Skip to content

Toxic Tony’s Traitorous Treachery


(1) A person shall not:

(a) do any act or thing with intent:

(i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage; or

(ii) to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country; or

(b) within the Commonwealth or a Territory not forming part of the Commonwealth:

(i) levy war, or do any act preparatory to levying war, against a proclaimed country;

(ii) assist by any means whatever, with intent to assist, a proclaimed enemy of a proclaimed country; or

(iii) instigate a person to make an armed invasion of a proclaimed country.

(2) Where a part of the Defence Force is on, or is proceeding to, service outside the Commonwealth and the Territories not forming part of the Commonwealth, a person shall not assist by any means whatever, with intent to assist, any persons:

(a) against whom that part of the Defence Force, or a force that includes that part of the Defence Force is or is likely to be opposed; and

(b) who are specified, or included in a class of persons specified, by proclamation to be persons in respect of whom, or a class of persons in respect of which, this subsection applies.

(3) A person who contravenes a provision of this section shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treachery.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

(4) In this section:

“proclaimed country” means a country specified by proclamation made for the purpose of this definition to be a proclaimed country, and includes any colony, overseas territory or protectorate of that country, or any territory for the international relations of which that country is responsible, which is a colony, overseas territory, protectorate or territory to which the proclamation is expressed to extend.

“proclaimed enemy” , in relation to a proclaimed country, means an enemy:

(a) of and at war with a proclaimed country, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and

(b) specified by proclamation made for the purpose of this definition to be an enemy of and at war with that country.

(5) A proclamation shall not be made for the purpose of the definition of proclaimed country , or for the purpose of the definition of proclaimed enemy , in subsection (4) except in pursuance of a resolution of each House of the Parliament passed within the preceding period of 21 days.

Lets not mince words here. Tony Abbott is trying to overthrow a government. And he is bringing this about by bringing disrepute to the Constitution.

Abbott claims, and has for a long time now, that Craig Thomson’s vote is ‘tainted’. This is a lie. Under the constitution, before a MP’s vote can be brought into question, there needs to be a conviction. It is very clear on this. Abbott and his one armed flapping media bird are all guilty of Treason simply by bringing into question the workings of the Constitution.

The Constitution is explicitly clear on what constitutes a disqualification of a sitting MP. The person must have been found guilty in a court of law first. But if you listen to Abbott, that is irrelevant. Incorrect big ears.

Quite simply, the Constitution does not disqualify Thomson from sitting or voting because he has had nothing proven in a court of law or a sentence handed out or to be handed out that will convict him of 12 months or longer in prison. The Constitution does not disqualify anyone in case they may get a conviction. It actually has to be a conviction.

So when Abbott attempts to tell Australia that we should consider Thomson’s vote tainted, he lies. And he lies to bring about distrust in the government. In fact, Abbott is in breach of this.


Interfering with political liberty

Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 3 years.

Abbott’s attempt to discredit Thomson and through him the Prime Minister is a criminal act. He does this in an attempt to cause sedition.

Here is the thing that Abbott really should be careful about. While the Constitution details the conviction length for a criminal action, in regards to treason, one only needs to be attainted with treason under the Constitution to be disqualified as a sitting member of parliament.

I put it to you that Tony Abbott’s attempt at sedition is treason. And as such, he is immediately and forthwith a toxic tainted treasonous traitor. He is unfit of holding any office let alone that of Prime Minister. Abbott is not a judge. He is not a jury. There are no charges here. And yet he calls for Thomson to be punished.

A. Ghebranious 2011

  1. Robina permalink

    Ash , The people behind Tony Abbott are Christopher Pearson ( The Australian) and Archbishop Pells who both mentor him and support his egomania. Both these men have very vested interests in having him as the PM of this country. One for personal reasons and the other for Church/ State reasons.
    The other very interesting connection to Abbott, and talk about getting it from the horses mouth, is the friendship between Lawler head of FWA,and Abbott. And Lawlers fiance is none other than Kathy Jackson HSU I very nearly choked when I read that. Abbott must be getting his inside info from them, and hence runs to repeat his assurances publicly that Thompson is guilty, even though it is hearsay and not admissable. He loves that stiff hard thing called a microphone shoved in his face, it’s like an addiction!!!!!
    So the FWA proclaimations against Thompson are in fact tainted by a relationship of high order between Lawler and Jackson. This has to be a conflict of interest. If you google Jackson and read the latest revelations on her background and how she deflects any questioning on her ex husband also once an HSU delegate,(he got Kathy a job at the HSU)
    But I believe a case is being built against her by astute journos who know why she began her campaign. The old saying that hell has no fury like a woman scorned. It makes for excellent reading. This is someone I want to see dangling on her sword, because there are too many people worried that she is angling for being head of the new nationalised HSU. Oh imagine her ecstasy on having that handed to her if Tony gets in and appoints her, just as he appointed Lawler to Workchoices now known as FWA. See where the story is headed. Many people pushing their own ruthless agendas with favors owing in the future if wingnut gets in. This is classic Machiavellian behaviour. Enjoy your reading of the Jackson saga Ash!!

  2. Farmer permalink

    On your reasoning, any public servant who goes on strike, or threatens to do so, is liable to three years in the can under Section 28 of the Crimes Act.

    • Big difference between an elected official with parliamentary powers and a public servant. There is nothing under the constitution that prevents Thomson from sitting and voting. Abbott has created a claim that accuses the constitution of invalidity.

  3. While I do not support the Death Penalty, isn’t that still reserved for cases of treason? Adds a new meaning to Tony Abbott being suspended from Parliament!

    Excellent post, Ash – I have been thinking the same for several weeks. He is a treasonous toad!

  4. Good post. But if we assume that what you say is true, and Abbott is the one in the wrong here, why did Gillard send Thompson to the crossbench? Doesn’t this banishment show that Gillard endorses the LNP’s criticisms of him? Is she just as guilty of treason?

    • Gillard sending Thomson to the cross benches is the only thing she can do. If she attempts to remove his vote as Abbott is doing then that is deliberately attempting to stop Thomson from his elected duty.

      Don’t get me wrong. Not defending Thomson’s actions in the HSU. But under the constitution his is a valid vote. Abbott claiming it is not brings a level of mistrust against the constitution and it paints a picture that the government can do anything other then what they have done.

    • PS Thomson still has a vote. He can still exercise political duty, even on the cross bench. Abbott wants to REMOVE his vote from parliament.

      • Robina permalink

        Have you heard the AEC report clearing Thompson of all but 17K of the so called ‘fraud’. And even that may just not have been correctly allocated to the right section. Do you think the Lawyers are currently getting the Defamation Writ ready and Abbott and Kathy Jackson are waiting for the Writ Server to knock on the door. I think so. And I so hope it happens.

  5. lenpag permalink

    How come no one has commented that when matters are before the courts they should not be publically commented on by mudrackers such as Paul Kelley and co or Wingnut himself? it used to be refered as CONTEMPT OF COURT! with severe punishment.

    • Because the media has stupidly feed Abbott’s game. Not once is Abbott stopped and asked about the constitution and when he is in parliament he claims this has nothing to do with the constitution. He is lying.

  6. lenpag permalink

    Abbott and others, say that Slipper and Thompson should step aside and desist from voting! If we took this to the ultimate conclusion, we could see any government bought down by simply having the required number of poofs laying a number of frivoulus complaints so that the apposition could move a motion to have an immediate (before the courts could deal with them) elections or a vote of no confidence in the government.No government would be safe and we would be in continuous election mode. Abbott has said that he would do anything but HIRE HIS ARS in order to get into the Lodge.CAN WE BELIEVE HIM ?

  7. Right. But you can’t deny that by sending him to the crossbench she is showing some kind of symbolic damnation? If she was adament that the constitution needed upholding, she would have let him continue to contribute to caucus discussion and ALP processes.

    • lenpag permalink

      Christopher Payne or is it Pain, has a lot of denigrating comments towards people. A ward of warning Pain (and you are a pain), remember the old saying :people who live in a glass houses should resist throwing stones

    • But that is ALL she can do. Thats the point. Anything is is a against the why it should be done. She’s getting flack for no reason on this

  8. She is getting flack because she has changed her view. Either she believes a person is innocent until proven guilty (in which case Thompson should still be a part of the party) or she believes that he should be suspended while under scrutiny. She has moved from one to the other which doesn’t seem genuine.

    • She reacted to the FWA report. That is all she did. If she did not she would be getting flack

      • Haha. You are right. She will be getting flack either way 😛

      • lenpag permalink

        The problem with the political scene in Australia is that the media is controlled by the extreme right who by their continuous Labor government bashing with no opposing view to balance outcome can convince the majority of people to believe whatever they wont.How else can we explain that when the Rudd government attempted to increase the rate of tax for the resource companies from 17% they had been enjoying,to a more realistic one and a tax which would have provided the Australian public with many billions of dollars to build hospitals,schools,roads etc.polls indicated that 83% of Australians were against the tax. In other words they said:no we don’t wont that money even though it is rightly ours!!!
        Even the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann ( a political plant?) goes along with the extreme right political agenda. Wake up Australians,the Rhineharts, Palmers,Forrests,Rio,BHP and others are not there to look after your interests but only their greedy self ones.
        They are prepared to go to any length including dictating which government they choose to be in power as they showed when they placed $26 millions at the media disposal to denigrate Rudd and reduced his status from one of the most popular Prime Ministers to one who would have been trashed at the following elections had Labor gone to that election with him as leader.

  9. Keith permalink

    And WHY is it Members of The Opposition like Jo Fisher, Abbott, Andrew Lamming and Sophie can sit in Parliament even those they had or have Legal Action pending and one or two of them was guilty of different crimes?

    As for Kathy Jackson (partner of a FWA Member), what a way to get the HSU President position?

    • Robina permalink

      Let’s hope now that all the background relationships have been exposed, that the press can relentlessly grill Jackson. She really has got a lot of back peddling to do. All of this has been sitting , easily accessed by a simple Google, yet on a daily basis Thomson has been vilified. He must be reinstated immediately. The Conservative side of politics is the worst example of mob mentality that this Country has ever experienced. The other low was when Peter Costello needled Nic Sherry so violently in Parl. that he actually attempted suicide. That could well have happened to Craig Thomson. Why do we let the Press try to elect who will govern us. Murdoch legacy appalling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s