“The Australian debate should instead be based on ordinary laws like the charters and human rights acts introduced in New Zealand, Britain, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria.”

Don’t trust George. We have read elsewhere, and on OLO, at different times that the situation in New Zealand is not as it is supposed to seem, and judges do, in fact, usurp the role of elected politicians.

George has stopped using a “Bill of Rights” – which he has harped on for years – and replaced it with the more innocuous-sounding “national charter of rights”; more weaselling from George.

Also remember, Robert McClelland is the same ex-shadow foreign affairs spokesman who pleaded for leniency for foreign terrorists facing the death penalty after they slaughtered 80 Australians in Bali.

Definitely don’t trust McClelland on anything to do with human rights

Letter at Xmas:

"Don't trust George. Don't trust McClelland. Trust Leigh. Signed Leigh."

Duty done! Pass the port old chap.

Victoria's charter of human rights is not all it is cracked up to be by deputy premier and attorney general Rob Hulls in his article "Right to a fair go enshrined in law" published in The Australian newspaper 10/12.
On 25 January 2006 a beautiful photograph of Mr. Hulls's baby son born on January 23 appeared in a Melbourne newspaper. On January 23 that little baby inherited a whole range of human rights. But on January 22 that baby had no rights. Mr. Hulls charter of human rights does not guarantee the first human right, the right to life. All the rights Mr Hulls claims are now protected, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, conscience, religion, belief etc are only academic if that first human right is not guaranteed.

The Victorian State Government's own political party long ago decided to legalise abortion in Victoria. Consequently no advice was required or any recommendation by a supposedly expert body needed. A junior lawyer in the Attorney- General's Department could draft the necessary legislation. The Government instead has asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission for advice on options to "Remove from the Crimes Act 1958 offences relating to terminations of pregnancy where performed by qualified medical practitioner". This leaves some Victorians believing the Government is misusing the VLRC, that it wants this advice for its own political purposes, namely so that the Government can hereafter say that the amendments to the Crimes Act which it proposes has been done on the advice of an expert body. And the Brumby Government can blame the VLRC for the legalisation of abortion. So much for Mr Hulls's claim "our charter leaves the final say with parliament."

Denny

Yes, we need our human rights, and responsibilities recognised, legislated, upheld and consequences imposed when there are proven violations. For this we need competent Courts and judiciary to hear cases of alleged violations, that do not rely on representation by expensive lawyers.

There are other elements of International Human Rights Law that need to be added to Mr Williams list, also ratified by successive Australian governments of both sides of politics, especially the Convention on the Rights of the Child (again highlighted by the recent denials of the human rights of an indigenous female child in north Queensland by government, Courts and bureaucrats), and the Convention against Discrimination in Education to secure real choice in education.

Legislation passed and proposed in other countries and Australian States have been selective about which human rights are upheld, as if we should somehow pick and choose which rights Australians can avail themselves of and which rights the government of the day has ordained to confer on us.

Human rights are universal. That was decided by the community of nations some 60 years ago. Why are we reconsidering the universality of all human rights? Is it because governments don't believe Australians ought to have and enjoy their rights and responsibilities, and too much of a good thing, is just too much for our people?

Human rights and responsibilities ought to be applied equally and to all persons as equals. Selectively legislating human rights would only serve to demonstrate our immaturity as people and as a nation and to highlight the causes that are only important to the governing political party. That's not fair to all Australians and its not just, because it would not fulfill our diverse needs, interests, values and aspirations. It would continue to deny us freedoms that have long been denied to us.

People have suffered long enough without human rights. Those making decisions about legislation and those commenting on it need to leave their safe environs and their money and power and walk in the shoes of those of us whose rights have been denied and who have suffered discrimination.

I haven't read George's article - there is no need. One look at the degradation of the United Nations high ideals at inception to the moral morass it is today, with the OIC - the worst group of human rights abusers - dominating and returning human rights to 7th Century Arab pagan standards with the agreement, or at most mild protest, or ineffective strong protest because of numbers, has shown me our progression through enlightenment is straight into the callous arms of "darkenment".

That people who are more concerned with re-engineering what it is to be human to have such a pervasive influence on determining human rights; that people who are traitors to their own are now so influential in determining such policy is frightening. In short, there are very few today who have the moral and ethical backbone to write such a charter, and those few are silenced by the indoctrinated and the prime abusers posing as victims.

Yes indeed. We do need our rights enshrined in law. And as the writer states: This recognises that the best human rights protection does not lie in court after a breach has occurred, but in ensuring that the problem does not arise in the first place.