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.