Topic: Australian Court System Cultural Belief Conflict

Period of time ago I spent time at a court house on the good side protecting innocents, taking in the surroundings of the ‘Australian Supreme Court’.

Whilst it’s a long waiting period for your moment of 10mins or less inputting in your 2 cents worth, I notice there’s not much in the way of separation from either side, nor much security on the upper floors.

It would be a shame if such cases had a number of people batting it out for both sides of the court battle field merged whist in-wait; this with the obvious point that witnesses can be picked then picked off at a later date by the criminal’s friends or family.

Of cause this we know has happened with witnesses going missing, assaulted or even murdered over time and this explains why!, through one of many scenarios.

In my time there I took on board that prior to taking the stand your asked ‘are you happy to take the oath’, obviously this would be a ‘NO’ if having other beliefs, rather than a single god that has not proclaimed him or herself as one.

In this case affirmation is alternatively given, that of allegiance to the monarchy in a verbal, solemn and formal declaration.

What catches my eye thereafter on opting for true choice is that a Bible remains situated on the stand, outlining to some that this is the courts preference of someone giving truthful evidence.

This also states the fact that people of choosing other religions or beliefs other than the version situated in front of you are not equal, indicating that opting to swearing allegiance to your flag or queen does not take preference to that of lecturer with no proven substantial proof to date.

Are you saying that someone of catholic or other Jesus franchise religion is guaranteeing honesty by swearing on a bible, such books known to include negative teaching of separation and difference, rather than tolerance given, and is not going to sway a little because of allegiance to such. (Ideals)

This book in itself states no person can maintain nor live up to such ideal teachings, in knowing this, how is this honest, how can you make use of this in a place where honesty is that of the up most importance.

We may be a commonwealth backed by ‘Her Majesty The Queen Mother’ who’s choice of settlement alliance being that of catholic choice in past times, but we are a country on many nations through culture of many beliefs in the modern day.

A court room is not a place to be choosing between a book of stories and a flag/affirmation, it’s a place in upholding law and law is law not preference to ‘choosing what law is’.

To other beliefs having this book remaining on the stand when a person has taken an affirmation is not only an insult to their freedom of choice, but a conflict, that courts support stories rather than truths.

Is that our type of country, a country where truth in law is not that important, that a book of stories is more truth to allegiance and law?

My final note is this, all courts and all people should be taking an affirmation of cultural choice to queen or country with a hand on the flag not that of any book.