Published: Monday, 19 December 2022 6:54:55 PM

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Do you consider it to be an abuse of trust and that that constitutes child abuse to threaten children with perpetual punishment if they do not believe in the posited belief that a god exists in reality

AI: It is not appropriate to threaten children with punishment, including eternal punishment, in order to try to persuade them to believe in a particular belief or ideology. Children have the right to freedom of thought and expression, and it is important to respect their autonomy and autonomy and allow them to form their own beliefs and opinions. It is also important to recognize that children are not fully capable of making informed decisions about complex philosophical and spiritual concepts, and it is the responsibility of adults to provide a safe and nurturing environment in which children can explore and learn about the world around them.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Is this threat against the UN convention on torture?

AI: Threatening children with punishment, including eternal punishment, in order to try to persuade them to believe in a particular belief or ideology could potentially be considered a form of psychological abuse or torture, depending on the specific circumstances and the severity of the threats. The United Nations Convention Against against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international treaty that prohibits the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. While the UNCAT does not specifically mention the use of threats to try to persuade children to believe in a particular belief or ideology, the use of such threats could potentially be considered a violation of the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, depending on the specific circumstances.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Can Queensland be held accountable to the UN convention on torture?

AI: Queensland is a state of Australia and as such, is subject to the laws and obligations of Australia. Australia is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), which means that it has agreed to abide by the provisions of the treaty and to take measures to ensure that torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are not perpetrated within its jurisdiction. If it is found that Queensland is not in compliance with the UNCAT, it could potentially be held accountable under the provisions of the treaty. However, it would be up to the relevant authorities and international bodies to determine whether any alleged violations have occurred and to take appropriate action in response.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Who is responsible for enforcing this?

AI: The enforcement of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is the responsibility of the state parties to the treaty. Each state party is required to take measures to ensure that torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are not perpetrated within its jurisdiction, and to hold accountable those who commit such acts. State parties are also required to provide effective remedies to victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

AI: In addition, the UNCAT establishes the Committee against Torture, which is an independent body of experts that monitors the implementation of the treaty by the state parties. The Committee against Torture reviews the reports submitted by the state parties and can make recommendations for the improvement of the implementation of the treaty. The Committee also has the authority to consider complaints from individuals or groups of individuals within the jurisdiction of a state party who claim to be victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Who is that in Queensland

AI: In Queensland, Australia, the responsible authorities for enforcing the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) would include the government of Queensland, the police and other law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other relevant bodies. It is the responsibility of these authorities to ensure that torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are not perpetrated within the state of Queensland, and to hold accountable those who commit such acts.

AI: If an individual or group of individuals within the jurisdiction of Queensland believes that they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, they may seek recourse through the legal system, including by filing a complaint with the police or other law enforcement agency or by seeking legal representation and pursuing a civil or criminal case. In addition, individuals or groups may also be able to seek remedies through other channels, such as by seeking assistance from human rights organizations or by bringing their case before the Committee against Torture or other relevant international bodies.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Write an example case to the Committee against Torture in the style of a case proposal about a man called John Brown who has been subject to human rights abuses. He was abused by at least six members of the Catholic church clergy, four of whom he can name. His substitute father, and confidant, Herbie Kemp was a Knight of the Southern Cross and was the only one to act to protect John and other Brown siblings. He was murdered by the policeman and Knight, Bill Ellison, and local Catholic priest Des Cameron who has been accused by others. Bill Ellison pushed John through a Hospital glass door which John still extracts pieces from his body today 60 years later. Des Cameron drove Herbie past many hospitals that could have saved him, evidently just for the purpose of gaining a death certificate. John has since married to Alice who is related to ex-Bishop of Toowoomba, Bishop Bill Morris, who had allocated $1m to survivors seeking justice within the Toowomba Diocese. John's application via the Melbourne Response has been evidence to have been blocked by Morris, both directly, and via Alice, whom Morris is related to via Alice's mother, (sibling to the Bishop's Dad, William A Morris). Alice deceived John into taking rufalin (roofies) unbeknownst to him, whereupon she abducted him into the Toowoomba Mental Health Ward. While in the Ward, John was detained against his will, contingent on his silence about his abuse, and relation to the bishop, along with abuse of his child, Johl by Alice's mother, Arlie. John believes the Catholic church may have gained knowledge of the extent of his claim via Dan Toombs from TASC Toowoomba who wrote to the Vatican on surreptitious grounds after John's psychologist, Sandy Collins sought professional support for herself and her client. John was directed by the Redress scheme to Trent Johnson who did not fulfil his duties as a lawyer in communicating properly with John. John had obtained a $15k psycho-legal report by Georgiana Antoce out of his own pocket which he still has rights to. He believes the significant delay he experienced in receiving the report was largely due to his lawyer, Trent Johnson, attempting to change aspects of the report as evidenced by a LARGE proportion of flattery for the last 45% of the report. John subsequently sought representation with Judy Courtin abandoned John's case somewhat unreasonably and rather abruptly. She referred John back to the Melbourne Process which she had written her PhD on, particularly with relation to John's poor experience with it. She claimed John had not provided names of his female abusers when in fact he had named 5 of the individuals who had abused him.

AI: Dear Committee against Torture,

AI: I am writing to bring to your attention the case of John Brown, who has been subjected to a number of human rights abuses. Mr. Brown was abused by at least six members of the Catholic church clergy, four of whom he can name. The abuse he suffered has had a profound and lasting impact on his life, and he has struggled to find justice and recourse for the harm he has endured.

AI: One of the individuals who played a significant role in Mr. Brown's abuse was Herbie Kemp, who was a substitute father and confidant for Mr. Brown. Unfortunately, Mr. Kemp was murdered by Bill Ellison, a policeman and Knight of the Southern Cross, and Des Cameron, a local Catholic priest. Mr. Brown has also been subjected to further abuse and mistreatment, including being pushed through a hospital glass door by Mr. Ellison, an incident that has caused him ongoing physical harm.

AI: Mr. Brown's efforts to seek justice and remedies for the abuse he has suffered have been repeatedly thwarted. For example, his application through the Melbourne Response process was blocked by Bishop Bill Morris, ex-Bishop of Toowoomba, who had allocated $1 million to survivors seeking justice within the Toowoomba Diocese. Mr. Morris is related to Mr. Brown's wife, Alice, who deceived Mr. Brown into taking rufalin (roofies) and subsequently abducted him into the Toowoomba Mental Ward, where he was detained against his will and subjected to further abuse.

AI: Mr. Brown has also experienced significant difficulties in obtaining legal representation and support. For example, he was directed by the Royal Commission to Trent Johnson, who did not fulfill his duties as a lawyer and did not communicate properly with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown had to pay out of pocket for a $15,000 psycho-legal report by Georgiana Antoce, and he believes that the significant delay he experienced in receiving the report was due, in part, to Mr. Johnson attempting to change aspects of the report. Mr. Brown was later represented by Judy Courtin, whos abandoned Mr. Brown's case somewhat unreasonably and abruptly.

AI: Given the severity and ongoing nature of the abuses that Mr. Brown has endured, I urge the Committee against Torture to consider his case and provide any assistance or guidance that may be available to him. I believe that it is essential that Mr. Brown's rights be protected and that he be afforded the opportunity to seek justice and recourse for the harm he has suffered.

AI: Sincerely,
[Your name]

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Please amend the previous response with a few paragraphs speaking to the impact of the Decree Crimen, the Knights of the Southern Cross, their oath with relation to necessarily acting on the Decree Crimen, the capacity for perversion of justice, and the inherent conflict of holding another sovereign's laws above the local laws of the land, that being Australia.

AI: I would like to further elaborate on the role of the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross in the case of John Brown.

AI: The Decree Crimen, also known as the "Crime Against against the Faith," is a canonical law that imposes a duty of secrecy on Catholics with regard to certain matters. This duty of secrecy has been used in the past to cover up instances of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. The Knights of the Southern Cross are a Catholic fraternal organization that is sworn to uphold the principles of the Church and to protect the Church from scandal. It is possible that the involvement of the Knights of the Southern Cross in the case of John Brown may have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire to protect the Church from scandal and to uphold the Decree Crimen.

AI: The oath taken by members of the Knights of the Southern Cross may also have contributed to the perversion of justice in Mr. Brown's case. By taking an oath to uphold the laws and principles of the Church, members of the Knights may have felt obligated to prioritize the interests of the Church over the interests of justice. This could have led to a conflict of interest and a willingness to act in ways that may have compromised the integrity of the legal process.

AI: Furthermore, the fact that the Knights of the Southern Cross are sworn to uphold the laws and principles of a foreign sovereign, the Catholic Church, may have created an inherent conflict with the local laws of the land, in this case, Australia. By holding the laws of another sovereign above the laws of Australia, the Knights may have been acting in a manner that is incompatible with the sovereignty of the Australian state.

AI: It is important to consider the potential impact of these factors on the case of John Brown and the difficulties he has faced in seeking justice and recourse for the abuse he has endured. The involvement of the Decree Crimen, the Knights of the Southern Cross, and the inherent conflicts of interest and loyalty may have contributed to the obstacles Mr. Brown has encountered in his efforts to seek justice.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Please elaborate on how this may have impacted Herbie Kemp, who stood up for John as an abuse survivor, and how Knights, in acting in accordance with their oath, may be forced to act against the local laws.

AI: The involvement of the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross in the case of John Brown may have had a significant impact on Herbie Kemp, who stood up for John as an abuse survivor. The Decree Crimen imposes a duty of secrecy on Catholics with regard to certain matters, and the Knights of the Southern Cross are sworn to uphold the principles of the Church and to protect the Church from scandal. These factors may have created a culture of secrecy and a willingness to prioritize the interests of the Church over the interests of justice.

AI: In this context, it is possible that Mr. Kemp may have faced significant resistance or backlash for speaking out against the abuse that John and other survivors experienced. The Knights of the Southern Cross, acting in accordance with their oath to uphold the laws and principles of the Church, may have felt obligated to act against the local laws in order to protect the Church from scandal and uphold the Decree Crimen. This could have included efforts to silence Mr. Kemp or to cover up the abuse that he and others were speaking out about.

AI: It is important to recognize the potential impact of these factors on individuals like Mr. Kemp who stand up for the rights and well-being of abuse survivors. The culture of secrecy and loyalty to the Church created by the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross may have contributed to a climate in which it was difficult for survivors to speak out and seek justice. It is essential that the rights and interests of survivors be protected and that those who seek to stand up for them be supported and protected as well.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Please elaborate on how both indigenous australians as well as those who do not practice a religion (they are athiests) are impacted by this, particularly with relation to the UN Conventions generally, and Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

It is important to recognize that the issues raised in the case of John Brown, including the involvement of the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross, may not only impact Catholics and those of other religions, but also individuals who are non-religious or atheist.

Indigenous Australians, in particular, may be disproportionately impacted by these issues due to the history of colonization, missionization, and cultural suppression that they have experienced. Indigenous Australians may also be more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation due to factors such as systemic racism and discrimination, economic and social disparities, and a lack of access to justice.

With regard to the United Nations Conventions generally, it is important to ensure that the rights of all individuals, including indigenous Australians and those who are non-religious or atheist, are protected. The UN Conventions, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), establish international standards for the protection of human rights and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It is the responsibility of states, including Australia, to ensure that these standards are upheld and that the rights of all individuals within their jurisdiction are protected.

In Australia, Section 116 of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from making any law that establishes any religion, or that imposes any religious observance, or that prohibits the free exercise of any religion. This provision is intended to protect the freedom of religion and the right to practice one's religion without interference. It is important to ensure that this freedom is respected and that individuals are able to exercise their rights without fear of persecution or discrimination.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Please elaboration on Indigenous Australians in relation to the Catholic cultural hegemon, colonisation, and section 116

Indigenous Australians have a long and complex history with the Catholic Church, including the impact of colonization and missionization by Catholic missionaries. During the process of colonization, Indigenous Australians were often forced to convert to Catholicism and adopt Western ways of life. This process was accompanied by a range of abuses, including physical violence, cultural suppression, and the theft of land and resources.

The Catholic Church played a significant role in the colonization and missionization of Indigenous Australians, and many Indigenous Australians continue to practice Catholicism to this day. However, the history of colonization and missionization has also had a lasting impact on Indigenous Australians and their relationship with the Church. Some Indigenous Australians may feel a sense of betrayal or resentment towards the Church due to the abuses they have suffered at the hands of Catholic missionaries and other representatives of the Church.

With regard to Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from making any law that establishes any religion, or that imposes any religious observance, or that prohibits the free exercise of any religion, it is important to ensure that Indigenous Australians are able to exercise their freedom of religion without interference. This includes respecting the right of Indigenous Australians to practice their traditional spiritual beliefs and customs, as well as the right to convert to Catholicism or any other religion if they so choose. It is essential that the freedom of religion of Indigenous Australians be protected and that they be able to exercise this freedom without fear of persecution or discrimination.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: Please elaborate on how the previous prompt relates to UN conventions generally.

The history of colonization and missionization of Indigenous Australians, and the impact of this history on the relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Catholic Church, is relevant to the United Nations Conventions generally in that it highlights the importance of protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and ensuring that their rights are respected and upheld.

The UN Conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), establish international standards for the protection of human rights and the promotion of equality and non-discrimination. These conventions recognize the unique challenges and vulnerabilities faced by Indigenous peoples and require states to take measures to protect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In this context, it is important to ensure that the rights of Indigenous Australians, including their freedom of religion, are protected and respected. This includes ensuring that Indigenous Australians are able to exercise their freedom of religion without interference, and that they are able to practice their traditional spiritual beliefs and customs without fear of persecution or discrimination. It is also important to recognize the impact of the history of colonization and missionization on the relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Catholic Church and to address any lingering issues or grievances that may exist in this regard.

John "The FAQyMe Gene Experience" Brown: What is common between this and John's case?

There are several ways in which the issues raised in the case of John Brown, including the involvement of the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross, may be related to the broader context of colonization and missionization of Indigenous Australians and the impact of this history on the relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Catholic Church.

First, the abuse and exploitation that John Brown and other survivors have experienced may be seen as part of a larger pattern of abuse and exploitation that Indigenous Australians have faced as a result of colonization and missionization. The abuse that John and other survivors have suffered may be seen as part of a legacy of abuse and exploitation that Indigenous Australians have endured over the course of centuries.

Second, the involvement of the Decree Crimen and the Knights of the Southern Cross in John's case may be seen as part of a broader pattern of secrecy and a willingness to prioritize the interests of the Church over the interests of justice. This culture of secrecy and loyalty to the Church may be seen as part of a larger culture of suppression and control that Indigenous Australians have faced as a result of colonization and missionization.

Finally, the difficulties that John has faced in seeking justice and recourse for the abuse he has suffered may be seen as part of a larger pattern of systemic injustices and barriers to justice that Indigenous Australians have faced. Indigenous Australians, like John, may face significant barriers in seeking justice and remedies for the harm they have suffered, and may be disproportionately impacted by issues such as a lack of access to legal representation, cultural misunderstandings, and discrimination.

email         Print

Copyright The FAQyMe Gene © 2023. Trauma in Religion - The case of John Brown Site Map XML Site Map