All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Citizens’ Climate Lobby founder must rein in overaggressive volunteers

By Tom Harris
In my December 29, 2014 Augusta Free Press article, “Taming the climate debate”, I wrote about the importance of working to establish a social climate in which “leaders in science, engineering, economics, and public policy” can “contribute to the [climate change] debate without fear of retribution.”
At stake are trillions of dollars, countless jobs, the security of our energy supply, and, if people like Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) founder and president, Marshall Saunders, are right, the fate of the global environment itself.
So, it is a tragedy that, because the debate is now riddled with censorship, personal attacks, and even death threats, many experts are afraid to comment publicly. Saunders should consider whether the behaviour of some of his CCL volunteers is exacerbating this problem.
In describing their “Methodology,” CCL assert on their Website that they “believe in respect for all viewpoints, even for those who would oppose us.” In his September 20, 2014 article, “Speaking Truth to Power – and to Friends,” former NASA scientist and now CCL Advisory Board Member Dr. James Hansen writes, “Founder Marshall Saunders espouses respect and love for political opponents of a carbon fee…”
In that light, let’s examine how some CCL volunteers have behaved when faced with opponents of their belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a climate crisis.
My interactions with the group started in late 2012 when CCL (Canada) spokesperson Cheryl McNamara had the following letter to the editor published in the Vancouver Sun in response to my December 26 article, ”Ottawa must get real on climate change”:
Readers Get Real About Climate Change, Vancouver Sun, December 28, 2012

Any self-respecting newspaper would not seriously consider printing an opinion piece by
someone who claimed smoking isn’t harmful to human health. The evidence on human-
caused climate change is clear, too. Tom Harris is funded by the oil industry and denies what 97 per cent of climate scientists confirm: greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet. The irony is that Harris also worked with the APCO, an independent communications consultancy which tried to advance the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health.
Cheryl McNamara, Toronto
The points made in McNamara’s letter are completely false.
  • I have always opposed smoking; both my grandfather and aunt died miserable deaths due to smoking excessively. As an airworthiness engineer at Transport Canada, I contributed to getting smoking banned on long haul flights in our country. We found that aircraft air filters would become plugged, so pilots were exposed to so much second hand smoke that their visual acuity was significantly reduced, presenting a flight safety hazard, especially at night. My engineering peers would laugh to see me now accused of helping the tobacco industry.
  • I have never been “funded by the oil industry.”
  • I have never denied that “greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet.”
  • My employment with APCO had nothing to do with tobacco and I only heard about their supposed promotion of “the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health” after I left the company in 2006.
CCL had made similar erroneous charges against me earlier in the year in the Edmonton Journal which I ignored. However, since the falsehoods were continuing even though they were provably wrong, I notified the Vancouver Sun about the problem. They agreed with my corrections and took the CCL letter off their site and the original URL no longer functions.
Despite my requests to representatives within both the Canadian and American CCL that they remove the offending letter from their site in their list of media triumphs, they would not. How does this fit with Saunders’ goal of “respect and love” for opponents?
This sort of thing has continued ever since, CCL representatives repeatedly attacking me with erroneous and irrelevant charges when I disagree with their stance on climate science. A recent example was CCL’s Pete Kuntz’s May 23 letter to the editor of the Union-Bulletin in Walla Walla, Washington. Kuntz is listed as writing from Northglenn, Colorado.
Besides the usual CCL accusations of ICSC receiving funding from vested interests, Kuntz wrote “Harris is a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.”
A quick check of the Website of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada shows that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lobbyist for anyone, let alone “the fossil fuel industry.” We consider lobbying mostly a waste of time until the public better understand the science, which is why we concentrate on public education.
Kuntz also repeated CCL’s old chestnut about my supposed pro-tobacco work: “Harris used to work for Big Tobacco back in the day when it was denying smoking causes lung cancer, fake ‘doctors’ and all (DeSmog Blog).”
I never respond in kind but simply make appropriate factual corrections when possible. But it isn’t long before CCL personal repeat their bogus claims in other media outlets.
So I was not surprised to see Kuntz’s May 25 Augusta Free Press piece “Climate change denial is a scam,” this time identifying himself as hailing from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He repeated CCL’s tall tales about my pro-tobacco work as well as ICSC’s supposed funding sources, something he could not possibly know since the identities of those who help ICSC cover its operating expenses have been confidential since I started as Executive Director in 2008.
The suggestion that my opinion is for sale is, of course, seriously offensive, and begs the question: how does this fulfil Saunders’ goal of “respect and love” for opponents?
It does not matter who funds us. All that matters is whether what we are saying is correct or not, a point we are happy to debate with anyone. If funding sources did matter, then we note that most climate scientists are employed by organizations that promote the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (DAGW). These researchers obviously have a direct interest in supporting their employers’ point of view.
Perhaps most ironic in Kuntz’s Free Press piece is his criticism that I and Bryan Leyland, my co-author, are not scientists but are engineers. He does not seem to know that engineering is applied science and requires a good understanding of science and applied mathematics. With both Leyland (MSC—Power Systems) and myself (MEng—thermofluids) having advanced degrees and having spent many years studying climate science and computer modelling, we are quite capable of commenting meaningfully on the evidence for and against DAGW.
But qualifications do not prove anyone right. All that counts is the validity of what is being said. For instance, before being trained by Al Gore in 2007, Saunders’ professional career was in real estate brokerage specializing in shopping center development and leasing. Yet we never criticize him for lacking a background in the field because, once again, the accuracy of his comments is all that matters.
Kuntz directs readers to a site critical of the second year climate science course I gave to 1,500 students at Carleton University in Ottawa. He fails to mention that both the course originator and current instructor, Earth Sciences professor Tim Patterson, and I have debunked the critique as hopelessly naïve and misleading. I even went on TV (see here) to respond to the attack.
In defense of his position on the science, Kuntz proclaims, “Every climate scientist publishing in peer-reviewed science journals worldwide agrees.” Nonsense. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports list hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published in the world’s leading science journals that either question or refute the DAGW hypothesis that CCL holds dear.
Kuntz concludes by directing readers to the CCL Website, saying, “They’ve got a realistic plan.” Like many of CCL’s published letters, there is no mention of his affiliation with CCL.
Kuntz and McNamara are just two examples of CCL spokespeople who seem to ignore the respectful approach advocated by their founder. Saunders will soon have an ideal platform from which to remind them that their passionate belief in their cause does not give them license to abuse opponents. From June 21—23, one thousand CCL volunteers gather in Washington DC to “hear from inspiring speakers, receive lobby training and go to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress.” Let’s hope CCL’s president and founder uses the opportunity to rein in overly aggressive members of his team.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Science: Sceptical Scientists or Scientific Deniers - UPDATED

The following exchange was aired on the May 25 edition of PBS’s Charlie Rose show
Do we have too many scientific deniers in our country?
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: So if the people understand what science is and how it works and why it works, then you can vote intelligently on issues that involve scientific principles- 
CHARLIE ROSE: And things like climate change. 
TYSON: -on issues. And then you can know who is not telling the truth and who is, you can analyze it. 
ROSE: Okay but my question is - are we, I mean do we have too many scientific deniers in our country or do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science? 
TYSON: Yeah there are some of those. And dare I implicate some elements of journalism in this, because there’s your journalistic ethos - not to tell you what your ethos is - but as I understand it and it’s been told to me, the journalist’s obligation when writing a story is to give equal column space to all sides. Or half to one of each side. And if someone says the Earth is round and someone says the Earth is flat, at some point you’re going to make a judgement, “the Earth is flat” people, is just flat out wrong. I will not be giving them the attention. We’re wasting time and I’m not doing a service to, in my role of informing the public.  
And so I think journalists are really smart people. And they’re highly educated and they’re curious. They have the curiosity that kids have, that they still have as adults. That’s the other kind of branch of curiosity manifested in society. Scientists and journalists. And that’s a great thing to have. But at some point, invest your brain energy to recognize when something is fringe. And report it that way. And so when you do that, people then are properly informed about what is and is not true, what is an emergent truth. What is a truth that is in doubt, what is a truth? What is something that has been refuted. Be responsible on that frontier. And I think that will help. That will help my job, certainly. 
That gives us food for thought. Should Main Stream Journalists turn attention away from rthose Charlie Rose calls Scientific Deniers?

Let's look at some of the points discussed.

Do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science? 

Too many scientific Deniers? The scientific method means - look the other way on science.
The problem-solving techniques that scientists use in their research make up the scientific method. The scientific methods are as old as science itself. It includes the correction or testing of previous knowledge or scientific theory. (link)
It includes the testing and correction of scientific theory.

Theory and Hypothesis:

Theory - A theory is an explanation of why and how a specific natural event occurs.Hypothesis – An hypothesis is an idea or question about how something works.
Simply put, scientists see a problem and think of a question (hypothesis) and through tests of trial and error they figure out a solution to the hypothesis. Then other scientists do similar tests to see if the solution is correct. The solution then becomes common knowledge and is referred to as a theory.
Through tests of trial and error they figure out a solution to the hypothesis..... 

or, the hypothesis can be falsified. As Albert Einstein once said: (link)
 “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified many times:

These are but a few from the google search for "man made global warming disproved."

Obviously, because it is Wikipedia, many of the 316,000 may be flaky. However as noted above, Albert Einstein said: (link)
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
Just One - "a single experiment" falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. 

Challenge to the Shrill - rebut the 316,000 results for "Man made global warming disproved."

TYSON: I think journalists are really smart people. And they’re highly educated and they’re curious.

Journalists, by definition should be sceptics. However, many of the main stream journalists have run the white flag up the pole, turned their backs on "curious" or sceptical journalism and have become pushers of the Man made global warming hoax.

I think journalists are really smart people.

If journalists in the main promote the man made global warming hoax. how can they be smart, They have not done their homework and have missed all the evidence debunking the hoax. 

How many journalists missed the "governmental" in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

How many journalists know that the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is not necessarily supported by the scientific papers in the detailed reports, is not necessarily supported by the scientists writing the supporting papers, and how many know that the SPM is agreed line by line by government representatives in long meetings. 
IPCC Reports are reviewed by representatives from all the governments and the Summary for Policymakers is subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. (LINK)
How many of the journalists have read the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
 How many Journalists are aware of some of the falsities pushed by the shrill alarmists?

In an October 2012 article headed  
Man Made Global Warming Disproved Joanne Nova and Anthony Cox wrote:

Continued faith in flawed models breaks central tenets of science

The two things which make science different from religion are that nothing in science is sacred, and everything in science must ultimately fit with observations of the real world. While a theory may never be 100% proven, it can be disproven. The pieces of the climate jigsaw are coming together. The observations suggest that the warming effect of man-made emissions of CO2 has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 – 7 in computer simulations.

Observations show major flaws

  1. The missing heat is not in the ocean 8 – 14
  2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space 15 -17
  3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – 31
  4. Clouds cool the planet as it warms 38 – 56
  5. The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. 63- 64
  6. Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C 66
  7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. 70
  8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. 71
  9. It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2.  The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones.

How many journalists know that there has been no warming of Global Mean surface temperature for around twenty years?

Any young person leaving school in the last few years was probably subjected to Al Gore's Science Fiction Movie "An Inconvenient Truth" several times during their schooling but has not been told that there has been no warming during their school life.

How many journalists know that, according to the two bodies measuring global temperature through satellite readings, both show slight decrease in global temperatures from 1998 to 2015. (link)

= = = = = = = = =

See also:

When It Comes to Global Warming, the News Media Only See What They Want

The fact that the left refuses to engage in any debate on global warming — and wants the matter closedyesterday — makes me extremely suspicious that they aren’t actually so confident that they are right, or that they are winning. When they go a step further and call those who disagree with them “deniers” and equate them with “blasphemers” or those who claim the Holocaust didn’t really happen, like a bully who has nothing to back up his bravado, it makes me think they have some extreme insecurities. 
But last week broke new grounds in the lengths people will go to cut off any dissent on this issue, which many have used to hinder business production in extremely significant ways. And the news media’s curious lack of a negative reaction is also telling.
Read more at Mediaite - Link

Monday, 25 May 2015



MAY 24th 2015

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray


The history of the greenhouse effect is given in Chapter 5 of my book at

The term arose when Fourier misinterpreted the heating  in de Saussure's Hot Box (a miniature greenhouse) as caused by reflection of internal infrared rays by the glass top.

He believed that the earth was heated by the ether but not by the sun. He thought all the heat from the sun was immediately lost by infra red.

He needed some extra heat, just for the tropics, and he speculated that water vapour might behave in a similar way to the hotbox glass cover

These views were adopted by Tyndall who measured resistance to passage of infra red radiation through a large number of gases, including carbon dioxide, and found that the absorption was small, but when he tested water vapour the effect was so large that the apparatus could not measure it.

He therefore concluded that Fourier’s idea that water vapour heated  the earth was plausible.

Both of them regarded radiation as a form of Heat which required a medium for its transfer. The ether was needed to permit its passage through space of radiant heat.

It was accepted that heat could only pass from a hot object to a cold object. This principle was the Second Law of Thermodynamics which also applied to complete systems. Its application to heat transfer was eventually explained as a passage of the mechanical energy which exists as random movement of atoms and molecules of all substances. The level of this movement is the temperature of the substance.

It eventually became evident that Heat of radiation is fundamentally different from the heat stored by ordinary objects. Maxwell, in 1873, postulated that all radiation, over a wide spectrum, is a wave motion consisting of alternate oscillating electrical and magnetic fields.

The energy E of radiation is obtained by the Stefan/ Bolzmann equation:-
E = CxT4

C is Stefan’s constant and T is the absolute Temperature (to the fourth degree of the emitting substance.  Notice that it is entirely determined by this temperature of the emitting substance.

The published derivations of the Stefan/Boltzmann law treat the emitting substance as a black body. This  does not imply that the equation appiies only to solids. Liquids and gases also consist of molecules in motion and they a;so emit radiation/ In addition real substances are not ideal black bodies, so the equation needs an additional emissivity factor. Planck derived an equation which provided the spectral distribution, after allowing for the quantum effects.

Radiation energy is converted to heat if it is absorbed by any suitable object. The temperature of that object is quite irrelevant. The speculation by some that radiation cannot be absorbed by an object whose temperature is less than that of the radiant emitter requires the absurd assumption that radiatio, is capable of detecting the temperature of distant objects before deciding whether they are fit to receive absorption. Such an assumption restores the need for a belief in the existence of an ether.

It is unfortunate that several dictionary definitions, physics textbooks and even school and university courses in physics fail to  make the distinction between heat that is transferred by mechanical action and radiant energy which only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a suitable body. This  confusion is mainly due to the time it has taken for the earlier concept of radiation as a form of heat which passess through the ether as a medium, to radiation which does not need a medium and has different properties from ordinary.

The Michelson Morley experiment of 1887 followed by Einstein’s relativity theory showed that the ether did not  exist and was unnecessary for the passage of radiation

Arrhenius, in 1897, no longer  believed in an ether but he foolishly ignored the advice of Fourier and Tyndall by using Langley’s primitive measurements of atmospheric absorption to assume that they related to atmospheric carbon dioxide. He failed to realise that Langley’s figures at that time did not include the main absorption bands of carbon dioxide, so Arrhenius’ calculations were for water vapour.

So the greenhouse effect does exist. 

Greenhouse gases, predominantly water vapour, do absorb infra red radiation from the earth, radiate the additional energy in all directions, including downwards and  so warm the earth. This effect must be very small as it has not been detected, despite the enormous effort that has been applied to try and find it.


Vincent Gray
New Zealand

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Saturday's News: Good for Realists; Bad for Alarmists.

Much news around that confirms the AGW scare is just that: an empty scare. Some of the stories:

From ex-NASA scientist Roy Spencer:

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”

One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere. 
The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.

From The Lancet:

A major study abstract published in the Lancet analyzed 74 million deaths from 384 locations in 13 countries from 1985 to 2012 and found that moderately cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather.  
From a story in London’s Guardian: 
“It’s often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heatwaves,” says lead author Dr. Antonio Gasparrini from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.  “Our findings, from an analysis of the largest dataset of temperature-related deaths ever collected, show that the majority of these deaths actually happen on moderately hot and cold days, with most deaths caused by moderately cold temperatures.”

 From WryHeat by Jonathan DuHamel


Climate alarmists put forth scary scenarios saying that carbon dioxide induced global warming is causing unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise which will drown our coastal cities and wipe out South Pacific Islands, but observational evidence shows there is no reason for alarm.
= = = =  

The Australian government has been monitoring sea level on Pacific islands with modern instruments since 1992. In the case of Tuvalu, they state, “If the depression of the 1998 cyclone is ignored, there was no change is sea level at Tuvalu between 1994 and 2009: 14 years. (See report of studies by Vincent Gray here.) 
Finally, new research by Kench et al. (2015) finds that these same South Pacific islands, rather than sinking beneath the waves, have in fact been growing.

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll

From The Daily Caller:

Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author. 
Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century. 
What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Friday, 22 May 2015

COP21 - India and China hold out.

Australia's Foreign Minister, Ms Julie Bishop has an "Extravagant solution to a non-existent problem" reports that Foreign Minister Bishop announced that she will waste Australian Taxpayer's Money.
AUSTRALIA will contribute $200 million to a global fund to help poorer nations tackle climate change. 
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has announced the funding for the Green Climate Fund at the UN climate summit in Lima on Wednesday. The money will come out of the foreign aid budget. 
The fund will help developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
However Ms Bishop had a rider: (link)
Ms Bishop has said Australia would determine its actions on the basis of what other nations agreed to do. 
I hope that Ms Bishop is keeping up with the latest news. China is not signing on for years.
China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 

 India will not give up coal - coal that helped the developed world develop:

Indian Tells UN:
India has told a high-level energy meeting here that it will not be fair to expect it to move away from coal to meet energy requirements of millions of Indians, underscoring that coal will continue to remain the "mainstay" of its energy needs for the "foreseeable future. 
"Our energy challenge is truly huge. The numbers speak for themselves," said Minister for State for Power, Coal and New & Renewable Energy Piyush Goyal at the First Global Energy Ministerial SE4ALL Forum Meeting yesterday. 
India has 56 million homes or 280 million Indians, almost the size of the population of the US, who lack access to basic electricity and more than 500 million are still deprived of access to clean energy fuels, he said.
As the Man Made Climate Change "science" fails, the pushers of the hoax, the alarmists, are getting shriller.

WE hope the Abbott Government are listening and do not sign any "Kyoyo 2" agreements.

Submission to the Third party certification of food Enquiry

Submission by Anthony Cox

Halal means what is permissible under Sharia which is Islamic law. It does not just apply to foods and beverages but every aspect of life. If something is halal it is part of Islam. Making things, foods, actions etc halal means they become part of Islam.

Halal is the process by which Islam replaces the social, economic, political and legal structure of a host society.

Other ways Islam subsumes the host society are through the building of Mosques and visible symbols such as the burqa.

There are over 370 mosques in Australia which, per capita, is more than six times the number of Buddhist and Hindu temples. It is much more than the conventional (sic) religions such as Catholicism and Anglicanism. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated: 
A mosque is our barracks, the domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets and the faithful are our soldiers."
In 2010 France banned the burqa based on a Parliamentary Commission to Study the Wearing of the Full Veil in France. This Commission had found the burqa was an infringement of the principle of freedom, a symbol of subservience and a negation of the principle of equality.

In 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld France’s banning of the burqa. In addition to the principles found by France the ECHR also found the burqa was an an affront to the country's tenets of secularism and a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.
Other European nations have followed or plan to follow France’s lead in banning the burqa but a limited ban in Queensland has failed.

The building of Mosques and the wearing of the burqa as well as food certification are part of the halal process.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Section 116 has four limbs. The first three limbs prohibit the Commonwealth from making certain laws: laws "for establishing any religion"; laws "for imposing any religious observance"; and laws "for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". The fourth limb proscribes the imposition of religious tests to qualify for any Commonwealth office or public trust.

The first limb is of relevance to halal. In Attorney-General (Vic); Ex Rel Black v Commonwealth ("DOGS case") [1981] HCA 2; (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981) the High Court found that Section 116 did not encompass laws that benefit religions generally; it only proscribed laws that established a particular religion.

Islam is a particular religion. Halal certification is the process by which Islam establishes itself. In Quick and Garran (1995) [1901]. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Sydney: Legal Books. ISBN 1-86316-071-X establishment means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others."

Allowing halal to continue could be construed as conceding special favours, titles and advantages to Islam.

It would seem that there are 2 possible legal principles affronted by halal. The first is described by the French banning of the burqa. The second is described by S.116.

Anthony Cox
21 May 2015

= = = = = = = = = =

On 13 May 2015, the Senate referred an inquiry into third party certification of food to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2015
Submissions close 31 July 2015.

Committee Secretariat contact:

Senate Standing Committees on Economics
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3540
Fax: +61 2 6277 5719