I agree with you regarding the identification of a society with someone who is seen as an innocent victim of forces outside her control. I question, however, whether a Bill of Rights would have helped in Corby's case as it hinges on the laws of another country. And though in principle I agree with a Bill of Rights, the amount of dogma surrounding the US Bill of Rights makes me wonder if it does not reduce a society's need to determine right and wrong as a collective group as and when the occasion deems it necessary.

On the other hand I can see the comfort in having the basic rights of citizens of Australia being agreed to by the citizens of Australia and entrenched in the Constitution. The problem is that to do so puts the drafting of the rights of Australian citizens in the hands of a few (Parliament) and the interpretation of what was drafted in the hands of even fewer (the High Court). And let us not forget how members of the High Court are appointed - by the government of the day. For my part, I would prefer for legislation to enact the laws of the land as and when the need arises.

Essentially a government-influenced judicial-interpretation of what are my rights as an Australian citizen just does not appeal to me.

I have had important posts deleted off this online forum because they conflicted with the current campaign to overpopulate Sydney for the profit of a few individuals and at the expense of the majority of Sydnesiders.

To wit, we do not have a constitutionalised freedom of speech here in Australia. And it has been long written in history that a human being who cannot freely express his thoughts is just a slave. In the modern competitive world, part of that freedom of expression entails freedom of access to media forums.

Unfortunately, there are some down sides to a bill of rights, but if it guarantees all Australians freedom of expression in public media, like they have in the USA, then a Bill Of Rights would pay for itself over and over and over.

As for this post lasting only a few days here?
You don't think this is a Democracy do you?

Just to clarify KAEP's spurious claim that we have deleted some of his posts, I can confirm that his posts have never been censored.

The one and only occasion that a post from KAEP was removed from this forum was an accidental double-post of the 08/06/2005 2:55:55 PM comment found here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3526#8238. The duplicate post, which appeared 30 seconds earlier at 08/06/2005 2:53:25 PM, was removed.

All posts, including those that have been "deleted", are retained in the system for moderator reference. I can categorically state that there has been no moderation of any of KAEP's posts.

A complete history of KAEP's post activity can be found here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6221&show=history

Posts may be removed by a moderator if they violate our acceptable use policy (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp), or if they contravene the user conduct agreement described on our legal page (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal).

Regards,

Lachlan
Software Engineer, On Line Opinion

To Lachlan and Editors,

1. Apologies for assuming posts had been deleted when they did not appear under 'last month' in the discussion index. They were posted within the last month so I still don't know why that is so.
If such a glitch occurs in future I will send you an email. I promise.

2. This forum is complex and until today I was unaware of the User index feature and its ability to show all posts by user. I will now reread the introductory material and see what other bits and pieces I am missing or I am hazy about.

3. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Editors and Lachlan for a brilliant forum setup and what is possibly the only truly uncensored free speech venue in this country.

4 I will also publish this apology in the New York Times Environment Forum where I had mentioned deletion of my posts on this forum.

quoting from Daniels article -
1 “Ultimately, we know our lives are built on a fragile system ….”
2 “…….that is no more perfect than the next….. “
3 “….We might not admit it, but we certainly feel threatened by it.”

1 All freedoms are “fragile” – they rely on the mutual respect of men – a chicken egg is “fragile if you drop it – but will withstand tremendous end pressure because of its shape – thus “fragility” is conditional.

2 No system is perfect – but contemporary democracies – based on the Westminster and similar models, are the best the world has produced thus far – hence their ability to outlive all other systems of “nationalist” or “socialist” enshrined orders.

3 I, personally, do not feel threatened by our system – I have no reason to – I work within it to support those things I feel are worthy of support and criticise freely those things I disagree with.

What has all this to do with the Corby woman? – nothing – she is just a low life drug courier, living on the proceeds of crime who happened to be so dumb she couriered drugs to a country where they have decided her crime deserves the death penalty – oh that we had such resolve here too (And from what seems to be mentioned in the press post the conviction – her lawyers, family and associates in Australia have no idea how to behave either).

KAEP - get over it – you sound like you are just full of wind.