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a "human" actuality rather than a European one when the entire world is comprised of democratic republics, and slavery is obsolete.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