Alan B,
I don't know why you see the need to state that TO STAND IN THE WAY OR OR PREVENT NATURAL JUSTICE should never be allowed. One would think that goes without saying !
I don't think anyone is actually saying that.
Judging by the many inhumane getting away with their ways it is however weird how natural justice is not made use of unless of course you mean natural justice is doing nothing ?

Individual. I say what I mean and mean what I say! Don't speak in riddles that need to be analysed for their true meaning! No need to try and read anything else in! Particularly what I didn't say!

What I did say was, in effect, I would not allow the fact that a few inhumane folks got their human rights validated, should never be used to deny the rest of us or irrevocable human rights being enshrined in our constitution! You may want something else?

Every day we get denied something we should have as a basic guaranteed human right (food, shelter, an education) because a few bad apples may also profit. And all too often do? And that simply has to include a cadre of patently corrupt politicians?

Best wishes for the season.
Alan B.

.... should never be used to deny the rest of us or irrevocable human rights....
Alan B,
Shouldn't these things work both ways ?
Oh what a mess ideologies have gotten us into !

The difficulty the French have run into is that to Muslims it is not
allowed to criticise Islam, Mohammad or Allah and this is considered
blasphemous and contrary to Sharia law.
The Islamic organisation proposed an offense called Islamophobia which
they said is to protect muslims from accusations and criticisms.
However its real purpose is to prevent free speech that criticises
Islam and Muslims.
That is why the muslims were so angry that Macron denounced the man
that decapitated that teacher. They consider that criticism to be
Islamophobia.

Reminds me of a scene in one of those river travel shows recently on TV where a passenger asked the Captain if those 20 statues on a hill were Hares. The Captain replied that he was certain they were Rabbits because when he passed the same hill only days earlier there were only 8.
As the saying goes 'in the beginning there were two'.

Individual. Shouldn't it work both ways? You mean it doesn't now or we can cherry-pick which group we allow to have natural justice and human rights?

As for ideologies? Who needs to lock their mind away in one of those mental boxes. If we would deny any race or culture their basic human rights due to the heinous activities of an internal minority. Nobody would get any!

If we would refuse to honour those already granted because of white supremacists, the KKK or nutters like Bryan, who shot up a Hobart restaurant or that other crazy who shot men and women at prayer in a Christchurch Mosque. Or those who did a similar thing in Charlestown USA, etc. We would punish whole countries, for the excesses of a few crazies.

Ideologies should be banned or registered as a hate crime, going somewhere to happen, given some classic outcomes? When they swing too far to the right,i.e., Nazism/fascism or too far to the left, communism?

None of who would grant a bill of human rights to their citizenry! Be they led by Joe Stalin or Herr Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, President Putin and several others cut from similar cloth!

And given that's so, ample reasons for ensuring we do! We are none of the above and don't need to ape their behaviour or example! And no credible reason for denying the Australian public a long-overdue bill of irrevocable human rights!

We can always send/ship the crazies to Devil's Island or similar exile? Can't we? Then let them loose on each other !? Appropriate or what?
Alan B.