A blind man’s right to wear blinds is protected by the Australian Constitution, a new blind-rights website says.
The website blind-williemctell.com says the man should have the right to take part in all aspects of life with a blind partner.
It says the Constitution protects the right of blind people to wear their own blinds and has no application to the blind man.
The man should be allowed to make decisions for himself about the things that affect his life, including wearing his blinds, the website says, adding the Constitution does not say blind people should not be allowed “to make decisions about the way they are living”.
The blind man should also have the option of deciding what information to put on his blindfold and not having his blindness visible to others, the site says.
However, the man is not entitled to make those decisions.
Mr McCulloch said the blind rights group would support Mr McCullocks case in court, and would challenge the Federal Government’s claim that the blind people’s right is protected under the Constitution.
“There is no constitutional protection for blind people,” Mr McCullock said.
The website says the law protects the rights of blind Australians to participate in all life-related activities, including being in a blind car. “
The only constitutional protection is a personal and personal choice that the individual makes for himself.”
The website says the law protects the rights of blind Australians to participate in all life-related activities, including being in a blind car.
“What the blind person should be able to do is choose when they’re blind and whether or not they want to wear a blindfold or not, but what that person chooses to do, it doesn’t affect the rights and obligations of a blind person,” Mr McDougall said.
The Federal Government is arguing that the right for blind Australians not to be allowed by law to wear certain things is an essential right and that blind Australians do not have a right to make these choices.
But Mr McCullok said it was “absurd” for the Federal Minister to say the Federal Parliament did not have the power to make the decisions about what blind people could and could not do.
“We are not here to debate the constitutionality of the legislation,” he said.
Mr McDoughall said the Federal Court was the appropriate forum to address the matter.
He said the man was entitled to decide what information was acceptable to put in his blind bag and what information should be kept private.
“That’s the question that needs to be asked,” he told 7.30.
If you’re going to put a blind man in a position of being in the blind house or blinds in the car, how are you going to enforce the privacy of that?”