nightly

Court blowout after civil claims abuse time limits scrapped

Victorian courts are facing a mounting backlog of institutional liability cases after the State Government scrapped time limits for bringing civil claims. 

In a previous post, I outlined an important shift that needs to occur if we are going to maintain our autonomy and power as human beings.

That shift is: we should stop thinking of ‘human rights’ as something that exist outside of ourselves.

Even the term ‘human rights’ is misleading, because it suggests that human rights are something that somebody has the authority to give to us or to take away.

Most human societies looked at Truth, not ‘Rights’. This makes things a lot more straightforward, because we all have a pretty good tether to what’s true, based on our own feeling and personal experience.

Processed foods, sedentary lifestyles, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, mainstream media: all of these have negative impacts on our wellbeing and on our ability to fully express ourselves as human beings, and we know this because of our experience of how they make us feel - they sap us of our energy and our power. Therefore, we can all agree that all of these are incompatible with the truth of who we are.

We should also agree that any person or corporation that encourages, produces or defends those harms is our enemy. Such encouragement or production is an abuse of not just human ‘rights’, but of our humanity itself. Using this framing to determine what is and what isn’t okay in our society is much more likely to lead to widespread agreement than an amorphous debate on what does and what does not constitute ‘human rights’.

In my appearance on the Stojafy Podcast, I explain this way of thinking in a lot more detail. If you’re interested, give it a watch, and consider sharing it around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pok_lIJ0WgE

YouTube

Exploring the Path of Truth and Human Rights in Law

In this episode, Peter Fam explores the concept of human rights and where they come from. He delves into the importance of understanding the truth of our existence as human beings and how it relates to our fundamental rights. Peter discusses the significance…

By far, the most common question I get is, “so what actually are human rights?”.

The very fact that the question is asked so often is indicative of something I often speak about.

Modern societies have continually strayed away from uniform or agreed upon principles and virtues which everybody agrees to respect and uphold, towards more amorphous and malleable rights frameworks which simultaneously encourage people to believe whatever they want, whilst ensuring that the State has the authority and discretion to turn off rights protections when it deems it necessary or prudent to do so.

This is problematic because it renders people foundationless (they have no agreed upon set of virtues or principles to revert to in times of uncertainty) and protectionless (they have no recourse when the State unilaterally decides to switch off whatever measly rights protections they apparently had).

So, today, nobody really knows what ‘human rights’ are. I mean, I have my perspective on it. But so do you. And so does your neighbour. And so does the Saudi Government. And so does the Amish farmer. And all of our perspectives are entirely different based on our own cultures and schemas and belief systems.

So, in order to find some common ground, and in order to retake sovereignty of the dignity and power that is intrinsic in our humanness, we need to ask a different question, and that question is;

“What is the Truth of our existence here?”

I explain in the article linked below:

https://open.substack.com/pub/maatsmethod/p/016-what-are-human-rights?r=31nph3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

In the Federal Court case against Pfizer and Moderna, both corporations filed summary dismissal applications arguing that the case should be thrown out. Tomorrow, the Federal Court is (finally) handing down its decision in relation to those applications.

The court's confirmed the following link will grant you access to the YouTube channel for the Federal Court: https://www.youtube.com/user/FederalCourtAus

Shortly prior to the listing, a link will populate on the Federal Court’s YouTube channel to observe the judgment delivery at 11am AEDT 1 March 2024.

Share to those interested.

- Peter

⭐️WE WON IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS!⭐️

Back in 2021, we'd have referred to this as 'TEST CASE 3'.

Secretary, Department of Education v Dawking
[2024] NSWCA 4
Court of Appeal Supreme Court, New South Wales

Conclusion
[98] The appeal has failed.
There is no reason why the Department should not pay the worker’s costs: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1.
[99] (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

The Personal Injury Commission (P.I.C) constituted by a Member determined that Ms Dawking sustained a psychological injury on 27 August 2021 arising out of or in the course of her employment, and that her employment was the main contributing factor to the injury, within the meaning of s 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (1987 Act).

The Department appealed that decision,
claiming two errors of law:
1. the misapplication of relevant legal principle with respect to causation of injury,
2. the constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by failing to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument with respect to causation of injury.

Neither were upheld⚡️⚡️

The Department lost all appeals, ultimately reaching the (NSW) Supreme Court of Appeal⚡️⚡️

Then, they lost again and for the final time⚡️⚡️

Here are some highlights of this crushing defeat for the Department of Education:
??[10] The Department did not challenge the medical evidence relied upon by the worker.
??[34] In this case, the notice of appeal was deficient.
The appeal grounds did not identify asserted errors “in point of law”...
??[36] The questions of law in the amended grounds of appeal were inelegantly drafted.

*?WHAT A FLOGGING?***

We'd like to thank the following people:
? 'The Gorgon' Georgina Harrisson (then Secretary of Education N.S.W) for her foul smell and inelegant and deficient misconduct. We'll see if our mate, lil' momma's boy Darly Currie (or P.E.S) will investigate you for misconduct (we hear he loves to bully women).
*?Paul 'Woody' Wood, for being woodless, and his ineptitude in facilitating the very remote learning he earnt his doctorate for. Nice one champ!
?The Crown Solicitors* for bleeding the D.o.E of so much money and bungling this entire crapshow and leaving Hall and Wilcox with an indefensible void to represent (there no error in law or fact). They took your money. Cheers.
?*The Principals Associations/Councils* for their undying rot and foreclosure of appropriate communication as they denied obvious risk of harm (SEE: Recklessness) and made sneaky (Friday night) phone calls and enabled the ugly harassment in the name of a death needle. Well done, we'll be seeing you soon (SEE: damages**)...

REAL AWARD OF (ETERNALl) THANKS GO TO:
*✨Dynamic Dave McCabe (solicitor) for first locating this area of (W.C) law on a beach somewhere in a chance meeting with a rockin' original N.E.W member (you know who you are) back in 2021! You rock*❕
✨Doddy the Destroyer (Barrister) John Dodds, who tore through these parasites with intelligent force, with an especially enjoyable slamming of Pull Woody! Love your work❕
✨The two other brave women (White and Davis) who released their names as the (2/3) 'TEST CASES', which saw this IRREVERSIBLE CASE (PRECEDENT) LAW sewn into the fabric of history!
We salute you❕
✨To the education workers, across Australia (though it was we in N.S.W who started it all), who have suffered and struggled, as they sought preservation of their honoured careers and safety in law for their sacrifice and held belief in good. Righteous, you are❕
?Dianne Dawking, for whom this is a personal victory yet one representative of thousands of others' hopes and right for justice. For you, this day is particularly dedicated. Much love and power❕*
?***

You'll find the full (Supreme) Court of Appeal judgement, below, folks.

Feel free to download it (as it is on public record) and shed as many tears of joy as I have.

**Today we (all) won!

Tomorrow, we will win some more.**..

Justice has prevailed!

N.E.W.
?⚡️