Needing to be questioned is the idea that ‘all human beings are deserving of equal respect and consideration’. This is clearly questionable, as there are many human beings who don’t go along with the theory and treat their fellows very badly – criminals, despots, terrorists etc. Are they really entitled to the same respect as decent human beings? To ‘deserve’ something, you have to earn it. The silly dishing out or human ‘rights’ to all and sundry is one of the biggest contributors to people getting away with things they should not be getting away with, in Australia and internationally.

Australia having a ‘deep political commitment to respecting all human beings equally’, as the authors would have it, would be a total nonsense in the current terror crisis.

One wonders how much their ever-so nice theories would stand up if they were victims of any of the anti-social characters they want to award ‘rights’ to

From the Article

1/ freedom of speech, conscience, religion.
2/ acceptance of diversity within society.

Now.. again, sounds good in a coffee shop with those of like mind, in the absense of the acrid smoke fading from the last explosion caused by those who take a different view.

PROBLEMS.

a) Freedom of CONSCIENCE, causes me to SPEAK, about RELIGION.

Just like it moved 2 pastors, one of whom had experienced persecution from those who did not share his faith, to speak out about what would happen if we simply let those of 'certain' diverse opinions flourish in our society.
They were sued and harrassed by those of that 'certain' ideology here in Australia who claimed they were 'vilifiying' them.
Now, with the benefit of some arrests of 22 people and hindsight, we change the word 'would' to...'did'.

We need to have freedom to register concern over a sudden unbalance in the federal court judge appointments where 6 out of 12 of the Victorian ones are all Aboriginal. Specially when land rights cases come before them.

b) Acceptance of Diversity ?

What kinds of diversity ? to what extent ? Do we accept a diversity which would remove the very freedom to criticize them. Or those who seek to promote sexual deviance as 'normal' to our infants and children through the education system ?

Do we accept the Paedophile political party in the Netherlands ?

Do we accept hard line Communists who's manifesto is 'The dictatorship of the Proletariat by violent revolution against entrenched Borgoise' ?

Of course not. To do so would be suicidal and plain stupid.

So..WORD to the Authors... get your act together and re-think the shallowness of your suppositions.
We, your readers are neither naive, or stupid and in case you were wondering, we don't have a social or cultural death wish.

We don't want 'slogans' (tolerance, acceptance, respect for difference' etc) we want well thought out argument based on truly enduring principles.

Typical silly article. Multiculture is 'betraying the values we champion' by allowing in an influx of migrants whose values are exactly opposite those of ours and our pioneers.
Magistrates and judges by their soft sentences are 'betraying our values' by letting those who rob and murder us to go on doing just that.
There are many who betray our values and quite a lot of them are in our parliament, our universities and our schools. Not to mention the media.
We have an uphill job trying to protect our values.

Australian values have been smothered by multiculturalism. Those eleutheromaniacs who set sail for our shores are confronted by the cherished prize of freedom and they find the experience frightening and unwholesome. After all, how on earth can a 19-year-old female wear a bikini on a hot Sunday afternoon at a Sydney beach. Surely she must be a slut or whore. Someone find her a black tent and quick.

We did have equal respect for all people and how was that rewarded? They arrive here and quickly develop an unwonted ability to offend. They complain about our alcohol or gambling. Those things never troubled them when they were accepting our foreign aid. That foreign aid was generated through taxes. Even the alcohol industry and the gambling industry pay taxes. Do these same apathists ever stop to think that the money which props up their ‘special’ schools may have come from the taxes paid by the frivolous perfume industry? Wouldn't they go into conniptions if they knew that.

As far as I know the motto “a fair go for all” applied to Australians. Some of those entering our country will never be Australian.

Can someone please tell me what "Australian values" are.

No, really. Please.

Mateship? What about women?

Tolerance? A fair go? As long as your skin's the right colour, or you don't visit the wrong type of temple.

I don't know what it is exactly that we're supposed to be "protecting", but it seems to me that we're going backwards by the day with all this jingoistic hogwash. White Australia Policy, here we come!

Boaz,

It seems to me it is obvious already from the argument made in the article that the outlandish propositions you make would not be included in the "diversity" considered, the authors clearly state that the basis of our society is in the value of equal respect and rights for all human beings so OBVIOUSLY pedophilia cannot be included amongst the rights people have because it breaches the right of children not to be abused.

Adovocation of pedophilia is a bit more tricky, some people do believe that the right to free speech is so important to our democratic political process that it is simply too dangerous to ever allow goverment to decide what can or cannot be said and who can or cannot speak. They think that talking usually does not breech rights, only acting does, and so it is acting we legislate, So advocation of phedopilia is ok, phedophilia itself is not.

Others believe that the right to free speech should be curtailed when its exercise may result in other rights being violated. So if we believe that advocation can lead to practise then we are entitled to oulaw it. As we do with "hate speech" for example.

It is for us to decide. These are the debates we need to have. But the bedrock of the debate must be the best way to protect people's rights, otherwise we slide into dictatorship and one view gets imposed on everybody else.

You speak as if you had the solution already, as if everything was plain and clear. But then you are very quick to claim for yourself the right to freedom of conscience religion and speech. So underlying the importance of these values is shallow only when they apply to people you disapprove of? and I don't mean pedophiles Boaz, don't try that line, I already said that practising that is unacceptable!