Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss

Links For Firefox/Mozilla/Chrome etc are provided underneath

Advertisment space available

Have you written about:
Or should I check web for:


Letter to DCSI - 1

“Provided under self imposed onerous disclousre regime.”

Dated: 29th October, 2015

L** *****,
General Manager,
Screening Unit.

Subject:Child related employment screening; Reference No. 329671, Dated 14th October, 2015.

Dear ***,

This piece is with regards to a certificate issued by your department in response to a historical application that I had once lodged with your department (almost a year ago). I’ll get to the content of this writing in a moment but let me first inform you of something really important.

I am a public figure; a novelist with four novels available for purchase on Amazon kindle, a music producer with near two music albums available for purchase via various online stores as well as a free download from my website, and also an active reformist (Political and social). Thousands of people have so far downloaded my songs, and thousands of visitors have visited my website, reading novels and blog posts (both political and non-political). Thus as a result, as a matter of public policy I have adopted a very “Onerous Disclosure” regime, as I believe people have an undeniable right to know a lot more about me than any normal person. So please be aware, this piece of writing and any response to it, along with the certificate already issued by your department, as well as any correspondence that I have had with any of the officers of your department, will be made available for public scrutiny, both via my personal website as well as other third part sites where I provide relevant public disclosure. If you have any questions about the said “Public Interest Disclosures”, please refer to the Freedom of Information Act 1991(SA).

Now with regards to the said certificate; firstly neither your letter, nor your website address mentioned in the letter, provides any clue as to the time-limits within which to seek a review, and also, your letter has not provided any reasons for the opinion given. So let me first sum up the three things that I would like to request your department for the purpose of the present writing:
  1. Reasons for the finding, along with a reference to the evidence relied upon.
  2. Information about your department’s “Freedom of Information” regime; the application, the FOI officer’s name and designation.
  3. The time-limits and application process for the internal review.

Firstly, I need reasons as well as evidence details because your department’s finding is a news to me, as much it is going to be the case with regards to my avid fans, who are well aware of my past. As mentioned above; I follow a very “Onerous Disclosure” regime, and as such all relevant material and information about my past is available for public purview via my website; it has been since 2010. Please refer to my email dated 8th July, 2015 to your officer Mr. Ryan McInerney, I’ve clearly mentioned my website in that email. Now I will not comment if your department followed up on the lead or not. However, there is clearly nothing in that evidence that suggests any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion that your department has arrived at. Hence my next request!

As a public figure I consider the certificate issued as highly inappropriate and an attempt to malign my name, as well as target me for my political views. Please refer to the same email (and others following that email), especially my email dated 10th July, 2015 to the same officer officer, where I had clearly stated:
“Further please be advised, if your department issues a certificate that does not represent the truth in any form, it will be liable for further legal action for "abuse of power".

This was a red flag notice to your department, to be very careful with the matter for there is a history of racial vilification that is clearly mentioned on my website. Now this leads to two scenarios: either your department has intentionally erred in the finding (in which case I will be initiating legal proceedings against your department), or someone has really done a fraudulent act and produced some concocted information somewhere down the chain. The “Freedom of Information” application is specifically going to ask for all the evidence and correspondence that is or can be associated with my case considered by your department. Please be advised, erring officials as well as agencies are going to be brought to justice in a court of law accordingly. My business interests are very important to me, and if a person has acted with malfied intentions, then legal action will be initiated against them. My business interests are not simple two-three thousand dollar affairs. We are talking entertainment industry over here.

Thirdly, if your department is not at fault, I want to ensure I apply for the internal review so that innocent parties are not harmed. However, irrespective of the result of the review, the FOI is still going to be put in. I have been deeply offended, and I intend to take legal action.

Also, the legislative provisions (and regulations under the legislation) are most likely constitutionally invalid as they purport to confer a Chapter III Court’s Original Jurisdictionon a member of the State Executive; specifically Australian Constitution, s 75 (iv). Please refer to the High Court Judgment in R v Kirby; Exparte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia(1956) 94 CLR 254. A constitutional appeal is going to be filed against those provisions soon.

Now please refer to my email dated 10th July, 2015. I had stated there:

“This is Australia and not Saudi Arabia or UAE. This kind of censorship has no place in a democratic society. Your department and the responsible minister needs to undertake a crash course in the meaning of Democracy. As an ex high school science teacher I might not be the best person to talk about Social Sciences, but as a Citizen born in a democracy and who has lived in a democratic society all his life, I am more than willing to give your department and minister free tuition and explain what democracy means.”

Having taken such an onerous responsibility, this next part of this piece is my first free lecture that I would like you to pass on to your entire department, as well as the concerned Minister.

Now I realize I must be sounding really obnoxious and arrogant so far(although I am neither, but rather an upright man of principles who refuses to yield to undemocratic forces and unethical decisions, and perhaps that’s why!), so let me start this lecture by saying:

“Obnoxious and arrogant people like me, who refuse to accept administrative diktats on their face value, are the best thing that could ever happen to a democratic society. This is especially more important for minority communities in a democracy, like religious, social or ethnic minorities.”

Democracy is a government of the majority. Minority voices, like those of homosexual groups and ethnic minorities seldom determine the political character of the government, or the fate of political parties. This disparity in power becomes even more evident in case of legislative actions that affect the rights of a very few individuals in a society. One person affected by a legislative decision, as myself in the current example, can seldom hold the political party in government accountable at the following election. Elections are rarely, if ever, decided by a single nationwide unpopular decision, leave aside decisions affecting a handful of individuals. The worst part is, and legal academic writing is full of such references, unjust executive and administrative actions often go uncorrected for ages, simply because the affected people either didn’t have the inclination or the resources to challenge them in a court. And unfortunately, one needs a standing to bring a matter in front of the court. This is where upright individuals like myself come into the picture. Our words and actions force either of the two reactions: either the executive corrects itself, or the erring officials make an even bigger mistake that creates a ripe ground for the court to exercise its jurisdiction and hold the errant administrator accountable to the democracy.

But executive often tries to site high policy, and retorts to the time tested trump-card of “Public Interest” to justify its’ actions. Like in the current case: “Protecting Children”. Now who could possibly have an objection to such a high objective? It is a bipartisan support scenario, and I myself personally support this high objective. But a great objective does not necessarily translate into a sound policy, leave aside a proportionate and adapted legislation. Worst is, when the legislature tries to achieve another end using a high objective. In the current case the scenario is not of protecting children’s rights, but I suspect it is more of a means of harassing men who have had a personal issue with a woman. This is the ugly, unbalanced and distorting side of feminism affecting a legislation where it shouldn’t even have ventured in the first place. If the real policy is of giving justice to wronged women (in which case you first need a wronged woman, instead of a wrong woman) then the place is somewhere else. It’s funny how feminists’ starting presumption is that the world doesn’t belong to men alone, yet they want the laws to reflect that it belongs to women alone. As a man all I see behind all the feminist rhetoric and the current media obsession with promoting their agenda, is the ugly truth that feminists are nothing but the reverse of male chauvinists. While male chauvinists impose morality only on the women and use physical force to subjugate them, female chauvinists (feminists) want to impose morality only on men using legal force while they enjoy freedom that men used to enjoy traditionally (please refer to “Free the nipple” campaign). But the cold hard fact is: a legislature represents the members of their constituency irrespective of their sex, sexual orientations or other differences. Thus laws cannot be, and should not be framed on policies that are unjust and imbalanced for any reason, especially improper reasons.

This should be enough for this piece. The situation as it unfolds from here will determine the content and timing of my next free lecture.

Amanpreet Singh Rai,
1/269 Henley Beach Road,
Brooklyn Park, SA 5032
Ph: +61 43 023 5589
Website: www.fatalurgecarefreekiss.com


Words of wisdom from readers of this page:


My name is:

I would like to add:

Home Music Novels Blogs Politics News Contact Warrior Prince