The likes of Howard Glenn never get around to telling us just what these human 'rights' we are about to lose are. They just keep repeating the same old dogma in the hope that if they do it long enough, people will start to believe them. Perhaps they don't tell spell it out because there is no substance to their claims.

I'm with you on this one Leigh.

Every time someone starts rattling on about human rights - like HREOC - all that happens is that I get rights taken away from me. I prefer my law to come through elected politicians, not from unaccountable commissions or the judiciary of the day, thank you.

There are some 200+ nations on Earth and Australia would be much closer to the top than racing to the bottom - as Howard Glenn would try and have us believe.

When Australia's human rights are at the bottom, I might choose to migrate overseas, otherwise, I think we are doing pretty well at the moment.

These kind of arguments - comparing us with the worst abusers in the world are pointless. At least Howard didn't compare the "desert detention camps" with the Nazi Camps/Soviet Gulags though like so many of the I hate Australia crowd do.

Although his contempt for the four-times elected conservative government rings loud and clear with his throwaway line about IR reform, which does nothing for the article but take a cheap shot.

t.u.s.

Howard,
Wrong move mate, rule number 1. Never provoke Australians about rights they enjoy but don't know how lucky they are to enjoy them or understand how these often simple rights are not enjoyed by millions of others. Privlidge creates blindness.

2. Rule 2. Don't expect your critics here to be widely read on anything beyond their favourite newspaper or listening to their pet talk back radio show. While even the most simple peasant in a forth world country knows about human rights and the different charters developed since WW2 and Geneva, you can't assume people in first world nations to have the same depth of human experience and understanding. Sad but true.

I took a photo yesterday of a 77 yr old man bussing tables in Singapore, he does it to survive, looks pretty happy to have a source of income, most likely does not have family to support him.

And I come and read this whining by the author of this article, who goes on about 'Human Rights'..... as if they are somehow etched in Meteors of stone, with some cosmological "force" that gives them some divine validity.

The only divinely inspired, and etched in stone (literally) list of human rights, were/are the 10 commandments, which, if followed will give us all the community we long for, safe from oppression and suffering.

Without the first commandment, "Love the Lord your God"... 'human rights' will be decided by the 'make-it-up-as-u-go' crowd, by the current top dog on the Security council pile, or by the next ascending one who sees more fit to change things in their own interests.

I'd love to see how our 'sentimentalist/human rights' crowd would answer said top dog who says "Now... we will do things THIS way".....
They can never say more than 'We think'.... who is the UN ? what.. is the UN CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS ? does it have any more validity than the desire of those who would enforce it ? or enforce its non adherance for the furtherance of their empire.?

My my, the sneering brigade are out in force today.

Forget your pet peeves for a moment, and the fact that the very phrase "human fights" brings you out in hives, and ponder the following.

Your sixteen year-old son doesn't come home one evening. You report him missing the next day, but nothing comes of it. A fortnight later (are there any of you who can empathise with a distraught parent at this point?) he is delivered back to your door in a police car, having been arrested two weeks ago on someone's idea of "reasonable grounds" that he poses a terrorist threat. Like that Brazilian guy in London, he might just have been in the wrong place, at the wrong time; the basis for detention is simply "reasonable suspicion".

There are no "rights" in this form of detention, human or otherwise. Your son is not permitted to call anyone, in case it sets off a bomb. If the police are still "suspicious" after fourteen days, they can electronically tag your son for up to a year, or place him under house arrest - or both - for the same period. All this time, no-one is obliged to provide you with a reason that you can argue with, or evidence that you can refute.

Just to make it interesting, he can be re-arrested immediately after his release, for a further period or period of fourteen days.

But surely the case has to be reviewed by a judge?

Well, yes. But the judge is not allowed to review any evidence, or to come to a conclusion on whether the grounds are reasonable. Only to ensure that the letter of the law has been complied with.

I don't care what label you put on that kind of society, but it sucks.

When we give up liberties such as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty - i.e., to be allowed to see on what basis we are being held, and have that examined by a dispassionate third party - we take one more step towards a functional police state.