Has anyone really asked our government or the people behind our government as to why they wish to repeal s 18 ?

It is merely a smokescreen, why, when our Constitution does not even protect the right to life, should it even dawn upon anyone that the movers & shakers behind the scenes are posturing for something more sinister. Why, when still we wait for a proper Bill of Rights, should we let this go on ?

We know for fact that the premise upon which the War On Terror kicked off, was flawed. As were the allegations of Weapons Of Mass Destruction supposedly held by Saddam Hussein. All of which resulted the Terror Laws that now operate, & they too were based on a desire to change the common law rights of Australian Citizens.

As in the aftermath of September 11, we again see the elected parliament ramming through, at chamber sittings in the dead of night more and more restrictions.

Benjamin Franklins words still ring true today...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Albie Manton, it is the creators and supporters of these kinds of laws that have "given up essential liberty to purchase a little safety".

They deserve contempt.

Have you ever asked whether the creation of such laws is a smokescreen for something more sinister?

Like the obliteration of distinct peoples?

The dumbing down of Europeans by genetic mixture with less intelligent peoples?

The weakening of nationalism, ushering in a totalitarian global authority, that far from respecting ethnic differences, completely devalues them?

The dilution of worker's rights and decent income through a labour force excess?

The censoring of any discussion or research relating to the races, and hence history itself?

A generation of easily manipulated children, brainwashed with happy-love-love propaganda and a history-devoid social context?

Who do you think "Big Brother" would support?

The "racists" who question ideological orthodoxy?
Or the ignore-reality-history-nature promoters of a superficial social void?

This author's article is a dishonest attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of people who would normally oppose the politically correct concept of a Bill of Rights, by claiming that such a bill would protect free speech.

A Bill of rights would be a sugar coated cyanide pill for democracy in Australia. It would give activist judges the right to suppress laws enacted by the people's parliament on the grounds that these democratically arrived laws violate the Bill of Rights.

Rights conflict, and rights can be interpreted in so many ways it gives unelected judges as much scope as they need to make the implementation of democratic government impossible.

One only has to appreciate the endless legal manoeuvrings over the "rights" of boat people, which the legal community thinks must always over ride he rights of Australians to say who may, or who may not, enter our own country. Remember when that NSW Family Law Court judge ordered that all boat people children held in detention must be released immediately on the grounds that it violated the family Law Act? This is exactly the sort of thing that the implementation of a Bill of Rights can get us into. The NSW Family Law Court was never meant to dictate to the Federal government how it should implement its immigration policies.

One suspects that the real reason why some people are trying on this Bill of Rights to protect free speech, is because they realise that too many people are waking up to the fact that the entertainment industry needs to have its wings clipped over its never ending endorsement of illegal drugs, violence and criminal behaviour, which is having serious consequences for the community.

can certain people please stop saying stupid and non-sensical things about race, genetics and tribal uber-beings.

Anyone who claims that – ‘race or tribe X is superior than tribe J etc.”
. . . is ridiculous as HOW can they prove some physical, genetic evidence for this.

People who claim ‘white Europeans are the best race on earth” are making claims they nor anyone else can substantiate nor even make seem feasible.

I personally believe that such stupid and apparently racist remarks from whites or any peoples EVER . . . is a simple misstep in intellection and comprehension.

That is to say – I think that ANY racist like this in actuality means to articulate – my particular tribe’s ways and notions and ‘culture’ is better [they think] than others. How can anyone talk about the hierarchy of minute physical aspects [genes] that they cannot even see let alone judge.

Thus to all white supremacist lava of filth who talk like this [and to all other racial nuts of any colour] -\ next time MAYBE only debate the hierarchy of different cultures and tribal ways – NOT genetics.

Matthew S, Ye shall know them by their fruits.
And the apple doth not fall far from the tree.

Make a list of accomplishments of people of European descent.
Now create a comparable list of non-Europeans.

Which do you think will the be longest list?

Many European civilisations have crumbled, but there are other peoples who've never even created a *single* advanced society.
Not one!
Mud huts and spears.

There are peoples who've never developed agriculture, writing, architecture more permanent than a tent, political structures more sophisticated than who has the biggest club and the strongest arm.

These people are "equal" to the creators of Notre Dame or The Parthenon?

"How can anyone talk about the hierarchy of minute physical aspects [genes] that they cannot even see let alone judge."

You can't see someone's brain neurons firing either.
But you can see by their *output* how intelligent they are.

"MAYBE only debate the hierarchy of different cultures and tribal ways – NOT genetics."

We already argue that.
It's still condemned as "racist" anyway.

Haven't there been documented associations of body type with personality traits?
How many more possible "invisible" correlations might there be?

Which came first, the genes or the memes?

Does it not seem likely the variant genetic expressions of different populations have something to do with the variant external social expressions of the same populations?

As inside, so outside.

It's ultimately irrelevant to any debate about demographic transformation whether we're "superior".
We are DIFFERENT.

Australians are not the same genetically or culturally as Tibetans, Quechua, Turks, Samoans, etc.

We have as much right as they to exist and perpetuate ourselves as a *distinct* people and culture.

Doing this may "offend" or exclude some other types of people.
It should not be ILLEGAL to "offend" or exclude aliens, in defence of your own folk.

Shockadelic –

It seems you way, way missed my point.

History and evolution both of organic structures as well as any other social, technological or moral/political constructions spawned from some of those life forms . . . . . tend to move and be moved in terms both temporal and spatial which are way above and beyond our limited perceptual horizons.

That is to say . . . just because certain European peoples and cultures have been first to become fully immersed into science and advancement as well as in moral and political improvement [in law at least], how can that fact itself act as a PREMISE to which u can use to prove European superiority in all things even their specific genetic patterns?

First – what proof is there to show genetic differences are 100% responsible for this betterness?

Second – what studies and evidence has been collected which could refute 100% that most of those advances and “superior” aspects in Europeans were shaped over millennia by geological and other weather factors coupled with all outside forces competing for influence? Maybe Europeans became lighter than other races since they spent more millennia in harsh snow conditions which itself may have added more motivation [survival] for them to make fire and to invent in general.

I certainly agree that the science and most of the philosophy of morals and society which Europe spawned is of the highest and most authentic of ways for any people to aspire to including all of time.
But, UNLESS u wish to get whatever tribe of man first made a fire [maybe they were Asiatic Eskimos] before the secret was learned and spread to all tribes . . . . . this first fire tribe was and is now always superior even genetically for this great invention . . . . . u have to realize Europeans may have been first tribe to invent many things but one day the world will lose sight of the firstness of the achievement . . . . . as ALL people will seem equally superior.