Australian Government is in breach of the UN Charter, Human Rights Con

[lightning]

Cannas, this is an article I have written to send to the mass media, I would like comment from any of you to make sure what I have said is absolutely correct so nobody can tear down the arguments. I intend to try to get it published far and wide as a first step to fighting the propaganda war we are all stuck in....

The United Nations, of which Australia is a member state, is an organization that exists primarily to prevent the scourge of war. The United Nations has also stated any Propaganda for war must be prohibited under Law. Australia has publicly pledged to uphold these values and objectives yet when we look at what is actually being done in our country we find they have not only fallen well short of those objectives but have actively participated in waging War on their own Citizens (us) and running a propaganda machine to justify their aggressive actions against us and our freedoms as declared under these international agreements.

Article 1 of the UN Charter states

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

   
   

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

   
   

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

   
   

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

   
   

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

 

Article 20 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

See http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The UN Single Treaty on Narcotics 1961 to which Australia is a signatory states:-

PREAMBLE

The Parties,

Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,

Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of

pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made (emphasis added) to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes,

The Australian Government and in fact most governments around the world have completely failed to meet this obligation under the treaty thereby rendering the laws they have made to the fulfill the treaty null and void.

They have fulfilled the requirements with respect to Opiates but not with respect to Cannabis.

So the "War on Drugs" which has been declared by our Government and others upon their own citizens is TOTALLY in breach of International Law and the propaganda machine that promotes this War should be prohibited by law but our Governments completely FAIL to meet this obligation also.

The Australian Government by these actions has placed our country in breach of the very rules that they constantly tell us we must live up to i.e. the International Treaties and Conventions that they have signed us up to, without even asking our opinion. When was the last referendum held to ask the Australian People if they agreed with the signing of a treaty that imposes restrictions on our freedoms?

Everyday Human Rights abuses are perpetrated against the citizens of this country by our own police forces under the guise of this illegal "War". On the 1^st April 2008 at the Hemp Museum in Nimbin, Australia a Thirteen year old girl was strip searched in the presence of one Female and three MALE police officers!!!! This is a criminal act and those responsible for it should be punished. How far are we going to allow our rights to be destroyed before we stand up and demand it stop.

In the 47 years since Cannabis Prohibition was formally established Billions of dollars have been spent trying to find a scientific basis for the lies of prohibition and the most they can come up with is that high level abuse of Cannabis "may" trigger schizophrenic symptoms in some of those people the have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia. er deh and peanuts cause anaphylaxis in people with a genetic predisposition to peanut allergy!

If you get a bad response to something you take DON'T USE IT. Just because a small number of people have a bad response to a substance, should we ban it for all? No, or we would have to ban just about everything in the world including water. According to strict scientific classification Water is an highly addictive psychoactive substance. Withdrawal symptoms include headache, nausea, delirium, hallucinations, coma and death. Overdose causes delirium intoxication and heart failure. We are all addicted and must keep up our habit daily to survive. the ratio between the medical effective dose (MED), I.e. a glass of water (200ml) and the fatal overdose (FD) (approx. 8 litres) is around 1:40. Most "pharmaceuticals" have a ratio of 1:15, Cannabis has a MED-FD Ratio of greater than 1:10000

So in fact Cannabis is actually "Safer" than water in that it is virtually impossible to overdose on it.

The incidence of schizophrenia in society has not changed in hundreds of years and remains at about 1% of the population regardless of Cannabis usage in the society so the link is tenuous at best. The lie of prohibition is based around the claim that Cannabis has no positive medical use. This lie flies in the face of the fact that in the 19^th and early part of the 20% century Cannabis was found in almost every medicinal compound used in western medicine yet there was NO increase in schizophrenia in western society and no reduction since prohibition kicked in. The only increases in diseases that have been found since Cannabis prohibition began is an increase in those ailments for which Cannabis is often the only effective treatment. These include but are not limited to Addiction, Arthritis, Appetite Loss, Nausea, Cancer Chemotherapy, AIDS Wasting Syndrome, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, Depression, Parkinson's Disease, Movement Disorders, Dystonia, Asthma, Brain Injury/Stroke, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Depression, Mental Illness, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, High Blood Pressure/Hypertension, Migraine, Nail Patella Syndrome, Schizophrenia, Tourette's Syndrome.

Unlike most of the propaganda surrounding Cannabis this has all been proved in scientific studies and correlates with anecdotal evidence and the five thousand years of known and documented Cannabis usage history across many cultures. Many people view the cultivation, possession and use of cannabis for use as a food or medicine and for use in religious observance is indispensable for their physical and spiritual health and well being and according to international treaties they have the right to believe that Yet they are vilified for their belief and worse still called criminals for it!! This flies in the face of human rights and many International and Australian laws yet the Government promotes this discrimination and wages war on it's citizens. For shame on you.

Cannabis is the ONLY plant that can be used to feed, clothe, heal and house people yet we make it illegal. Were is that at?

It is time to end the War and the Prohibition of a plant that heals.

Edited April 5, 2008 by lightning

[mullray]

Mate, you've just put forward an argument that the UNODC and INCB are claiming. "They" need to unify and ratify the treaty and that cannabis should be seen in the same light as heroin and cocaine. You've pretty much said the same thing. The "single" convention should be a single convention but that does not mean that legally they (Australia) are in breach and therefore it should be null and void. It means Australia is in breach (which you've pointed out) and that it (Australia) needs to ratify the treaty (which is occurring in SA as we speak). Check the SA cracks down thread and see what I say there.

 

The other point you make about human rights just won't wear because legally there is no basis to support the point through the international courts. The law is extremely complex here and (but) point one and the most important point is that while International law is important and that parties to conventions should adhere to these conventions, the law of these countries first and foremost will over ride international law. Should then it be seen by the overseers of these conventions that a country is in gross breach of their charter that country can be called to account through International committees such as the UN Assembly. BUT - what the UN is saying and has been for the past decade through the INCB and UNODC is that several countries are in breach of the Single Narcotics Convention and the UN assembly will actually support tougher laws in Oz and elsewhere; not say that we are in breach of the human rights charter but say that we are in breach of the Single Narcotics Convention and need to adhere to this.

 

BTW: The UN is in conflict with itself; on the one hand it is there to supposedly stop and mediate in war but on the other hand it is the overseer of the Single Narcotics Convention which for all intents and purposes is a declaration of war. Interesting bunch of oxy morons hey??

Edited April 5, 2008 by mullray

[lightning]

Mullray, re read what I wrote, you completely missed the point, the lies being told by the UNODC and INCB UN OZ UK US Govt etc are in direct contradiction of the UN Charter, the whole "war on drugs" is illegal under their own rules. It violates the Human Rights, guaranteed under the charter, of many people world wide while excusing their own behaviour under a basis of lies.

 

Australia has already ratified the Single Treaty back in 1967 when the !-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 was passed by the Australian Parliament. That Act states it is enacted with the intention of fulfilling Australia's obligations under the treaty. However the point is that their enactment of it breaches the requirement in the preamble that adequate supply of Narcotics be available to meet medical need which they have failed to fulfill.

re human rights, the argument does have basis as the prohibition of propaganda is stated in the human rights accords see article 20 in the link I gave. The Human Right that is so obviously being breached is the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.The full text of that argument can be found in a thread I am about to post called "A defence to Cannibis charges based on freedom of religion" find here https://cannabis.community.forums.ozstoners...showtopic=19049 please read before further comment on the merit of the argument about Human Rights. and yes the UN is in contradiction with it self by not making allowance for Religous use of psychoactive substances(something whose history stretches back to antiquity and therefore predates modern jurisprudence by millenia) they breach their own charter.

 

oxy moron is an understatement,

Edited April 5, 2008 by lightning

[mullray]

No mate, I hear you, but human rights do not extend to those who commit crimes in contravention to other UN (international) mandates and laws within their own countries. While criminals have the right not to be beaten or tortured and so on they are subject to laws which are deemed not in contravention to human rights ----- Eg. Drug laws which are overseen in international treaty by the UN.

 

Point 1) The drug "war" is a "war" in words only - the "war against drugs" being termed by Nixon in 1973 so legally it is not in fact a war on any level and would not be seen as a war by any International court based on legal precedents/law.

 

Looking at your points from the UN: First off I have to say that on a legal basis you then must cross compare all of these to other treaties and clauses to evaluate their scope and meaning in law: I'll underline important points:

1)

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

 

 

Ok, refer this to the single convention which was fully signed off in the way we know it today by the participating countries in 1969 (Ratified in Bangkok) Note "conformity with the principles of justice and international law" Above this removals to threats to peace.... Drugs were seen as a threat to peace by countries who ratified the treaty.

 

From 3)

 

To achieve "international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character," and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

 

Again, refer to the treaty. Drugs were seen as an international problem and still are.

 

 

In fact the argument could be that human rights extend to the point where our children have the right to be protected from evil drug barons and to be protected from the scourge of illicit drugs. No one has the right to use illegal drugs and no one has the right to sell illegal drugs and this is a crime under the single narcotics convention and laws pertaining to a country to country basis - which all partners to the treaty are obliged to enforce. This extends even further when actually looking at the convention in that no one has the right under the treaty to use mj for medical purposes or religious purposes and this is what all the uproar is about. No other drug has undermined the convention to the degree that mj has. In order to ratify the convention and enforce its legal status (by international law) the UN has been forced to act and remind the signatory partners of their obligations to the treaty.

 

Bottom line is - the UN are doing what they are supposed to do and are not in breach of their own mandates because as drug users we are not being attacked by an invading country but ourselves are choosing to break the law within our own countries and therefore we must face the brunt of this law when and if convicted of a crime based on the laws of our country and in this case International laws which were consolidated as in the interests of society and hence human rights. As long as fair judicial process occurs and we are treated as criminals within the Human Rights charter (ie. humanely) then all is good.

 

I'm not flaming you mate and keep up the good work but this has to be pointed out. The UN are not contravening Human Rights by enforcing the single narcotics convention and I would suggest on this basis that your press release would fall on deaf ears.

Edited April 5, 2008 by mullray

[lightning]

Mullray your logic is completely incorrect, The charter predates the single treaty as does the universal declaration of human rights, the single treaty is therefore subordinate to the charter not the other way round. the right to fereedom of belief was declared before the law of prohibition came about and therefore the single treaty cannot extinguish a right that existed and had been declared before the treaty was written.

Similiarly the Australian Parliament and the High Court exist as an empowerment of the Constitution and are therfore not sovreign over it. Only the Australian people are sovreign over the constitution as they are the only ones who can change it. If the government wishes to extinguish the restriction placed on them to impeding the free expression of religion they can take it to the people in a referendum. Short of that the Right to freedom of Religion CANNOT be extinguished by law passed by the Australian Parliament.

 

And the prohibitionist know it which is why they keep arguing about the soverignty of the parliament which is just another of their lies

Edited April 5, 2008 by lightning

[mullray]

Alright mate. Let us know how it goes.

[Radic]

hummm

interesting

that means

the cops are illegaly working for the multinational companies interests

 

so thats what harm miniumization means

 

diss is a tuff cookey to crack

lighting

dey got big interests and big guns

you may need an escape plan

dem who fight and run away

live to fight another day

 

yo

you are so right

your works are impressive

i am proud to stand sholder to sholder with you in dis struggle

dey is wrong

the law is wrong

walk rightious lighting

shine that light so every1 can see

irey guidance

and protection

[lightning]

The first week of November this year will see if I am correct, that is when we step into the lions den (county court) and face our lying accusers.

 

We have only truth and right on our side and we shall prevail. because truth can not be broken by lies.

I was quietly sleeping in my own bed when they disturbed me and picked the fight, obviously nobody ever told them not to wake a sleeping dragon.

 

So far the lawyers of melb have refused to help but it appears they are about to be forced to at least show me through the process even if they wont actually argue the case for me. If I have to I will but I would much prefer a mouth piece who truly believes if human rights.

Time will tell

[bufo marinus]

Lightning I read your other thread about the religious defense and after reading this one I can see where you are coming from.

This sort of stuff I have thought about and also siffted through old research papers, UN convention treaties etc.

What your pointing out in your threads makes perfect sense to me and I hope you can find a mouthpiece to put forward your argument with the same accuracy.

 

I have often wondered how far I would go with legal action if caught again

As I think testing the law is a good idea I am willing to put some money where my mouth is.

If you need money I have $100 to put towards your legal costs to take this to a higher court if you are serious and I believe you are.

November is a long way off, but it's a fight worth fighting, I'll stay tuned

[mullray]

Hey mate,

 

 

 

Drop me a PM sometime with some info about the actual charges but not enough to give yourself away - just what you're up for. County Court implies minor charges so that's good. I tend to shy from PM's and I like myself and others to be secure and don't want any info that could give away who you are and likewise

 

Look, in terms of defending charges, you first and foremost need legal precedent in common law. I like we're you're coming from and certainly if they're minor charges its worth standing up and saying things such as Australia is in breach - the UN is in breach etc but mate there is not one single precedent in Australian and UK (Aus common law also relies heavily on English common law precedent) drug cases to support you here.

 

What I was pointing out is legally you have no basis and I suspect strongly that you would lose (if not have the judge explain to you that you must argue common law otherwise you may be held in contempt of the court) based on the argument re: UN. First off, even if you did have a binding argument you are in the wrong court - you would need to challenge the constitution and any international law in the Federal High Court (and mate, you don't even want to know what kind of money that would cost you).

 

This means first you would have to lose in the lower court, appeal, lose, appeal again.

 

Your argument on grounds of religion for a very minor possession charge may just carry but again you would need to bring to the floor, precedent in Australian case law and then judge discretion could come into play - however, the lower courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts so if someone has taken the argument of religion and drug use all the way to the High Court and lost, the county court must find against you or the DPP can appeal because the finding was outside legal precedent that was binding and the court failed to apply binding precedent.

 

What seems to make sense does not make it law my friend - it's just that simple.

 

I have access to some pretty major law databases with just about every court case that has occurred in the UK and Australia on them - or at least where to locate the cases in journals and books and I'll see if I can find anything that may help you.

 

A decent lawyer would likely advise you to plead guilty (if they are just possession or non-custodial offences) and to plead your case as a med user etc.