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 ...