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 > Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style > Comments

Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 19/10/2009

The campaign in favour of a Human Rights Act captured the imagination of a large section of the public.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well, in my opinion the rights of Australians ARE broken, but quite frankly, Frank is NO fixer.
In fact, he's probably the least credible person to be heading this project (a Jesuit Priest who hates abortion and euthanasia, prefers doctors to be able to deny services because of superstition- which will alienate any secular, liberal person- yet he's also a refugee advocate, which will alienate everyone else except for other hardcore religious fundies).
The ONLY credible position he has, in my opinion, is his advocacy for Indigenous rights.

Give me rights to initiate referendums, and real input into government policy,
state covered dental,
rights to full information,
some stronger Aboriginal equality rights and sovereignty rights,
rights against developers,
rights to abortions, to euthanasia,
protection of people leaking scandalous conspiracies,
and most importantly, the right to say NO if my city is to be used as a giant VIP party (as we saw in APEC and WYD).

Until most of these are secured, and there is NO trace of religious vilification laws, vital service providers like doctors being allowed to pick and choose their duties, or the rights of the Harry Seidlers to arbitrarily decide to impose giant shoeboxes on people that don't want it, you will know how I will vote when (if) I get a say in it being implemented.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 19 October 2009 6:22:07 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
The number of submissions for one side or the other doesn't indicate what the public thinks. It only indicates what the organised lobby groups think. The only surefire way of gauging public opinion is to ask the public - at a referendum. If those supporting the proposed human rights agenda are, indeed, the majority, then the proponents will have no qualms about a referendum, will they? They'll only resist a referendum if they think the public can't be trusted to come up with what they consider to be the right result.
Posted by huonian, Monday, 19 October 2009 8:03:33 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 Yanks have a Bill of Rights, about a third of their population is in Goal ; three strikes and in you go .

You might be starving because you have no job , maybe a bit retarded that doesn't matter ; shucks! in you go !

All this can happen over a Mars Bar the Bureaucrat Goals you .

Without a Bill of Rights the Court Magistrate weighs up the situation
and fits up the sinner with a sting appropriate to the demeanor .

Which ways best ?
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:36:31 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 Bill of Rights is effective only if it is real, has teeth, not too many exclusions, and MPs are committed to it. The Charter of Human Rights in Victoria has proven to be a joke and so I am lacking in any faith that this would succeed
Posted by Ange, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 1:55:15 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
Not really a balanced piece - first we get the PR fluff for Brennan and then the dismissal of the Australian columnist. And as for the tit-for-tat about what proportion of Australians are represented by the submissions? Hell - that's the whole problem with the HRA argument. We already have representation in Canberra based on our votes and we entrust these representatives to enact laws and run the country. That's the only number you have to worry about, Stephen: who has the numbers in the Australian parliament. I don't think it's left or right or internet versus genuine submissions. And I sure as heck don't think it has anything to do with what a committee thinks of whether an act of parliament complies with a Human Rights Act. Like most Australians, I prefer imperfect elected politicians to perfectly correct politburos.
Posted by Canetoader, Saturday, 24 October 2009 8:33:00 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
Something that most people forget is that there really IS no difference between executive politicians and judicial members- and no difference in capabilities to anyone else.
They have the same personal hangups, prejudices, attitude problems, and can be corrupted and lobbied no differently from each other.

The difference is that one group gets the "30% of your local constituents think you're the better of two evils" award, the others don't.

But in the end, it's nothing but an exclusive group of people with their own agenda (and axe to grind), deciding what OUR rights should be based on what suits THEM- elected or not.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 25 October 2009 12:32:00 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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