The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The argument for a Bill of Rights > Comments

The argument for a Bill of Rights : Comments

By Julian Burnside, published 1/8/2007

Even a decade ago it would have been difficult to foresee the erosion of human rights in Australia we have seen under the present government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Hey I am white, heterosexual and male.

I have never heard males being mentioned in the context of human rights or social justice.

I maybe cynical, but I have long come to believe that as a white heterosexual male, I do not have the right to have human rights.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 8:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Knowing Julian Burnside's politics, I'm not going to bother reading his article.

George Williams is the regular champion for a Bill of Rights, and he has done the subject to death quite well. We really don't need to be harangued further.

A Bill if Rights is preferred only by anti-democrats who, unable to get their way via the democratic process, long for rule by unelected judges who share their autocratic values.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:11:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Should we have some mechanism which prevents parliaments from making laws which are unjust, or which offend basic values, even if those laws are otherwise within the scope of Parliament’s powers?"

Considering issues raised in the article (no matter who wrote it) and only this morning reading the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on Australia's sedition laws, my answer is YES.
Posted by davsab, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:25:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent and timely article from Julian Burnside. If ever Australia needed a Bill of Rights (or some similar instrument), the increasingly draconian legislation enacted by the Howard government over the past decade demands that we need one now.

Indeed, the self-serving and proudly ignorant splutterings that began this thread are good examples of why we need a Bill of Rights - to protect us from the acquiescence of that large proportion of the electorate to the legislative excesses of the government that they, after all, elected.

Under our version of 'democracy', we get the parliaments we collectively deserve. That is precisely why we need an independent instrument such as a Bill of Rights to protect us between elections.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know julian, as qc who has worked through this legal system to high court, one requirement when writting to public is describe the people and structure of those whom hold power and authority first...

Yes, parliament makes laws, debate on outstanding issues and solutions...which could/should take months to years...to complete natural cycle to producing written law and crown ascent before it becomes applicable...Problem...how did anit-terrrorism bill get passed to law so quickly...some politians said they were given this fat bundle of law the night before deliberation...So a legal mind says some force with lot of power is pushing events to go outside limits of due process...right?

Now the 'Australian government'...the media often makes this to be the same as prime minister...when you know that 'Australian-government=crown'...but the corporate media not once to my knowledge writes this or assesses crown actions...again legal mind thinks the crown as the largest coporation on earth(guessed as little is publically known about crown) stands to benefit by corrutping process...to quick power then to money...as a possible vested interest...right?

And third is of course judiciary whom apply the law within the limits of accepted practice to effect an outcome within limits of 'fair and just'...but they are all employees...crown employees...and their conduct hangs on a thin string called 'morality to duty' which easily cut for benefit...by now a legal mind should be reeling with the power and authority crown weilds and how is it being used...especially as a body managed by the people to oversee crown activities has not been allowed/prevented formed...so nobody outside crown knows exactly what they are doing...

So the point is bill of rights, or any other law, can be passed...but if they are not applied to effect the 'fair and just' outcome...then the duty arises to address the corrupting process that is preventing it in the first place...right?...so is the crown perverting due process and justice while paid by tax payers money for its service to run the government?...to further step of now thinking its power is beyond civil/criminal process...this I think should have been core theme of your article...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think a bill of rights could be couched in simple, unambiguous terms. It's not too hard. It doesn't have to be legalistically watertight. It just needs to be a simple creed to focus the national psyche.

Although we would give it a name, The Australian Bill of Rights, it would encompass our aspirations for the whole of humanity. It could not hint at nationality or nationalism. It could be copied by any country.

Should we worry about "stuff"? Let's leave wealth and property to common law. That's pretty hard though, as we are not used to seeing another person apart from his/her stuff. Happiness, aspiration and fulfilment have become so hopelessly entangled with STUFF.

If we try and create something like a Swiss Army knife, we might miss the point.

Maybe we need something which is deliberately vulnerable and fragile, so that the task of upholding it is a never-ending, but joyous and inclusive struggle, the act of which draws us together despite our circumstances. Like a new-born baby makes you feel. Can that be put into words?

Would it be sufficient if it was simply something that we could chain to the bulldozer tracks of a wayward government?
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:34:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm interested to see people opposing the idea who openly stated they didn't even read the article. "I shall comment, even though I'm uninformed." At least that honesty lets us know how much we should value _your_ opinion.

I used to be against a Bill of Rights, thinking that if our rights were restricted to what was explicitly laid out, that'd leave the government free to do as it pleased in everything else; the American experience is informative here.

But now I've seen that the government will always occupy the legal limbos, whether it's the legal limbo around a Bill of Rights, or the legal limbo around the Westminster tradition, or the legal limbo between state and federal. I've seen that they will in fact _create_ legal limbos, as for example in Nauru and PNG with the "Pacific Solution". So now I think we need a Bill of Rights, we need some minimum safe ground for ourselves.

What's rarely mentioned in these discussions is separation of powers, between the executive, judiciary and legislative. Abuses of human rights are generally at the hands of the executive, only rarely the legislative or judiciary. So a Bill of Rights out to talk about keeping them separate.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:54:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think a Bill of Rights is an excellent idea. It is pretty clear that this current Federal government has no respect for the seperation of powers and sees fit to simply override any law (or legal judgment) that gets in the way of its political ambitions. Unfortunately, where one government has been, so others will follow. Without a serious attempt to claw back citizen rights and the appropriate balance between the powers of the state, I fully expect other governments (whatever their nominal political persuasion) will simply follow suit.
Posted by matilda, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:07:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH says: 'Hey I am white, heterosexual and male. I have never heard males being mentioned in the context of human rights or social justice.'

Never heard of David Hicks? Andrew Wilkie? Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey? Where have you been, JamesH?

Leigh says: 'Knowing Julian Burnside's politics, I'm not going to bother reading his article.' So there, that'll teach him, won't it Leigh? Your mind can only take so much.

It's all a mind-polluting conspiracy isn't it Leigh? As you say, 'A Bill if Rights (sic) is preferred only by anti-democrats who, unable to get their way via the democratic process, long for rule by unelected judges who share their autocratic values.' Let's do away with the courts, Leigh, and bung those pesky Human Rights types in gaol, eh?

For the serious people, three reports that are worth a read:

Media Reporters Sans Frontières ranked Australia only 35th in media freedom in 2006 - behind such nations as Benin, Costa Rica, South Korea, Mauritius and Ghana. http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cm2006_as-2.pdf

The 2006 US State Department Report on Australia's Human Rights record drew attention to some areas of concern including press freedom. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78766.htm

Rights Australia, working with the National Association of Community Legal Centres and the Human Rights Law Resource Centre and another thirty NGOs were critical of the Australian Government's response to the UN's report on human rights in Australia.

The concerns included the Government's avoidance of transparency about human rights in Australia and the poor example Australia is setting, particularly as a proponent of improvements to the world's human rights protection machinery.
http://www.rightsaustralia.org.au/articles115.html

These groups are now working on a "shadow report" to give a different perspective on what's really been happening in Australia in the last few years.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:35:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Burnside said:

"Most people of goodwill understand, even if only vaguely, that living in a complex society requires all members of society to adhere to a commonly agreed set of norms and ideals. These are usually so basic to our thinking that we rarely give them any attention."

Yes..but MOST LAWYERS fully understand, that they are there to represent 'the law' and NOT morality, Justice or good will.

I've seen this in the case of the Terrorism Trial in Melbourne, and others of us have experienced this personally. Robert comes to mind.

I HEREBY PROMOTE MR BURNSIDE TO "PHARISEE- FIRST CLASS" Why ? because they prided themselves on knowledge of the Jewish law.. 1000s of laws.. "You cannot eat an egg laid on the Sabbath" etc etc ad- absurdum.

So, Mr Burnside, and supporters of a 'bill of rights' are seeking to basically take control of our legal system in the name of vested political interests and opinions, rather than caring about justice itself.
WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS and they are enshrined in our legal code. They boil down to "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

The criminal code proscribes specific punishments for specific crimes, ok..we can add to the list of 'crimes' anytime we like.

But this BILL OF RIGHTS garbage is just a thinly disguised attempt to FORCE AND IMPOSE certain 'left wing/progressive' ideas on the rest of us.

Its the thin end of the wedge..the camels nose in the tent door.. a TROJAN HORSE.

The people Frank mentioned are not equally straight forward. David Hicks.. forget human rights mate..he was guarding A TANK for the Taliban. Its not our "right" to tell the Americans how to process stupid Australians they catch as ENEMIES on the battle field.
Who ever said it was?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:49:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a (political) right is a freedom enjoyed by a member of the ruling class. other people have privileges, which can be withdrawn at the discretion of the ruling class. ozzies only have privileges, demonstrated by the recent removal of judicial oversight of police activities, such as arrest, supervision, imprisonment.

in oz, the ruling class is parliament. they make and break privileges, direct the police and army to carry out their will without consulting any other sector of society.

the reason british societies can not have a real bill of rights, is that the legal center of power is the crown, not the people.

in a democracy, the citizens unite to mutually defend themselves and each other from enemies foreign and domestic. assembled and united, they have sovereign power, and from that power, rights.
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE NEXT HORRIFIC STEP......

after a bill of rights, which does NOT recognize the danger in certain ideas.. religious especially, will have people who are espousing the most unjust, horrific, decadent, defiled, degenerate ideas being PROTECTED. That would include NAZI's and the Ananda Marga, and the "Children of God". It will protect pedophiles and open the way for Nambla wanna be's to advance their degenerate agenda's politically.

(See the Netherlands)

If you want a bill of rights.. how about THIS one.. "The right to criticize ideas and doctrines which make you feel uncomfortable".. such as the 'doctrine' of
-"Homosexual behaviour is normal and acceptable"
-"Adults having sex with children can be a positive experience"
-"If people leave our religion, they must be killed."

What if my freedom of expression MARGINALIZES or makes a section of the community feel 'uncomfortable' ?

Which 'right' reigns supreme.. my right of free expression or their right to hold, teach and promote ideas which vilify or disgust me?

The most vile criticism of Christians usually comes from the militant gay lobby. Sorry.. I won't accept that.

Its also true that the most vile criticism of homosexuals comes from the likes of Fred Phelps, who (regrettably) calls himself a 'Christian'.

WILL a Bill of Rights say "Citizens of Australia have the RIGHT to be protected from ANY idea which threatens in principle or practice the duly elected government of the Country" ?

HAH !..I surely doubt that... because a BOR is NOT about 'rights' its about 'P_O_W_E_R'.....

NOPE.. sorry..NO-WAY HOSAY... no Bill of 'rights'... just a body of law which protects us as it is.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:09:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether Dr Haneef is guilty or not, a Bill of Rights will not save you from having your Visa canceled. It appears on the surface that the Immigration Minister can cancel a person visa just because a family member maybe a terrorist, despite the fact that you may not have any involvement with or an association with a terrorist group.

Should Dr Haneef visa be reinstated than this will simply be 'Tampa' all over again.

It is all very fine to have a Bill of Rights. But if the Justice system belives a law is unjust, than does not challenge such a law in the High Court than seeking to create a Bill of Rights is a waste of time.
Posted by southerner, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:26:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article by Julian. After eventually getting past the lines “Here it is important to distinguish the special case of the US Bill of Rights. It is not much concerned with human rights.” (gee: right to due process; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; peaceably assemble, security in their persons, houses, papers; not be a witness against himself; property not taken without just compensation; right to bear arms; right to same rights as other citizens; right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury and to address accusers; no cruel and unusual punishment etc etc), I find I do agree with his general point that populist democracy is not a good thing and governments should not have the unrestricted right to make just any law.
However two things must be considered.
#1 Judges. Julian is being exceedingly naïve if not bordering on dishonest to declare “Judges simply apply the law passed by the parliament.“ Acres of trees have been spent on newsprint complaining about appellate judges ignoring the law and substituting their own personal values. To have a bill of rights we first need some vehicle of judicial removal/ discipline instituted such that there is a meaningful deterrence to the judiciary ‘doing their own thing’. True, this would be difficult to oversee, but that does not mean we should not try. Date rape is difficult to prove when there are no witnesses and no physical evidence, but prosecutions sometimes still happen.
#2 Specific rights or woolly values. It is one thing to have the right of habeas corpus or trial by jury, but when we start talking about “cruel inhuman and degrading treatment” then we really are abdicating power to unelected judges. These terms are really subjective and in this instance it would be possible that seven judges, acting in good faith, could give seven different interpretations on the constitutionally of any piece of legislation.
Posted by Edward Carson, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do we need a bill of rights? This implies rights are granted to the people form the government. If the people are sovereign as they should be in a valid democracy they allm ready have all rights. Should we not introduce a bill of government where the people limit the powers of the government to certain functions . This would create limited government and clearly fix it responsibilties and areas of action
Posted by foxydude, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 1:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you say:

'The people Frank mentioned are not equally straight forward.' But you latch on to only one of the four I listed. Interesting avoidance.

I'm surprised you still don't get the David Hicks case. As a committed Christian I thought you could see that even the apparently guilty should have the right to hear the charges against them and to be heard in their defence - and to have this process applied within a reasonable time.

You yourself argued: 'WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS and they are enshrined in our legal code.' The trouble is that sometimes Governments fail to apply the law fairly and consistently.

Even on a utilitarian argument, the interests of the rest of society are better served if governments give accused persons a fair and timely trial so that if they are found guilty they are punished appropriately. We don't want doubts to linger, do we? And accusations of something-to-hide arising, do we? It is plain that Hicks was only brought home - after a mockery of a trial - because the politicians were feeling the heat of public opinion. Not because of a sense that they should do the right thing.

More generally, I am bemused by some of the claims being made against Burnside's case. Australia is already a signatory to several international conventions on rights - and these rights are not woolly as Edward Carson suggests they would be.

Nor are judges usurping power under these conventions as others suggest they would.

The real issue is that our Government sometimes fails to apply these agreements and denies people their rights. A Bill of Rights would add a further protection for citizens whose government puts itself above the law.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 1:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julian,
A question I(a long standing paid up and passionate member of the Australian Human Rights Society)have wanted to ask you. Are you not appalled that not only blue eyed babies but babies with eyes of all hues are amongst the 100,000 babies aborted in Australia annually,given your committment to the Human Rights Bills to which you refer,which guarantee "the right not to be deprived of life"? In a few days time a bill, already introduced into the Victorian Parliament, will formally deprive blue eyed and babies with other coloured eyes, of their lives...right up to birth, according to no less than a colleague of the mover of the bill. I have yet to hear you speak out about this totally unacceptable deprivation of human rights. Surely it is only academic to speak of any human right without the guarantee of the most fundamental human right....the right to life? After all, one has to be alive to exercise the right to vote.... for a Parliament that respects human rights, for example? Like you Julian, I am actively against capital punishment...from the womb to the tomb. How about you?
Posted by Denny, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 1:40:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No doubts those in favour of a bill of rights would want to protect the unborn! Leigh has summed up the topic well.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 2:46:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Julian.
Leigh, what a strange response.If you had a measure of power would you deprive me of reading books and articles that you considered silly or unsuitable?
Clearly something if not many things need to be done to protect the rights of people living in Australia.Your points make sense FrankGol.
But a Bill of Rights can only go so far in The Worlds Greatest Mediocrity.
The quality and standard of parliamentary representation needs to be addressed along with reform of the practice and proceedures of Australian law and a shedding of the slovenliness and timidity of the media.
Today the Hon. John Dowd speaking under the umbrella of the ICJ conceded, in a fairly convoluted statement broadcast by the ABC, that the Andrews spin might affect the Haneef case because a number of Australians might,as a result of that statement,believe that there was more to his guilt than had hitherto been the case.
One might have expected Dowd to have focused rather more on the selective release of information,which under the circumstances of its release has no status.
My point being that the law and its interpretation is only as good as its practitioners and there is no substitute for courage,compassion and comonsense.
Well done Stephen Keim and Peter Russo.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 3:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH is right of course. This apparent lack of male human rights stems though from our history (males) of dominating and abusing all others. Women, children, other males, other countries. It is male dominated this denial of human rights and that explains to me why we don't get a mention. I do feel like James though, as if those of us who don't abuse etc are ignored.

Julian makes good points, as always. Once a law is passed the people generally accept it as "good". Generally. Law is law only as long as the people allow it to be. There are many current laws that are bad but are still law and can bring penalties.

Julian, I don't know how you wrote this item without using the word "Howard". As it is Howard that has caused many of us to think we do need a Bill of Rights. It is Howard who has and is stripping all our rights away. Other politicians of course will do the same and that is why we need this law. To stop 5 foot despots from using their position to bully people in order to exercise their "little man" syndrome.

Leigh demonstrates his open and enquiring mind as usual.

To Sam. Re Howard being the government. Listen to him and other "leaders" refer to the government they lead as "my government" instead of your government. The media follow this rubbish but should pull these despots up at every misuse of this ownership.

It is our government and they should legislate and administer for us. Not themselves and their moneyed buddies.
Posted by DavoP, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 3:36:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't disagree with Mr Burnside but I must ask "Who determines what those rights are?". Of course it is those in power. At this time it's you know who and we won't be getting any rights while he's there. I fear the same of Rudd however so where do we go from here?

Leigh's comments are interesting if you all want to think about it.

Leigh dismisses Mr Burnside's comments/item without reading because Leigh "knows his politics". In other words Leigh has been taught not to think, just react. If it's Labor speaking then it's wrong. If it's Coalition, it's right.

Congrats Leigh, you must have an easy life not being required to think.

A challenge to you mate. Can you tell us when your political allegiance was formed and why. What I mean here is most people just do "what Daddy taught me" and don't even consider that people from both sides of the political fence are actually capable of having good ideas. Although I must exclude Howard from this as he has never had an idea. Have a look at what he's done and you'll see it's all a copy of others.

He has copied Gough, Hawke, Keating and mostly Blair and Bush. Not a new idea has ever entered his head.
Posted by pegasus, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 4:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Bill of Rights, which I support by the way, would not be a partisan issue. Burnside is responding to steps this particular government has taken, but this government won't be around forever.

Those who see the push for an Australian Bill of Rights as a lefty project might like to consider that such a bill would protect them from future governments as well.

It would prevent a future lefty government from forcing you to join a union and making hanging out with union thugs compulsory.

It would force a future greeny government from incarcerating anybody who hurt a tree.

It would prevent a future female prime minister from forcing men to wear skirts every second day just to even things up a bit.

It would prevent a future government of any description from outlawing religion of any brand, including the Christian ones.

And freedom of expression would prevent a future government from closing down public forums like the one we're all participating in here.

Bills of rights are about limiting the power of governments of all colours, not just the Howard one. To reject the idea altogether just because you don't like the politics of the person proposing it is short sighted.

If you're a Howard fan you might consider for a moment the increased powers this government has allocated to itself, then wonder whether you'd be happy for a Rudd government to have the same, or even extended, powers. It's a possibility at the next election, and even if they don't win this one, Labor will win sooner or later. Are you really happy to hand that same kind of power to the other side? Because that's what you're doing by opposing a Bill of Rights.
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 4:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where have I been FrankGol? Asleep mostly.

Sure I have heard about Hicks and faintly recall the others.

You seem to miss my point. How often have you heard or read?

"Human rights are women's rights." or variations of it.

It seems to me that in the gender politics war, male POW's do not have access to the Geneva Convention.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 6:20:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The US has a bill of rights and the Washington Administration have to take an oath that they will uphold the constitution including not using torture. But that does not hinder or slow in any way every flagrant and daily illegal abuse. Including a massive spying operation on its own citizens called "data mining."
In this country, Howard wants to overturn centuries-old legal principles, including detention without trial, the presumption of innocence, restritive access to legal assistance etc., The political establishment has boosted the police and intelligence agencies along with a welter of draconian laws aimed at attacks on democratic rights, legal rights and deepening social inequality.This has led over the last decade to increasing suspicion and growing hostility to the whole political establishment including the Labor Party. In lockstep, has been the plunder or diversion of the taxes earmarked for public hospitals, schooling, and all essential services. Taxes have gone up with services cut, long waiting lists or services in reverse. What has happened to this money? More over, there should be a full public accounting of public assets (some worth hundreds of millions of dollars) given to their well heeled cronies. (with something for themselves, directly, or indirectly.) In a nutshell, the politics they express 'are workers have no rights - the only right workers have is to pay for everything.'
The larger problem is that economic life dominates unnecessarily over human considerations. This will only change under a Workers Government with delegates voted in publicly and always subject to instant recall. There is no other way!
Posted by johncee1945, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 6:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Julian Burnside QC

Sir... I need only to see your name on ANYTHING and I feel a wave of nausea and depression come to pass.

I'm a retired copper and a veteran. It is my sincere belief, that you and your genre have occasioned much irreparable harm to the morale and spirit of this great country and its citizens. Indeed, it would be impossible to quantify the degree of hurt and distress done to Australia's international reputation and standing, by some of your inane comments and views.

Australia's citizens are rendered powerless to rebut your absurd assertions, apropos YOUR perceptions of what you think civil liberties are all about. What about the rights, freedoms and liberties of the vast silent majority ? I suspect taking up the cudgel on their behalf (pro bono) would not generate sufficient media attention necessary to maintain your professional ego ?

We are living in dangerous and troubled times. Whatever one's political hues and affiliations are, we should confront our international problems collectively, and all move forward as a unified nation, not split in many parts, as now.

I remember well, when we returned in the dead of night, not being allowed to wear our uniforms, lest we 'upset' anti Vietnam War groups. Our welcome home parade along Sydney's George Street, where a female demonstrator felt the need to throw paint over our CO. I was never so ashamed of Australia as I was then, and I'm starting to head in that direction again, particularly when I see the type of gibberish you and your cohorts seek to promulgate herein.

Do me a favour at least, confine your disquisitional dross to some more appropriate 'Lefty' Labor forum.

Thank you.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 6:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia may not have its own Bill of Rights, but we do still have the 1698 Bill of Rights, which the Fed govt used in the late 90's to protect Parliamentary privilege.

I think that anything created when men were determined to protect the common rights of a country's citizens would be a remarkably more sound document that something created today, when it is both the Lib and Labor government's personal aim to remove our rights.
Posted by SuziQ, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 7:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Bill of Rights is well overdue and Australia is the last western democracy to have one. At the moment there are too many gaps where the Government just ignores the rights of ordinary Australians.

Admittedly, the High Court is also meant to represent Australians in interpreting the law. There is a problem of gender parity and no Aboriginal member on the High Court.

If there was a clause where there must be gender parity, so that half of our country: women, are represented, and at least one Aboriginal person selected by Parliament, accepted by official Aboriginal authorities as being at least partly Aboriginal, then we are closer to representing a broader spectrum on the High Court.

With a Bill of Rights, any Government assumes it has to follow this as law and for this to become a legal issue for the High Court should be rare. That is, unless the Government of the time does not believe in protecting the principles of basic human rights.
Posted by saintfletcher, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 7:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sympathy to you, o sung wo, for the past wrongs that were inflicted on you and your comrades in arms. Such hurts are hard to heal.

But in damning Julian, you are only shooting the messenger. Anyone who had any dealing with the detainees in the detention camps can only be concerned with stand that this government has taken on human rights.

Why is it that a stateless man such as Peter Quasim has to spend years in detention and has to be mentally ill before he is released despite having the good will of dozens of Australians who would have sponsered him? Peter Quasim tried to leave Australia, he applied to over 100 countries to take him. They knocked him back, not because he was of bad character, but because they understandably couldn't understand why Australia didn't extend a hand to a stateless person.

The vast silent majority is about to vote Howard out. Maybe it's because they are bored with Howard. I think though, it's because they are tired of divisive politics. They want to get back to the comfortable Australia that Howard talks about but undermines, not one where fear is pushed and the community is divided.

I think the strong support for Dr. Haneef is a sign of that. We want a fair Australia and maybe a Bill of Rights will be part of that in the future.
Posted by Red Fairy, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 7:32:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A Bill of Rights"?

The question is, whose "Rights" and whose "Wrongs"?

Quote:

The American formulation “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not only familiar to us from TV dramas; it is a pretty fair reflection of our own assumptions. For most of us, the assumption remains untested.

Give me a break: America with its Bill of Rights: "the land of the free"? With more people imprisoned than any other country per head of population?

A state where corporation rights are more important than the corporate rights of individuals: all under a 'Bill of Rights'.

A place of prohibitions against behaviours accepted in many other 'free countries' ie prostitution is illegal in most US states. You may not like prostitution, but its prohibition is not what you would normally consider something that the state should get involved in. And this is in a country with a Bill of Rights.

The USA being a country of 'political freedom' where being a communist in the 1950s and 1960s lead to blacklisting and persecution: all under a "Bill of Rights".

Capital punishment in the USA - under a "Bill of Rights": of course.

A Bill of Rights has never protected anyone from the state's interpretation of what Rights are Right, and what Rights are Wrong.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 8:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think some of us (including myself) have lunged at this in a fairly immature way. Some of us disturbed me no end. Some of us just galloped out on our favourite hobby-horses, firin' from the hip.

A bill of rights must be all inclusive. It must be much more than a stick to jam into the spokes of wayward politicians. By definition it must also serve as a reminder of the way we ought to regard one another. And maybe that's why there's insufficient enthusiasm for the idea on this thread, so far.

"Gee mister! You mean I might have to give up something? Huh?"

Yes indeed. A bill of rights has nothing to do with taking what is rightly mine. It's all about giving to you what is rightly yours. Get it? It sets the benchmark for a certain generousity of spirit. Maybe for some of us, that benchmark is too high.

But don't worry - we'll include you too...
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 9:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is almost impossible to provide an appropriate response to Julian;s article on Human Rights in the limited 350 word allowed.
Any additional legislation purporting to uphold our so called human rights would be just more wasted time with the Parliaments drafting, arguing and voting on this irrelevant type of legislation.
If the courts of common law in our British based adversarial system can not appropriately deal with controversies between parties with the laws passed already and in force in all of the States and the Commonwealth there is not point creating any additional tripe for the individuals, who were Judges, sitting in persona designata jurisdiction, to ignore for the benefit of the ruling class who will continue to provide the illusion that has been relied on in the past to get us were we are now.
Julian would know exactly what the term means as he is fully aware of Justice Brennan's comments in Kable at paragraph 5, 14, 15 and 16 because it is this same High Court case where he obtained his blue eyed baby quotes from. If Julian does have any interest in the rights of the people of this country he should look very closely why the official statutory seals of the various court in Commonwealth are not publicly displayed or published in the rules as they are in the High Court Rules of Court. If Julian is honest about his concern for our so called rights he can provide the design of the Federal Magistrate's Court Seal and the Federal Court of Aust Seal as the Attorney-General, Ruddock, has failed and refused to provide the design of these seals which were designed by his office. How would any person know if they have been served with a document displaying on its face the genuine seal of the court and whether the seal displayed actually authenticates the process which is alleged to command a response for the person served. The peasant class are not to have any of this knowledge we are expected to pay people like Julian, at hundreds of dollars per hour.
Posted by Young Dan, Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being au fait with the contents of existing Bills of Rights and well aware that we humans are a chauvinistic lot, I must ask posters if an Australian Bill of Rights would include recourse for those objecting to unjust acts of:

1. Deliberate desecration or destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits

2. Industrial polluters affecting the health of communities

3. Inhumane or legalised torture of other species

4. Current governments who seek advice from their EPA departments then deliberately ignore that advice to the detriment of the Australian people and their eco-systems.

Any relevant laws or avenues of appeal currently in place, to "protect" citizens, other species or the environment have a similar effect to that of a soggy piece of lettuce!

Will a Bill of Rights simply be another wasted exercise comprising of the usual inane sophistry to defend the culprits and dupe the masses? And importantly, will appellants need to sell up their homes in their quest for justice?!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being au fait with the contents of existing Bills of Rights and well aware that we humans are a chauvinistic lot, I must ask posters advice on the following:

Would an Australian Bill of Rights include recourse for those objecting to unjust acts of:

1. Deliberate desecration or destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits

2. Industrial polluters affecting the health of communities

3. Inhumane or legalised torture of other species

4. Current governments who seek advice from their EPA departments then deliberately ignore that advice to the detriment of the Australian people and their eco-systems.

Any relevant laws or avenues of appeal currently in place, to "protect" citizens, other species or the environment have a similar effect to that of a soggy piece of lettuce!

Will a Bill of Rights simply be another wasted exercise comprising of more inane sophistry to defend the culprits and dupe the masses? And will appellants be required to sell up their homes in their quest for justice?
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:35:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If a Bill of Rights was written, who would draft it, Faris, Burnside, Capon? - Who would finalise it, Andrews, Beattie, Fittler? Who would ratify it, a mean and tricky Parliament possibly, Larvatus Proteo, Tim Blair? Who would enforce it, Mick Keelty, the Qld Police Union, Armaguard? Who would observe its precepts - Noone
Posted by enkew, Thursday, 2 August 2007 7:18:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH

I haven't missed your point. A Bill of Rights is about Human Rights, not just the rights of one gender or the other. And why set up an unnecessary competition?

While it's clear that on the whole women have suffered more oppression and disadvantage around the world than men, there are millions of men whose rights have been trampled upon too. We should show our sympathy and give support for all oppressed people regardless of their gender.

So if you're discriminated because you are disabled or black or impoverished or imprisoned for speaking your mind about politics or harrassed because of your religious faith or your sexual identity, then gender is usually a subsidiary issue.

If specific men are being discriminated against, a Bill of Rights may be able to address the matter; but why deny all who are discriminated against because one group is being ill-treated?

I'd be interested in the issue you are referring to. Is it a human rights issue or a public policy issue that should be addressed through regular law reform or policy review?
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Bill of Rights advocated by the Left? No way! Especially not one advocated by the very enthusiastic architect, with Greg Combet, of the plan to keep Australia’s rort-ridden, word’s worst practice waterfronts as the plaything of the Marxists and Communists of the maritime unions…and a blot on Australia.
If we had a Bill of Rights in this country, it would be designed to serve the Left….we would be even more in their stranglehold, and Australia would never again be the same.
Your concern for Hicks and Habib is very touching, but Habib was in Pakistan for spurious reasons, and his explanation doesn’t wash….since his only income was an Australian pension, how could he afford to travel to Pakistan to check out schools ? And what was his expected source of income , if he had moved his family there…Al Qaeda, presumably.
Hicks was a self-confessed terrorist, committed to the spreading of fundamentalist Islam and Sharia law by the use of force…and explicitly by the use of suicide bombings…he spelt it all out himself, long before he arrived at Guantanamo Bay
After 911, he didn’t come home to Australia…he returned to the fold of Bin Laden…reported for duty to fight all of us…the infidels.
We never see the Left take up the cause of real victims.
I haven’t heard anything at all from you or others on the Left, about the record of your man and Combet’s, Kevin Rudd, who was the closest adviser to the premier in the Goss Labor government that made a decision to illegally shred evidence to prevent scrutiny of sexual abuse of children in state government care. …after it had been requested by barristers for forthcoming legal action.
Not interested in the human rights of those children?
That same government, with Rudd at the heart, later brought to bear on an ordinary citizen, the full force of the law that they themselves had broken…ruined him… tried to have him jailed….what about those human rights?
Of course , your indifference is no surprise…you’re of the Left… if there’s no chance to damage Howard, you’re not interested
Posted by real, Thursday, 2 August 2007 1:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
real says: 'We never see the Left take up the cause of real victims.' And gives the example of the Goss Labor government's '...decision to illegally shred evidence to prevent scrutiny of sexual abuse of children in state government care. …after it had been requested by barristers for forthcoming legal action.'

I personally, and a large number of other citizens in several organisations that I belong to and some I don't, have been fighting that issue and a number of related issues in other States since about 1995.

We are certainly interested in the human rights of those children - who are now adults still struggling for justice for their appalling lack of rights as children - and still, as adults.

The Queensland Government last month introduced a redress scheme for people who were abused in 'care'. It's not as good as the Irish scheme but it's better than nothing.

real, you say: 'Of course , your indifference is no surprise…you’re of the Left… if there’s no chance to damage Howard, you’re not interested.'

Apart from the label/libel issue, your analysis is factually incorrect, it's dismissive of real efforts being made and it's likely to alienate some of the children you say you are interested in helping (including my brother who is fighting an abuse case).

The issue you raise is a classic case of failure of accountability. The 'carers' who abused young vulnerable children got away with it because no-one thought children had rights. The Government officials who destroyed incriminating evidence thought they could get away with it because accountabilty was weak. There was no Bill of Rights to protect them.

One of the advantages of a Bill of Rights is that it would articulate a transparent set of rights, and enable those whose rights are trampled on to seek redress from authorities who would be more accountable for abuse.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 2 August 2007 1:58:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there...

To - **Red Fairy...

Thank you for your kind sentiments, I really appreciate them. I don't really know if Dr Haneef is guilty of any offence, nor do I know whether he is an associate of terrorists, known or unknown.

However, it seems that Messrs Burnside, Russo and ors. are always first to defend the undefendable ! I often wonder what their motives are ? What they REALLY are ?

I hear them speak in platitudes, seemingly attempting to pitch their rhetoric always towards those of the 'left'. But at the same time, totally disregarding the views and needs of many ordinary men and women, out there in the dormitories, of any large Australian city.

**Red Fairy, I'll not bore you any longer with this tedious assault on the politics and motives of those identified herein. And, I'm cognizant of your inalienable right to fully express your views and support. But, as I said at the outset. I often wonder what their REAL motives are ? Do any of us know ?

Again, thank you for your response.
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 2 August 2007 2:43:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for this article, I now see some reason for me to support the introduction of a Bill of Rights. Democracy as we practice it is mob rule and I fear the future possibility of a mob which could have the numbers to introduce sharia law here. I assume that the first principle of any statement of rights will be the separation of church and state, something we could use here and now.
The problem is its drafting, I totally support the writer who asked for something clear and down-to-earth. What on earth does 'life, liberty and the pursuit of property rights' mean to most people? Just a rich field for lawyers, as are most things.
I'll put my hand up for a Bill, anybody want to put forward a draft?
Diana
Posted by Diana, Thursday, 2 August 2007 8:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny isn't it - how ex coppers hate any progressive changes to law and rights.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 2 August 2007 8:25:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If one asks for rights, they haven't any.
If one asks what their rights are, they haven't any.
If one believes rights are contingent upon gender, age, race or religion, they are wrong, they haven't any rights and don't know what rights are.
The government that protects the rights of individuals is called a "Republic" with "democratically elected representatives".
The government that protects the "desires" (not rights) of the majority is called "democracy" or socialism if one prefers.
Australia is neither. AUS is a "corporation", where a ceo is democratically voted to oversee the management of the six countries on the Australian continent (for a profit). The "Federation Government" used to handle this, hmmm whatever happened to them?
If you are an "AUStralian", you are an officer and or employee of the corporation AUStralia and in essence this is why you have to do everything they tell you.
So after learning what rights are ,one can then order/demand their state Premier to recognize these rights.
So you know, Australia has no obligation to recognize the rights of anything.
The only way to have "privileges" not rights, recognized by the corporation AUStralia is to lobby(bribe) the AUStralians to protect your group ie. women, children, Jews, one legged ethiopian water neuts, the list goes on, but does not include "man".
Only one's state can provide a BILL recognized by AUStralia. But the state cannot intitiate these rights unless the people tell them what they are. If the state Premiers or John Howard were to initiate writing a Bill of Rights it wouldn't be a Bill of Rights. They are not our masters, If you can understand this you've now figured out how they fooled us for so long.
Posted by maskedman, Thursday, 2 August 2007 8:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"While it's clear that on the whole women have suffered more oppression and disadvantage around the world than men,"
FrankGol

The Battle Of Alesia

In The Shadow of the Gladiator (below) one gets a glimpse of how badly men were treated by those who had power over them during the first half of the Roman Empire's existence. Not only were millions of men killed, maimed or enslaved during this period, but a consul such as Crassus had 10% of the soldiers in one of his very own legions beaten to death simply because they had followed their commanders into a battle which Crassus had not authorised.

And when it came to political power, throughout most of history, in all places and at all times, it was violence such as this, pure and simple, that gave rise to it.

And is was mostly violence against men.
http://www.angryharry.com/
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 2 August 2007 9:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O sung wu, I suspect that we may always disagree about the motives of the Human rights lawyers. Firstly, I have never heard them give any support to violence or allowing 'ordinary' people's rights to be trodden on, in their quest to keep Australia a place where the Australian 'fair go' is paramount. Secondly, I'm prepared to believe that they are pure. The stakes for someone like Burnside are very high. He has made himself personally available to distressed people who have been caught up in terrible situations despite committing no crime. It can be pretty emotionally harrowing and he didn't need to do this. He was a high flier before taking on his human rights work.

The motives of Russo etc. I think are also clean. They are representing their clients against what can only be described as the authorities machinations as they try and justify what can only be described as stuff ups. I'm glad they are out there! Who knows who has my old Hong Kong travel card for example. If old Bin Laden is living it up big time in Honkers and using my card, I could be for the drop.

I know for a fact that concern about this is not just coming from the 'left'. One can hardly describe Malcom Fraser as a supporter of communism but he is to the forefront of this. A safe guard of all people's rights cannot be a bad thing.
Posted by Red Fairy, Friday, 3 August 2007 8:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And now the High Court has handed down its decision in the case of Jack Thomas challenging the constitutionality of his control order. That's basically house arrest - without a trial of due process, just a hearing, still less a jury, or public evidence. Thomas' sole conviction is a fake passport; certainly enough to deny him a passport in future, and enough to have him serve a term of imprisonment (he's done that time, nine months), but not enough under historical law to suffer indefinite house arrest.

The High Court found in favour of the Commonwealth government having such powers under the Constituion, 5-2. Justice Kirby dissenting (as he did in the States vs Commonwealth IR case). Kirby said that had the present High Court heard the Dissolution Act case of 1950 (where the Commonwealth government under Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party), they would have ruled in favour of the Commonwealth and upheld the law.

We can no longer rely on the High Court to defend the "implied rights" of the Westminster system. We need the rights to be explicit. We need a Bill of Rights.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Friday, 3 August 2007 8:54:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi to you all... and - Rainier.

Funny isn't it, how our intellectually diminutive little mate Rainier, emerges from the anonymity of his notionally inassailable sanctuary. To once again 'snipe' at the efforts and opinions of others, with whom he either disagrees or, does not understand.

His shrill and minatory syntax leaves one wondering what motivates this rather wretched and derisory little bloke ? Who often seems to feel the need to aggressively challenge some hapless corrospondent who has inadvertantly incurred his wrath.

It is a real pity that our only introduction is necessarily confined to this august forum. I would have been most humbled indeed, to have had the rare pleasure of meeting you in person. I'm sure we would have learnt so much from one another ?
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 3 August 2007 7:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I remember well, when we returned in the dead of night, not being allowed to wear our uniforms, lest we 'upset' anti Vietnam War groups. Our welcome home parade along Sydney's George Street, where a female demonstrator felt the need to throw paint over our CO. I was never so ashamed of Australia as I was then...."

o sung wu, I was spared all that, and to tell you the honest truth I didn't care then. I was too busy having a good time.

Maybe you could spare half a post to enlighten me. I'm not being condescending - I really would like to know more.

Cheers... Chris

(PS. Tonight I'm cobbling together some sweet & sour chicken, and you'd be welcome)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Saturday, 4 August 2007 8:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Chris...

Thanks for the invite, sounds like you and yours are going to have a real beaut 'nosh up'.

Probably not. There are many of those on 'OLO', who loathe and deride veterans, and talking about it only gives them sufficiency to further denigrate and vilify us.

I can just visualise many of those herein, falling about themselves with uncontrolled hilarity. As I attempt to recount how many of us felt on our return to Aussie.

I'll say this much, I/we arrived at Mascot about 0130h via a chartered TAA DC6B Prop. driven Aircraft (apparently, there was no curfew or prohibition on piston driven A/C in those days). We were not permitted to wear uniform and we were told not to have family or friends there to meet us.

It was the end of June and quite cold, so was our welcome home. There were two Customs blokes to process us through the formalities. They were absolutely marvellous ! All they wanted to know was, if any of us were in possession of weapons or ordinance.

We were all then cut lose, I was picked up in a Hire Car (on my own) and taken to my Grandfather's place at Lane Cove. No sleep the remainder of that night, nor the next, or next. It was too cold...too hot...too quiet.

I saw my girlfriend the next day. She hadn't changed a bit, in the twelve months. I didn't know what to say to her. We'd spoken of marriage before I was sent overseas. On my return however, it was the furthermost thing on my mind. We broke up.

My friends,didn't have any particularly interest in my war service, or any of the 'warries' I tried to recount either. I suspect they didn't believe a word of it ? I was completely lost, I hadn't a clue what to say or do with people.

I do remember that I was extremely 'hyper-vigilant'. At 64, I still am ! I've attended the VVCS on and off for seven or eight years. For anxiety, panic attacks and hyper-vigilants.

Thats it I'm sorry.
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 5 August 2007 5:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I'm just turning 60. Old enough, but my marble didn't get picked.

And like a lot of people, I began to get politicised around the end of the war - too late to help the likes of you though.

Did you cobble a family together in the end? If so, give them my love.

- and have a bit for yourself while you're at it.

:)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 5 August 2007 7:11:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh su wung,

indeed, and you would have learnt very quickly what i think of and do to old coppers with big mouths!
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 5 August 2007 9:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Bill of Rights in Australia is needed as a matter of law.

Australia currently suffers and endures a legal system which is both prehistoric and is non conducive to the efficient functioning of our times. The current courts and jurisdictions do not facilitate the efficient functioning of modern litigation.

The almighty Adam Smith in the wealth of nations says it is not the benevolence of the Butcher, Baker or Brewer that we should expect to have our daily feed, but only through their own self interest are they motivated to provide to the thirsty and hungry in our society. I say it is through the self interest of the legal fraternity that we suffer a no bill of rights.

How profound Indeed.
Posted by Stephen geagea, Sunday, 5 August 2007 9:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Chris...

No family, but married twice and the second has been quite successful.

I lost a very very close friend of mine a couple of years ago. He was with 3 RAR (1st tour). He died from a brain tumor. He managed to get through Vietnam OK, but a bloody tumor got him !
He was awarded the OAM (for services to the Veteran Community) a couple of months before he passed away. A special investiture was arranged by the Governor of Queensland (who happened to be a Vet. himself). Dave was also a copper too, we worked together, for some years.

Chris, I can't begin to tell you how much I miss him. A 'hard as nails' good bloke. He managed to get through one of the most intense and protracted battles in the Vietnam War (Fire Support Bases - 'Coral' and 'Balmoral' during May and June 1968). We lost twenty five blokes during the period of 'AO Surfers' !

Anyway Chris, he's gone and nothing can be done about it.

As you said, your marble was not drawn. Your objection to the war was probably well founded too. I suppose you were lucky. Though Chris, I believe you would've answered, if your number was drawn. Both Dave and I were Regulars. So we more or less, expected to go. I certainly don't believe we should be part of the Iraq war either Chris. We don't seem to have learnt anything from Vietnam ?

Thank you for your kind sentiments. I really appreciate them.
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 5 August 2007 10:40:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu and chris

you want want to try jumping to

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=idx

please don't be distracted by the name of the site, these are, these are, by and large, a great bunch of blokes, whom the two of you may be able to relate to.

Regards

Doug
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 5 August 2007 11:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there Hamlet...

Had a quick look at the site you recommended, looks quite interesting. Thanks for the 'heads-up' on this one Doug, I really appreciate the thought.

Cheers...sung wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 6 August 2007 7:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O sung wu ,
Surely you would not deny police who have strayed from their difficult path and appear to have obviously fallen into the mire of corruption or worse,their "day in court", that Julian Burnside and criminal lawyers try so hard to protect ?
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 6 August 2007 11:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there **RAINIER**

You really are a droll little possum aren't you !

If it were not for your grandiose sense of self importance, and your penchant for exaggerating your achievements, you'd probably be quite a nice young bloke.

What does concern me however, is that you seem to have the need to verbally extirpate those who don't happen to share your view/s. It would appear that during your more prominent episodes of narcissistic behaviour, you are totally preoccupied with these strange fantasies, of your own unlimited success, power and brilliance.

Further, you seem to believe that you have an unequivocal sense of entitlement. An unreasonable expectation of especially favourable treatment, and automatic compliance by others, to totally accept your views and opinions.

If you don't receive this admiration that you believe is your due, you quickly display arrogance or haughty behaviour or attitudes.

Essentially, the centre of your apparent narcissistic conduct, seems to be your unquenchable desire for this admiration, with or without any commensurate achievements, to justify such merited eminence.

RAINIER, you should try and 'loosen' up a little, my boy. Pause awhile and smell the flowers. Experience the warmth of the sun upon your morose countenance. And stop trying to 'better' those who just happen to have an opinion, which may be contrary to yours.

Cheers...sung wu
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 8:11:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening to you **kartiya jim**

Wayward police - 'their day in court' ! In my humble opinion KJ, there is nothing more iniquitous than police who engage in unlawful activity! I'd say almost ALL police (certainly those I know) would never condone unlawful conduct, of any kind, by their fellow officers.

Since I've taken an interest in OLO, I've read post after post criticising coppers for all manner of misdeeds. Even our Pollies don't receive as much adverse comment as the police !

Corrupt police should have 'their day in court', absolutely. With respect to Mr Burnside and his cohorts, it's not the issue of 'rooting' out and prosecuting corrupt police, I totally agree with them. It's Mr Burnside himself, and it's his, and his cohorts motives, thats what I find so troubling KJ.

Cheers...sung wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 8:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Sung Wu

Glad you're still hanging around this thread. I just listened to a podcast that might interest you. I was fascinated.

Summary:

"The Vietnam Years, From the Jungle to the Australian Suburbs" is not a historical military account of the battles fought rather it's an insight into Australian society as the sub title states, in the jungles of Vietnam and in the backyards of Australian suburbia.

It starts at the 35 minute mark on this mp3:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/current/audioonly/lnl_20070806.mp3

- and it all served to remind me of the true account of my best old friend Russ (who is still alive).

Russ' number came out of the barrel. His dad had been torpedoed twice in the merchant marine and with that family background, he thought he had better face up to his duty, albeit reluctantly. Although he was only very slightly built, there was one aspect of his physique that made him quite popular with the girls of the swinging sixties.

- now bear with me - because this is relevant -

So three days before he's due to turn up for his medical examination, he's playing the two-backed beast with a lovely young lass (as you do), when her husband comes home somewhat unexpectedly. Russ is out the bedroom window, strides in hand, but not fast enough to escape the wrath of her husband, who administers shock-and-awe to Russ' nose.

At the army medical examination, the doctors pronounce his nose to be too deficient to be included amongst our nation's finest noses, many of which were being shipped off to join your nose in Vietnam. So Russ avoids Vietnam, but only by the skin of his nose.

And here's the point. Women accuse we blokes of always thinking with that nether part of our anatomy. But just like Russ, I owe the whole direction of my life - all my most important discoveries and adventures - to that oft underestimated organ.

If there is an all knowing god, she's a genius!
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 3:24:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh so wong, your style of prose is not unlike a frustrated and now frigid old Queeny, sitting in a bar, reminiscing about the good old days of licentious abandon. Are you sure you were a copper? Perhaps you left the force to become who you are now?
Don’t hold back, we are all very liberal here in OLO. xx oo
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 12 August 2007 10:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier

Take a cold shower!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 12 August 2007 11:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening to you Rainier...

Absolutely correct, my boy. I did retire from the force, to become what I am now ! What a clever little 'stripling' you are, my vapid young miscreant.

Perhaps you may honour us all with one or two of your 'gems' on life. I seem to remember you 'challenging' some poor respondent because he dare disagree with you ? You were 'muttering on' about how tough you and yours, had experienced life ? And how you were going to, what was it Rainier - Close someone's mouth, or somthing or other ?

I hope you were only speaking metaphorically ? I wouldn't imagine those in charge of this august forum would permit threats of any kind, young man !

Your obvious vehemence toward police, arose from your continued rejection to again gain entry into the Force ! I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you just need to persevere. Try displaying a little more social maturity, on the next occasion you apply ?

Cheers...sungwu.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 13 August 2007 12:29:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
my first conviction was for flogging someone just like you...LOL
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 9:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening to you...RAINIER

Your courage is only evident when you're absolutely sure that your anonymity is preserved young fella ! In fact RAINIER, what you lack in courage, you more than make up for in cowardice I heard you were once described as the OLO's 'baby bliss'. But I reckon you don't have an inferiority complex. You are inferior !

Good night RAINIER, our truculent little possum !
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So your real name is o sung wu, I take it?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 7:54:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good morning to you C J MORGAN:

A good point my friend, apropos hiding behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. However, it is a fundamental necessity these days, where these faceless slugs use any resource available to square an account for some perceived slight occasioned against them.

I'm a retired copper and a veteran C J MORGAN. Do you think for a nanosecond I'd run from ANY of these faceless maggots that arise from the sewers, threaten me, and return from whence they came ?

Better men then those herein have tried and...well, I leave that up to your imagination. Enjoy your day.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 8:44:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And what’s with all this pretentious legal phraseology “oh so wrong”. For god sake you were only a bloody copper..not a silk! And even they don’t write like that…must be watching too repeats of Rumpole?
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 8:11:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening to you:

RAINIER, my young friend, I must admit that I've become somewhat inured to your invective language, and the malevolence you continually direct towards me, and the policing services per se.

I suppose what really puzzles me is why ? I readily admit that police officers don't generally enjoy a particularly close and warm relationship with SOME members of our community.

However, you're the first person that I've encountered within OLO, that seems to harbour such a distinct and protracted loathing for the industry. And apparently, all those who serve within the industry ? Most curious indeed ?

Anyway RAINIER, as we both seem to be travelling 'round in circles, achieving absolutely nothing - I'm done ! I apologise unreservedly for any slight or hurt that I've occasioned to you, in any of our rather inane little exchanges. As I'm often reminded, 'it takes two hands to clap' ! With that, I'll bid you good night.

Cheers...sung wu
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and its blatantly obvious you habitually (and out of necessity) type with one hand..
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 23 August 2007 5:19:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi RAINIER...

Very droll my man, very droll...!
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 23 August 2007 5:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No question gradually by stealth our rights are being taken away.
When conservatives have their backs to the wall they take away an ordinary persons right that has been fought and won through the ages. This is a great country where we know we have our freedoms that people have made sacrifices for. Now we find ourselves being intimidated and bullied in our workplaces and it is a costly affair to seek redress.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 12:35:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy