The likes of Howard Glenn never get around to telling us just what these human 'rights' we are about to lose are. They just keep repeating the same old dogma in the hope that if they do it long enough, people will start to believe them. Perhaps they don't tell spell it out because there is no substance to their claims.

I'm with you on this one Leigh.

Every time someone starts rattling on about human rights - like HREOC - all that happens is that I get rights taken away from me. I prefer my law to come through elected politicians, not from unaccountable commissions or the judiciary of the day, thank you.

There are some 200+ nations on Earth and Australia would be much closer to the top than racing to the bottom - as Howard Glenn would try and have us believe.

When Australia's human rights are at the bottom, I might choose to migrate overseas, otherwise, I think we are doing pretty well at the moment.

These kind of arguments - comparing us with the worst abusers in the world are pointless. At least Howard didn't compare the "desert detention camps" with the Nazi Camps/Soviet Gulags though like so many of the I hate Australia crowd do.

Although his contempt for the four-times elected conservative government rings loud and clear with his throwaway line about IR reform, which does nothing for the article but take a cheap shot.

t.u.s.

Howard,
Wrong move mate, rule number 1. Never provoke Australians about rights they enjoy but don't know how lucky they are to enjoy them or understand how these often simple rights are not enjoyed by millions of others. Privlidge creates blindness.

2. Rule 2. Don't expect your critics here to be widely read on anything beyond their favourite newspaper or listening to their pet talk back radio show. While even the most simple peasant in a forth world country knows about human rights and the different charters developed since WW2 and Geneva, you can't assume people in first world nations to have the same depth of human experience and understanding. Sad but true.

I took a photo yesterday of a 77 yr old man bussing tables in Singapore, he does it to survive, looks pretty happy to have a source of income, most likely does not have family to support him.

And I come and read this whining by the author of this article, who goes on about 'Human Rights'..... as if they are somehow etched in Meteors of stone, with some cosmological "force" that gives them some divine validity.

The only divinely inspired, and etched in stone (literally) list of human rights, were/are the 10 commandments, which, if followed will give us all the community we long for, safe from oppression and suffering.

Without the first commandment, "Love the Lord your God"... 'human rights' will be decided by the 'make-it-up-as-u-go' crowd, by the current top dog on the Security council pile, or by the next ascending one who sees more fit to change things in their own interests.

I'd love to see how our 'sentimentalist/human rights' crowd would answer said top dog who says "Now... we will do things THIS way".....
They can never say more than 'We think'.... who is the UN ? what.. is the UN CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS ? does it have any more validity than the desire of those who would enforce it ? or enforce its non adherance for the furtherance of their empire.?

My my, the sneering brigade are out in force today.

Forget your pet peeves for a moment, and the fact that the very phrase "human fights" brings you out in hives, and ponder the following.

Your sixteen year-old son doesn't come home one evening. You report him missing the next day, but nothing comes of it. A fortnight later (are there any of you who can empathise with a distraught parent at this point?) he is delivered back to your door in a police car, having been arrested two weeks ago on someone's idea of "reasonable grounds" that he poses a terrorist threat. Like that Brazilian guy in London, he might just have been in the wrong place, at the wrong time; the basis for detention is simply "reasonable suspicion".

There are no "rights" in this form of detention, human or otherwise. Your son is not permitted to call anyone, in case it sets off a bomb. If the police are still "suspicious" after fourteen days, they can electronically tag your son for up to a year, or place him under house arrest - or both - for the same period. All this time, no-one is obliged to provide you with a reason that you can argue with, or evidence that you can refute.

Just to make it interesting, he can be re-arrested immediately after his release, for a further period or period of fourteen days.

But surely the case has to be reviewed by a judge?

Well, yes. But the judge is not allowed to review any evidence, or to come to a conclusion on whether the grounds are reasonable. Only to ensure that the letter of the law has been complied with.

I don't care what label you put on that kind of society, but it sucks.

When we give up liberties such as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty - i.e., to be allowed to see on what basis we are being held, and have that examined by a dispassionate third party - we take one more step towards a functional police state.

Howard

Thank you for your article - even though I agree with little of its contents.

Thanks to the posts of Leigh, Maximus, t.u.s. and BOAZ_David.

Wow Rainier, you do assume a lot about other posters. What an arrogant comment. You have made similar assumptions related to other articles. There is no way that I will bow to your deemed superiority. You have no idea what I think or read.

Cheers
Kay

Cheers
Kay

Howard Glenn's article is the usual tripe from a social regressive who is mortified by the fact that his peculiar social views are considered potty by the rest of the population.

Even the labor Party has figured out that their own traditional constituents are opposed to multiculturalism. They now realise that working people do not give a hoot for asylum shoppers who will gladly find some excuse to claim refugee status, so that they can sponge off the Aussie taxpayer forever. Ishallah.

Unable to find a skerrik of popular public support for their fave. cause, Glenn and his friends scream "Human rights!"

It was once said that Patriotism was to last refuge of the scoundrel, but Human Rights seems to have overtaken that concept.

To Glenn and his friends.

I have a human right to live amongst my own people. People who I consider my own kith and kin, and who can be relied upon not to stick a bomb under the seat of my train because they want to die for Allah.

I have a human right to expect my country will limit the immigration of unassimilatable immigrant groups, in order to prevent the social cohesion of my community from being ruptured.

I have a human right to expect the people who do immigrate to this country should be able to support themselves without looting the public purse.

I have a human right to expect that the people who immigrate here, and who aspire to be citizens, should behave themselves.

Finally, I have a human right to expect that our government should not have to curtail the treasured civil rights of my community in order to mitigate the ghastly danger from the dangerous groups that we have foolishly allowed to settle here in the name of misplaced humanitarianism.

Kalweb,

Yes I admit its a generalization and broad at that. But I can't help be appauled at the sentiments that give proof truth to this generalization here and elsewhere and can I assume that this worries you as much as it does me?

Arrogance?

There is nothing more pathetically arrogant to me than those who denigrate the notion, protection and advancement of human rights whilst standing on a soapbox built by the Labor and suffering of the less privileged.

I agree with Howard Glenn - there is a long way to go before we get effective human rights protection in aust. As a 52year old lesbian I have been politically active for my human rights as a gay woman. Despite coming out and campainging in the early 70's I still cant legally marry my partner to gain all the finacial and taxation benefits that would bring, not can I leave my partner my superannuation - or rather I can but it can be fought by blood family. and what about my right to have children ... too late now ... after having been denied access to clinics in the 80's (remember the advent of 'AIDS')due to my status as a 'single' woman, in the 90's I was told by the nurse "I wouldnt waste the straws on you" .... human rights .... hmmm

Howard, we are about to enter another summer. I haven't seen as many as others. But for all the years I have been alive I can not detect any of my rights disappearing. As a matter of fact legislation over the years has granted me more. I have the right to move about as I wish (though that right doesn't extend to trying to smash my way into federal parliament). I enjoy the right to assemble with friends (though that right doesn't extend to the quaint practice of rolling marbles under the hooves of horses). I enjoy these and many more rights along with my fellow Australians.

Tonight I don't expect the federal police to smash my door down and conduct a house search. Why? I don't think the federal police have any interests in people who play the horses, have a beer and don't carry a Mutiny membership card.

When Mr Howard or Mr Beazley start acting like Robert Mugabe you might have something to complain about. And reference to Malcolm Fraser won't win you many friends. It was Fraser along with others who gave us Mugabe so I s'pose he is an expert on the loss of rigths.

Just which of my rights are under threat?

The comments posted here vindicate what Howard is saying: That Australia has a very very very very long way to go before getting effective human rights protection.

Hear, hear, Pericles... I was going to try and say something very similar.

Interesting to see Boswell (mis)quoted:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775

Sage words indeed.

Personally, I'm astounded at the complicity of the Australian electorate in stripping themselves of basic civil and legal rights that were won through blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. It's so ironic that these are often the same people who mythologise their ancestors (e.g. the Eureka rebels, Ned Kelly) and decry 'big government', but seem all to willing to roll over and literally think of England while they're being buggered by the State in the name of the farcical 'War Against Terror'.

If it wasn't so serious it'd be a joke.

llyn,
How can you be campaigning for the right to have children? You have it! The only reason you don't have children is because your partner is the same sex as you are... If you want children, find a husband

I thought this article was somewhat muddled. The author appeared to be very interested in protecting human rights in Australia, citing current anti-terrorism and immigration arrangements, but did not seem clear on how to define these rights and how exactly to protect them.

A better way of approaching this sort of discussion would be to determine what sort of immigration and counter-terrorism regimes would be more amenable to the author’s conception of basic civil rights and then arguing for the changes. Otherwise, one ends up with a vaguely drawn ideal of human rights and a paranoid-seeming conviction that they are “under threat”.

The natural end-point of this approach to human rights is advocacy for another vaguely drawn ideal, the hugely unpopular bill of rights. This is the worst way to go about getting people interested in protecting basic freedoms. Why? Simply because history shows us that Australians are averse to handing power to courts, which would need to interpret any bill of rights, over elected officials.

The other main problem is that, whilst current anti-terrorism laws may hypothetically allow abuses by the authorities, there appear as yet to be no instances of such abuses actually taking place. So long as the authorities are using their powers responsibly, one is not likely to get many takers on reducing these powers. Especially at present, where most people, including myself, agree that some special measures must be tolerated to protect against the threat of terrorism.

Note, don’t try and tell me that this means I’m irrationally scared or something. I’m not

Jose

Spot on. I am a heterosexual woman. I always wanted to have a child by my husband. Sadly, I was infertile.

It infuriates me when lesbian women complain.

How dare lesbian women claim the right to traditional marriage! I have worked with numeroous lesbian women. I have seen the devastationn they have caused their chidren.

I am utterly disparaged to discover that almost without fail, every person who has commented here has missed the point in one way or another.

It is depressing that as soon as confronted with any mention of human rights, so many people immediately jump on the first impulsive thought as to their human rights. Here's a thought: Human rights are not always about YOUR human rights, and on this, I think Howard Glenn would agree with me.

Australians as a people in general are fortunately blessed to enjoy many human rights that others around the world do not. But, as I thought would have been clear from Glenn's second paragraph, there are many that don't enjoy the security of being in a position from which their human rights are virtually unassailable. And, as Pericles tactfully illustrated, the point at which people begin to take human rights for granted is the point at which they begin to be eroded.

So, the point is that human rights are jsut those. HUMAN rights, and just because YOU are a human and YOU enjoy them doesn't mean you can forget about them.

So stop thinking about yourselves for a few minutes, and then reform your opinion of what human rights mean. That's all I ask.

JOse and Kalweb ... you have proved my point. Thank you ....
Human rights .... you both advocate me going out and screwing up some poor bugggers life because people such as yourselves cant see marriage and children outside the traditional nuclear family situation. Yeah I haveknown lesbians who actually do that ... and often people dont realise mum/wife had another incarnation with a loved woman - but have made a sacrifice they shouldn't have to make to have kids and an easier life. Kalweb I would say your observations of lesbian households are biased .... and have you actually thought through the pressures such a family experineces (often from peole like you) maybe its not the parents but it is society that is the problem. Ethically I would not go sleep with a man just to have kids - I find it offensive and very disrespectfulof that man's humanity .... other peole can behave as unethically as they need to in the world but I choose not to becasue I want a world that is safe for children to grow up in. So, yeah, human rights, the 'right to happiness' doesnt the American constitution say .... and look how their constitution/human rights bill protects their citizens .. not at all ...

We are seeing some strange ideas on what constitute our "rights", which probably of itself makes this a valuable discussion.

llyn, there is no "right" to happiness. The US Declaration of Independence (not their Consitution) kicks off with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Powerful stuff - and, I would suggest, very relevant here. Given that the context of the Declaration was that they believed the system of government (from George III's England) was corrupt and oppressive, starting their complaint with a statement of what they believe government *should* stand for was a shrewd move.

So when we set about each other on the topic of "Human Rights", it is as well to bear in mind i) what they are based upon and ii) who will enforce them.

I am personally in favour of basic human rights, but viscerally opposed to their being codified in some sort of wet and woolly document. To me, there should be ample scope in our legal system for judges to oppose the restriction of basic rights (innocence until proven guilty, habeas corpus etc.) without resorting to Human Rights Charters or Bills or whatever.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is being restricted in the current anti-terorist legislation. By the same token, however, I doubt very much whether the existence of a formally-worded Bill of Rights would make a skerrick of difference. Totalitarian governments, such as we are experiencing here in Australia today, have a habit of "suspending" legal impediments that stand in their way.

What we need, in fact, is a clearer separation of the State from the judiciary, and for the judiciary to base its role on the support of fundamental human dignities. Right now, they are just puppetry, another instrument of government control.

We have rights in Australia, trouble is that some will not accept the responsibilities that should be packaged with the rights.
The whines in the articles are the same as we have heard since the 1970's . Change your tune mate, learn a new song. Be grateful, be thankful that this is Australia and just pray that this country is never changed to suit the so called 'rights' of the malcontented migrants who should never have been allowed here in the first place.

Thank you IIly, for once again demonstating once again that that calls for "Human Rights" is a simply a Trojan Horse for the homosexual lobby. To all of those who previously claimed that my stated position was crazy, eat crow.

And that must be a particularly unpleasant AIDS infected piece of crow to eat.

Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa nyaa, nyaa.

llyn

I did not suggest that you go out and screw a male to gain a child - as many lesbian women do - or they get a gay friend to wank himself so that they [the lesbian women] can self inseminate. Both are dispicable and immoral practises.

Get real as I had to do. I am a heterosexual female. I am infertile. I have to live with that. You are lesbian and probably fertile - but you have chosen your life-style. And don't start on the genetic versus learned behaviour debate please. My several lesbian female friends were married to men when they had their children. Their kids are emotionally and mentally stuffed.

Why not just love your partner and get on with life? I did. My love for my husband is far more important than any egocentric wishes that I have.

Cheers
Kay

It took 21 posts but it did happen: redders slipped in his reference to homosexuality and human rights. Sure it was after a bit of toing and froing about gay women and there rights to assistance with fertility and the like - but it bobbed up nevertheless. In an earlier post he dragged in references to multiculturaism, refugees and bombers.

Again a fairly reasoned article has given rise to a raft of prejudicial gobbledee gook usually unrelated to the topic - or at best tenuously linked.

I also had to larf at Baozs reference to the handing down of the ten commandments - which in many circles is as risable as the concept that Human Rights too have been etched some where in stone; Lets be honest religions are referred to as Faiths - not facts; many have faith that the bible stories are true but nothing is proven. But I digress

Human rights - or the lack of any locally developed protection of them is an issue of some importance - as I said in response to Greg Barnes article some time ago - I am not convinced of the need for a Bill but I am convinced that there needs to be a debate. But the debate should be conducted without being clouded by some peoples preconceived ideas that those who advocate for such a Bill or even a debate subscribe to a peculiar mixture of leftists politics, non mainstream sexual behaviour and sense of self loathing.

Certain freedoms taken for granted are under threat - the presumption of innocence, the right not to be subjected to custodial care with out reason or charge are only two; unbridled fear of the unlikely and inconsequential has moved many to discount these as of any importance.

Howard Glen is way off the mark - there is not a long way to go before we get effective human rights protection here; there is a long long long long way to go before we can even generate a sensible discusison on the subject.

The problem with a bill of human rights is that by its very nature it limits freedom. Presently, we have a constitution that's very open and not limiting. This means we are free to exercise our rights - natural freedom, a birthright of all creatures in the wild - unless, yes, unless, there's a law against it.

Now this works pretty well. Most people in Australia get to live reasonably good and free lives without much government or state interference. Some don't, but most do. The political, legislative process isn't too bad, it's reasonably transparent and it's observable by the people, who do have a say in what goes on. The judicial system carries out the laws as legislated, usually.

This is a reasonable system that seems to work okay, mostly. Sometimes it doesn't, but then activists and lobbyists, get busy and try to change the laws they don't like - the laws, and this is important, that are written and phrased to tell us what we can't do. Legislation is mostly phrased in terms of limitations, like you can't murder people, you can't steal things, you can't park here, etc. It assumes we're free to do anything else we like that is not legislated against.

Now let's create a bill of rights. Immediately we now have a set of limitations. It enshrines those things, which are stated only. Anything else is not a right. We as the people are then not entitled to do anything outside of what's been specified. We don't get the right to do anything else. If we want to do something that isn't a right, we'll have to fight through the judicial process, through un-elected judges we have no control over.

A bill of rights limits freedom. A bill of rights becomes a cage that limits individual liberty, because it states what we CAN do and not what we CAN'T do.

That's what's wrong with a bill of rights. They are by design the exact opposite of what they set out to do. They deprive people of their human right to freedom.

"Human rights" emerged only under the political systems arising out of the temult beneath the European Enlightenment.

Therefore, human rights will only become a "human" actuality rather than a European one when the entire world is comprised of democratic republics, and slavery is obsolete.

Therefore, European colonialism should never have ended, and should indeed have spread.

From the preamble to the UN declaration on human rights.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law..."

The issue is about power. In Aussie we have it great, partly because we have a history of people standing up to (what is, from their pov) government injustice.

The criminal law exists to protect us from individuals who would try to infringe on many of our human rights. However bills of rights and other similar documents are there to protect us from individuals who infringe on our human rights WHILE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.

Although we have no government acting to limit our rights to free speech etc at the moment, what is worrying about the anti-terror laws and even the whole immigration debacle is that there is a potential for tyranny. Sure those systems being set up to stop refos and mad muslim bombers are not aimed at us now.

But if some nut got into power and decided to use them, not to protect Australia, and Australians, but their own hold on power it would be too late then to do anything other than that last resort in the quote above. At that point anyone who wanted their freedom protected or defended would fall into the same category as muslin terrorists.

Personally, these laws seem to me to be dangerous because they limit our confidence in our way of life. If we really believe in our way of life then we wouldn't be scared of foreigners coming here and being exposed to it. We would be confident that this would benefit us and them, we would choose the risk that 80 or 800 out of millions of us MIGHT blow us up and cause us some harm, cause thats a small price to pay for freedom.

If freedom was less important than safety why have so many people died for it over the years.

Anyway thats how I see it.

Jools, you touched on an important point.

Human rights, and the rule of law, depend solely on POWER. Without it, there 'are' no rights. If we analysed all current power structures, we might find that they all reflect some entrenched oppression, or cruelty, or displacement of others, etc.

This leads to the concept of the hyprocricy of all attempts to codify human rights from the perspective of man. Show me a man who has not been born into an inherited oppressive social history and I'll show you pigs flying. When 'man' says "This is a human right" his neighbour looks at him and says "but you stole the land and displaced countless indigenous people" so, the question arises, "Will we recognize the 'right' and also the restitution ?

Of course, once we begin down that path there is no end.

When Zachaeus (a corrupt tax collector) heard that Jesus was coming along the road he climbed a tree (he was also short) to see him, then Jesus called him down, and he 'repented'.. the evidence was that he determined to restore 'fourfold' to anyone he had defrauded.

Ultimately, any establishment of 'human rights' by man, should also involve confession, contrition, repentance and restoration. Otherwise they are rather shallow. "This is what is right"... "but am I going to fix the inherited wrongs I live with"? ..no not a chance, that would threaten my comfor zone... etc.

So, perhaps human rights from God's perspective is a better way?

"Love the Lord you God with all your heart"
"Love your neighbour as yourself"

Applying these principles to Australia, I believe it is possible to reconcile with our indigenous people, to restore their dignity, and to co-exist in a harmonious mutually beneficial society.

Pericles,

thanks for spelling it out so clearly in your first post. Most people don't think it will ever affect them because they are not muslims.

There are other ways to combat terrorism. How about listening in on mosques and kicking out those charismatic muslim visitors who are conning muslim youth into "understanding suicide bombers". How can we let anyone promote Sharia, or intolerance towards homosexuals, women without hijabs, infidels, etc in our tolerent democratic society? We might as well throw our education system in the bin if we can so easily allow all our good work to be undone by radicals.

Kalweb – you are spot on and llyn is wrong.

Human rights protect the right to pursue, without interference from the state. Llyn is demanding the right to be given, despite the realities of biology.

Llyn whilst you selfishly demand to exercise your perceived “rights” – what about the rights of your progeny to be brought up by two parents of alternate gender in a normal household?

Whilst I have no problem with individuals pursuing their own lifestyle, involving a third party (child) in that counter-culture decision is the absolute in selfish arrogance and indulgence.

Kalweb has had to accept the realities that circumstance has deemed she cannot have children, you need to come to terms with the unnatural state of your sexual relationships and accommodate similar acceptance, the world does not evolve just around you and your “rights”.

And before the limp-wrist lobby gets on high horses about gay rights – I have no problem with mono-gender relationships and support the idea that a loving couple should be allowed to marry and make secure whatever inheritance expectations they can arrange.

That said, accepting and tolerating the “abnormal” is different to endorsing it or presuming it enshrines the optimum family model for children to be brought up in - because it does not. Children need the love and support of both mother and father, anything less and they suffer in their development experience and consequently wear the “issues” in later life.

As for “human rights” – it is fairly easy to tell who has not been faced with a terrorist “situation”. Those who have tend to think differently to those who think it will only ever happen to someone else. Howard Glenn, I would guess, lacks such “experience” and his defenders likewise.

Skippy – “Therefore, European colonialism should never have ended, and should indeed have spread.” interesting view and one which I could agree with, in many respects. However, such choices are difficult to reverse.

There's a line in Shrek 2 when Donkey rambles on about the right to remain silent.

"You have the right Donkey, what you lack is the capacity," Shrek tells his motor-mouthed friend.

Llyn, you also have the right to have children, but while in a relationship with another woman - you lack the capacity. That's not social or cultural but biological.

Do agree with you though about having tax and super, who you're partner is makes no difference to the financial situation.

As for human rights - I still contend we have it better here than most other countries - maybe we are a bit complacent but there is no erosion to an authoritarian state as has been suggested.

t.u.s

mickijo you make a very good point but' like others, seem to be unaware Aussies are entitled to "human rights" and " a fair go" to.
Just one classic example is how Aussie Veterans and their descendents are treated so contemptuously. Some 60 years ago Australians fought the Japanese on the Kokoda Track, Milne Bay in the Battle of the Coral Sea and other horrid places to "buy time" to allow the Americans to regroup and mount a counter offensive to defeat the Japanese. They also suffered terribly at Balikpapan, on the Burma Railway, POW camps in the Service of Australia. Without their heroic and gutsy sacrifice Australia would be nothing like the "free" country we enjoy today.

As a sign of humanity what did we do for the survivors and the widows/orphans/dependent children?. Hooray they are being presented with a medallion as long as only they or their spouse is alive. Nothing for singles or NOK. Not even a hole in the medallion to wear it? Show me one of these World War II single Veterans who can afford to own and maintain "the Great Aussie Dream" of just a simple home and modest car on the Service Pension.
The Baby Breeders can get $3000 (increasing to $5000 in July 2006) per child plus all the other Family Tax payments , child care etc and yet those who made all the sacrifices saving and building this country, paying taxes abnd bringing up families are treated so contemtuously! Later generations scream for tax cuts more, more etc. Taxes should be doubled to help make up for all the humanity they've absolved themselves from the responsibility for. Little wonder so many of us want nothing to do with our children or their offspring who have no idea or care whatsoever what human rights, responsibility, respect, honour, tradition and family are about.
It's time Australia cleaned up it's own backyard and Baby Boomers and Baby breeders stopped plundering those things supposedly set aside for those who earned them! Take care Keep watch

aussie1, my father was a veteran[AIF]of WW1. A healthy eighteen years, he was shipped to France, twenty months later he was a chronic invalid and was shipped home.
For years he fought the Repat for pension rights and it wasn't until the latter years of his life , they grudgingly gave him the full TPI pension.
Since his death we have been able to obtain his medical records and they show that he was discharged with two chronic diseases caused by the time spent in the trenches.
Now when I hear the "asylum seekers" suing the government for perceived insults and injuries, I get really and truely angry when this country failed its own so badly but can hand out millions to places like Indonesia and these unwanted intruders.