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 > Human rights: where are we heading? > Comments

Human rights: where are we heading? : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 30/11/2011

Just as in Australia, it is easy to forget the ways in which laws have been changed and security apparatus are used to affect the lives of many.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Stephen Keim,

You are a lawyer, as such, you are meant to have read a Constitution, any Constitution of any country that has got one, and should have noted that within it lies the cause of that inhumanity to which the attention of people is now directed.

This ‘Lie’ is intrinsic in the postulate that power is divisible. (Montesquieu).

If it were so, and Judges held Power on their own right, ‘Habeas Corpus’, meant to over-ride all other ‘legal provisions’ enacted under a Constitution, could be called into play.

Sir,

Isn’t it a paradox that under a constitutional Monarchy (English) the subject had the privilege of Habeas Corpus and in a so called Democracy this provision is neutralized and the power holder can get away with murder?

Wouldn’t it be time, Sir, to put a stop to this charade about ‘Human Rights’ and urge people to hold their power away from murderous charlatans called politicians?
Posted by skeptic, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 9:40:14 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 won't take people like Stephen seriously until they apply their criticisms of the US to our own backyard.

We now have detention without trial in federal law, attributable to terrorism laws. But for a courageous newspaper journalist, Haneef would be rotting in jail on trumped up charges.

State laws, based either on terrorism or catching drug criminals, are worse. The NSW Crime Commission is truly a Star Chamber.

Then, despite the High Court finding the NSW bikie gang legislation unconstitutional, the state government is talking about reinstating it with tweaks.

We can't criticise the US unless our own hands are clean. That's far from the case.
Posted by DavidL, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 9:45:50 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
DavidL:
We can't criticize the US unless our own hands are clean .

Why not ?
Posted by Oz, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 11:12:14 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
Stephen, a good and interesting article.

The whole thing can be boiled down to this. Either rights are whatever states say they are. This is obviously just an open-ended warrant for endless and protean abuse.

Or a right is only what you are justified in using violence to defend. This means everyone has a right to his own body, to the fruits of his labour, and to voluntary relations with others. It means no-one has a right to free handouts paid for by government taking the means from someone else. And thus it means a political state is a criminal association.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 12:50:36 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
DavidL, did you ever find out who the lawyer was who defended Haneef? That's right--Stephen Keim.

Peter Hume--you need to read some of the literature on rights. Your either or dichotomy is mistaken. Try the Stanford online Enclopaedia of Philosophy for a start.
Posted by ozbib, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 2:36:54 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
ozbib
Instead of appealing to absent authority and assuming what is in issue - two fallacies - why don't you tell me what you think the mistake is?
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 30 November 2011 4:43:03 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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