Catholic nuns from the Sisters Of Saint Joseph warn in the Catholic Weekly that Jesus will punish those who Vote No in The Voice Referendum

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart



Sisters Susan Connelly,  Josephine Mitchell and  Jan Barnett of the  Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart have written an op-ed for the Catholic Weekly headlined The false claims of the No Voice campaign.  The headline and the conclusion ; No one can be told how to vote, but each of us will have to answer to God for what we write on that page  summaries the sisters' thesis. 


Between the headline and the conclusion there are  assertions such as this :

Strangely, there is no federal law that bans untruthful or misleading political advertising, a situation that is supporting the level of disinformation that is abroad and which feeds wild and fearful claims that appear on social media.

Nowhere in their article have the sisters addressed the primary issue of why recognition of persons who are Australian citizens is required. They spend much time attacking those who have asked for more detail, regurgitating the argument  (put by among others Anne Twomey ) that other clauses in the provision do not provide detail, but ignore  that crucial point made by  Anne Twomey,  that details can only ever be known once Parliament starts making laws pursuant to the new power. Twomey had inadvertently explained why referendums seldom succeed, but that point seems to have escaped the sisters' insight into Australian Constitutional law.


They then make the false claim , citing ABC Fact Check, that "there are false claims that the Uluru Statement is not a one-page document at all, but has many other hidden pages". They say so despite ABC Media Watch contradicting the ABC Fact Check


They say “ the official pamphlet for the No case quotes Professor Greg Craven implying that he is against the Voice, whereas he has publicly stated that he will vote Yes” but suspiciously fail to quote what Craven did say against The Voice.


Rather than call on the wrath of God and  heaven to smite anyone who might disagree with their insights into the proposed constitutional amendments, and on the Labor Government to ban free speech,  the sisters would be better advised to take advantage of the works of  actual thinkers in Constitutional Law to educate themselves on what is undoubtedly a complex area of law. They might then be better prepared to assume their role of final arbiter of truth on matters of constitutional law.


END

Comments

  1. JimAugust 24, 2023 at 8:27 AM

    Well put. The Yes campaign has surely made a mistake by leading with attacks on the No campaign's "misinformation", etc. That's not a reason to vote yes. It's looking like the result may be like the conscription referendums of 1916-17, where almost all the great and good told the public to vote yes, and the voters said no.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more