316usman/thematic4cembed huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694819512146.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Bills of Lading (CAP.

50 1 CHAPTER 50 THE BILLS OF LADING ACT Arrangement of Sections Section 1.

Short title.

2.

Rights under bill of lading to vest in consignee or indorsee.

3.

Not to affect right of stoppage or claims for freight.

4.

Bill of lading in hands of consignee, etc., conclusive evidence of the shipment as against master, etc.

BILLS OF LADING (5th March, 1887.)

1.

This Act may be cited as the Bills of Lading Act.

short title.

2.
short title.

2.

Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, Rights under bill of lading to vest and every indorsee of a bill of lading, to whom the property in consignee or in the goods therein mentioned shall pass upon or by reason indorsee.

of such consignment or indorsement, shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit, and be subject to the same liabilities, in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself.

3.
3.

Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect :;:tG;:ro:ight any rights of stoppage in transitu, or any right to claim freight .I~;,, for freight.

against the original shipper or owner, or any liability of the consignee or indorsee by reason or in consequence of his being such consignee or indorsee, or of his receipt of the LAWS OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CAP.

50) Bills of Lading goods by reason or in consequence of such consignment or indorsement.

4.
4.

Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee Bill of lading in hands of consignee, etc., or indorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods conclusive to have been shipped on board a vessel, shall be conclusive evidence of the evidence of such shipment as against the master or other shipment as against master, person signing the same, notwithstanding that such goods etc.
or some part thereof may not have been so shipped, unless such holder of the bill of lading shall have had actual notice, at the time of receiving the same, that the goods had not been in fact laden on board: Provided that the master or other person so signing may exonerate himself in respect of such misrepresentation by showing that it was caused without any default on his part and wholly by the fraud of the shipper, or of the holder, or some person under whom the holder claims.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694819852407.pdf (Australia)
Please see submission 321 and associated right of reply Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 [provisions]Submission 45 - Please see submission 321 and associated right of reply
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694819873806.pdf (Australia)
Submission by Daniel Graham Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief I write this submission as an individual to the committee for the Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief.

Australia has a long history of freedom of religion and freedom of belief.

I am concerned that possible law changes in relation to the definition of marriage may cause these freedoms of religion and belief to be restricted detrimentally.
From Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) Article 18 1.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Religion and belief is not a completely private matter which only occurs on certain times on certain days.

I would cite several examples from other countries where people have held religious beliefs but had these beliefs overruled by law changes in regards marriage.
There are several examples, but I will quote one; “The owners of an Oregon bakery that made national headlines last year after a pair of lesbian brides-to-be leave them bankrupt Speaking at the conservative Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told The Daily Signal that such a fine would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.” are now facing a fine of up to $150,000, which could Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., Sweet Cakes by turning away reportedly .
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-bankrupt-_n_591622 6 Belief So here is one example that could well occur in Australia if marriage law is changed.

in worship, observance, practice and teaching does not stop after people finish worshipping at the weekend.

It is an intrinsic part of people’s lives and extents to all parts of their lives.

Article 19 1.

Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 318 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
I’m concerned if marriage was redefined in Australia that the freedoms explained in article 19 would be unfairly restricted.

I refer to the case of Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart, who were prosecuted under Tasmania’s Anti-discrimination Act stating in a published booklet his belief in marriage being the union of one man to one woman to the to parents of children in Catholic schools in his archdiocese.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 318
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820077271.pdf (Australia)
Submission to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief To whom it may concern, Religious freedom is a human right, but so is equal protection under the law.

The current anti- discrimination laws in Australia allow religious organisations to actively discriminate against the queer community (i.e.

1 in 10 Australians).

This is not okay.

Religious freedom should not impinge upon the rights of others in this way.
Sincerely, Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 13
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820088203.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief.

SUBMISSION The basic principle behind this submission is that "Freedom of Religion" must mean 'Freedom of All Religions", otherwise it is discriminatory.

It cannot favour one religion over another, as there are no "degrees" of freedom.

No religion, no matter how popular or how many followers it boasts, can demand its beliefs be adopted by non-believers or believers of other religions.
All religions, like all Australians, must be equal under the law.

Religion can never be above the law.

"Freedom of Religion" means freedom of "religious thought", but it does NOT mean freedom of "religious action".

No government can control what a person thinks or believes, but every government controls how its citizens act.

Therefore, there should be no "religious exemptions" from any laws.

If a religion practises a belief that is against the law e.g.
underage marriage, illegal circumcision practices of gender discrimination, then that religion is longer free to act on that belief.

In practice, to ensure everyone's freedom is respected, all religious elements should be removed from public arenas, e.g.

we should end the practice of swearing on the Bible or Koran, or saying prayers in public institutions such as schools, parliaments etc.
Ideally, religious practice would be removed from all public institutions and bodies such as public schools, public hospitals and government services.

Tax exemptions enjoyed by religious groups should be contingent on the services they deliver e.g.

if a church provides a charitable service, they should qualify for appropriate government assistance or tax exemption status.
However, should they conduct "extra curricular" business activities (including property speculation), they should be subject to normal rules and regulations.

Tax exemption should not be granted purely on the basis of a body declaring itself as a religious entity.

In conclusion, the continued success of our tolerant multi-cultural democracy is dependent on all its citizens and their beliefs being treated equally under the law.
"Freedom of Religion" is based on respecting our differences and our right to our beliefs, while accepting that we live in a democracy and all our actions must be lawful.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 211
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820663268.pdf (Australia)
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief Greetings to the Committee.

Thank you for holding the inquiry.

I write as a lay-person with a religious belief, and with an interest in maintaining & restoring my freedom of belief.

I address the term of reference  Australian efforts of governments to protect freedom of belief in Australia.

Discussion of LGBT issues.

The Federal government and many State governments have enacted laws to protect rights of LGBT communities.
However, they have concentrated their efforts on promoting the LGBT freedoms, but referencing religion of belief as only an EXEMPTION to particular items.

These laws mostly ignore the fact that LGBT is ONLY a belief system, not a fully rational stand-alone truth.

It is based on assumptions, which makes it a belief system, not a truth.
As it is promoted by only a very small proportion of the population, it should form only a small secondary option to a particular set of legal norms, with the majority of the particular Act devoted to protecting the majority view of systems developed over 4000 years of human history.

The Acts promoting LGBT freedoms should be re-drafted to protect freedoms of the majority viewpoints, and add the LGBT freedoms as an ALTERNATIVE system.
Thus tradition would be protected IN ITS OWN RIGHT, rather than being a minor EXEMPTION in the current drafting of the Acts.

Discussion of Harassment issues Laws about harassment are being used to curtail freedom of belief.

The Parliaments may not have intended this, but they have done little to re-balance protection of freedom of belief.

The problems relate to "offend or humiliate".


Usually offence or humiliation arises because the "victim" has not been given, or has not made time for, the opportunity to become educated about the issue causing them offence or humiliation.

If "offend or humiliate" were changed to "harass or vilify" then most of the contentious claims would cease.
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 25 Laws about "discrimination" are also being used to curtail freedom of belief.

If these laws were re-drafted as laws about "harassment", then most of the contentious claims would cease.

The problem with "discrimination" is that it is like cholesterol; there is good and bad "discrimination".

At school, we are taught to discriminate in favour of fruit and vegetable, and against confectionary.
In favour of our school teams, and against others (but only on the sport field, not in shops, markets and the like).

Then Parliament passes an Act that "discrimination" is in poor taste.

"Harassment" would avoid the ambiguity, and minimise the use of these Acts to curtail freedom of belief.
SUMMARY Please review the Acts about LGBT issues, harassment, and discrimination; and recommend re- drafting so as to provide positive protection to traditional belief systems, rather than a minor reference to them as an exemption.

regards from PD.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 25
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820695843.pdf (Australia)
For Christians, the right to freedom of religion and belief has been seriously eroded during the last few years as shown by the following examples: Anti-discrimination laws make almost any utterance on behalf of traditional Christianity liable to be taken as an offence.
The Catholic Bishop of Hobart was recently reported to the local anti discrimination commissioner for simply issuing a polite, carefully-worded circular re-affirming the age-old (not just Christian) understanding that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
In NSW a homosexual activist complained to the state ADB so many times about a Mr Bernard Gaynorâ€™s blogs opposing homosexual â€œmarriageâ€ that Gaynor would have been liable to over a $1,000,000 in fines (all, incredibly, payable to the activist himself) if Gaynorâ€™s appeal had not been upheld â€“ but only on the technicality that, living in Queensland, he was not subject to NSW anti discrimination laws.
In Victoria, a doctor conscientiously opposed to killing unborn babies is legally compelled to refer a pregnant patient wanting an abortion to another doctor not having such compunctions.

If some laws being pushed by socialists (ie ALP and Green Party MPs) are introduced, it would become illegal for a religion to employ only those in sympathy with its beliefs.

(A practice which, of course, would not apply to politicians!).
Likewise, if a redefinition of marriage to include â€œLGBTsâ€ occurs, there will be huge scope for litigation against businesses that conscientiously refuse to offer their services to such people.

There are already several well- documented examples from other countries where individuals and small businesses have been heavily fined for exercising their consciences in this way.
For Christians in Australia, the right to freedom of religious belief and practice, if not already a joke, is well on the way to becoming one â€“ and a bad one at that.

It is actually Christianity itself that is being discriminated against in Australia â€“ and in so many other countries of the so-called civilised western world â€“ today.

David P Ollerenshaw (Dr) Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 165
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820755978.pdf (Australia)
I don't think the Government has the right to approve these projects without the proper studies being done.

Communities and farmers should have the right to say no.

In projects that have already been approved, the damage has already been done and the farmers water and supply will never be the same.

Shame on the Government for allowing this to happen.

Greed!

Greed!

Greed!!!

Colleen
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820764768.pdf (Australia)
Australia has passed several laws that are counter to the United Nations International Charter of Human Rights.
they include the right to freedom of conscience the right to chose education for one’s children the right for freedom of association and peaceful demonstration the right of children to have a mother and a father the right to fully practise not just worship one’s religion Examples of these rights which have been trampled on in Australia are many and would fill many pages and there also many examples overseas in other so called Christian countries.
Yours Peter Couttie Dr Peter.M.Couttie Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 106
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820783006.pdf (Australia)
Dear Senators, My concern is that the right voices are being heard, not just the loudest voices.

Some noisy, if not 'unrighteous' groups have the ear of the politicians and their aim is to extinguish opposing voices.

Anti-Discrimination Laws like in Victoria were used to try and silence some worthy men.

May free speech rights be upheld in Australia in 2012.

Sincerely, Michael E. Cox
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820787152.pdf (Australia)
Everyone deserves the right to not be discriminated against!

YES!

I support the improvements and strengthened protections against discrimination in the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.

The draft could be reviewed by: 1.

Expanding the types of characteristics protected under the Bill.
Discrimination should be unlawful on the basis of the following additional characteristics: intersex, irrelevant criminal record, status as a victim of domestic or family violence, and social status (i.e.

homelessness, unemployment status or receipt of social security payments).

2.

Removing permanent and blanket exceptions relating to religious organisations.
While extending protections against discrimination on the basis of a person's religious beliefs should be supported, permanent and blanket exceptions which allow religious organisations to operate outside of accepted community standards should be removed.

3.

Strengthening the powers and functions of the Australian Human Rights Commission to enable it to effectively tackle discrimination, and resourcing the Commission accordingly.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820790467.pdf (Australia)
Dear Sir I am writing to express my full support for Senator Madigan’s “Health Insurance (Certain Types of Abortion) Amendment Bill 2013” I find it startling and appalling that any Government should consider using tax-payer funds to pay for any type of abortion in the first place.

To consider funding gender-selected abortions is just beyond belief.
I often wonder what are the ultra-feminists doing in such situations when it comes to primarily killing off the female species as it is happening for example in India.

Where are they now?

I as a woman and very much a feminist - it offensive and utterly incomprehensible that in the 21st century this issue should ever crop up.

in the truer sense - find I find this suggestion of gender-selection (or any abortion procedure): 1.

Discriminatory, 2.

A form of gendercide, 3.

Against all natural law, 4.


Not a life-threatening illness, 5.

A waste of tax-payer money, 6.

A war on women, 7.

Finally, repulsive to normal human beings.

Such a mentality of wanting to “select” what sex a child should be is: 1.

Hedonistic, 2.

Selfish, 3.

Dehumanising.

It may and will have the undesirable social consequences of: 1.

Family violence, 2.

Sex trafficking, 3.

Child abduction, 4.

Child abandonment, 5.

Women continually treated as objects, 6.

Viewing children as commodities.


Every child has the right to be treated as we ourselves would like to be treated; with dignity, respect and utmost respect no matter what the gender.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820969973.pdf (Belize)
Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) (Repeal) 1 BELIZE: CERTIFIED INSTITUTIONS (CHILDREN’S REFORMATION) (REPEAL) BILL, 2021 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES 1.

Short title.

2.

Repeal.

3.

Savings and transitional.

4.

Referential amendment.


2 Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) (Repeal) BELIZE: BILL AN ACT to repeal the Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) Act Chapter 121 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2011; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
(Gazetted ................................., 2021) BE IT ENACTED, by and with the advice and consent of the House of Representatives and Senate of Belize and by the authority of the same, as follows: Short title.

1.

This Act may be cited as the CERTIFIED INSTITUTIONS (CHILDREN’S REFORMATION) (REPEAL) ACT, 2021.

Repeal.

CAP.

121.

The Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) (Repeal) Act is 2. repealed.

Savings and transitional.
3.–(1) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) Act by this Act, the repeal shall not affect any– (a) right, privilege obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred under the Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) Act; (b) penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (c) investigation, legal proceeding, or any remedy of any right, penalty, forfeiture, or privilege obligation, punishment as stated under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above, liability Certified Institutions (Children’s Reformation) (Repeal) 3 (2) Any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy under sub-section (1)(c), may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment under sub-section (1)(b), may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed.
(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (1)– (a) a person who immediately before the coming into force of this Act was ordered by a court or the Minister to be sent to a certified institution and be there detained shall be deemed to have been ordered by the court or the Minister to be sent and detained in a residential care facility under the Social Service Agencies Act.

CAP.

45.
CAP.

45.

(b) any licence issued under the repealed Act which are in force at the commencement of this Act shall remain valid for the period of the licence.

(4) Every certified institution in operation immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall upon the coming into force of this Act, be deemed to be a Social Service Agency under the Social Service Agencies Act.
(5) The proprietor of a certified institution shall be subject to the provisions of the Social Service Agencies Act and comply with the requirements for registration and licensing under that Act.

CAP 45.

CAP.45.

4.

A reference in any other enactment to a certified institution is to be read as a reference to a Social Service Agency under the Social Service Agencies Act.

Referential amendment.

CAP 45.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820974881.pdf (Belize)
Designate New Holidays and Special Days Motion, 2021.
WHEREAS, Standing Order 26 of the House of Representatives provides for a Motion to be moved with the permission of Madam Speaker; AND WHEREAS, Belize is a free, democratic and independent nation thanks to the sacrifice and service of many people, but more particularly the Right Honourable George Price, Father of the Nation; AND WHEREAS, we believe that it is right and proper to honour the Father of the Nation, the Right Honourable George Price, by designating his birthday, the 15th day of January, as a public and bank holiday to memorialize his sacrifice and efforts in the achievement of this great nation’s independence; AND WHEREAS, today Belize is a beautiful tapestry of peoples of diverse ethnicities and cultures; AND WHEREAS, we wish to mark the importance of the emancipation of slaves in Belize on the 1st day of August 1834, when many of the ancestors of our fellow Belizeans of African descent were freed from their shackles who continued in their service as free persons to build what is today this great nation; AND WHEREAS, history records that the people of Belize, including the indigenous people of Belize, were never conquered by the Spanish, and as such, we wish to celebrate their heritage and also the cultural diversity of the great people of Belize, by either removing the 12th day of October as Columbus Day and re-designating that day, and establishing a committee to do so and to review all other public and bank holidays; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that: 1.
2.

3.
3.

The 15th day of January shall be a public and bank holiday in honour of the late, the Right Honourable George Price, the Father of the Nation, and be celebrated as George Price Day; The 1st day of August shall be a public and bank holiday to mark the importance of emancipation of the slaves in Belize and be celebrated as Emancipation Day; and The 12th day of October shall no longer be celebrated as Columbus Day and is to be re-designated by a committee to be formed to review the same and all holidays.