Greg Barnes call for a Bill of Rights to offset the impact of the proposed anti terror laws is likley to sink like a stone. While the arguement is cogent enough, as long as there is nothing in it for our current crop of leaders it will be disregarded.

The laws currently on the table, born from an irrational fear of the unlikely, will suit many Australians cowering under their beds and indeed many politicians; the deportation of the American political activist most recently is a sobering reminder of of how secretively governments can conduct themselves in this environment.

Should the "threat" dissipate over time I doubt governments of either persuasion will repeal or water down the existing laws - or any more harsh legislation - as it affords them more power to control domestic activities. A Bill of Rights will not fit readily in the policy framework of either party; for them more power is an asset they value too highly.

As with Tampa and the Iraq war the opposition laws will pursue a me too line on the new laws with a few buts and provisos in a hapless attempt to define a point of difference - but when it comes to power both parties are pretty much on the same page and will not entertain a Bill of Rights.

The real threat to Australia still comes from within; a gutless opposition, an increasingly self centred community and a government shaping themselves to go down in history as the most agressive social engineers we have had the misfortune to suffer.

Good on you, Sneekeepete, keep going for it, mate, only hope and pray the rest of our popular Posties think the same way.

Cheers,

George C, WA - Bushbred

Greg Barns makes the usual emotional and tricky appeal used by proponents of a Bill of Rights as way “..towards strengthening human rights protections for Australians”. We are supposed to think, “Oh, my Gawd yes. We Australians can’t have our human rights abused. We must have a Bill of Rights!”

But the proposed and necessary anti-terrorism laws to which Barns and others object are not directed at Australians per se, but to a very small minority of people: some of whom might be Australian citizens or be having a quid each way with dual citizenship. The majority of Australians have nothing to fear.

As with Sev: the Human Rights Commissioner, who recently called, once again, for a B of R after a report on the self-harm among some illegals in Baxter, Greg Barns is only interested in minorities, not majority Australians.

Bill of Righters have no respect for democracy and the wishes of the people. They don’t recognise the protection for individuals under common law. They want the courts politicised because they can’t get consensus for their minority, often extreme, views. Their anti-majority stance indicates that they favour an entrenched, inflexible instrument that, once adopted, can’t be removed. Barns makes a point of telling us that, although PM Blair would like to avoid some EU human rights obligations, he can’t because of the obstruction of the courts and the House of Lords. Yet Blair is the head of a democratically elected Government. The Lords and judiciary are not elected by anyone, but they can stifle the will of the people. The courts could very well do the same thing here with a Bill of Rights. Could we really trust anyone to draft it with all the minorities and self-servers putting in their oar?

A Bill of Right is best left alone - especially if it’s used as a weapon of extremist thinkers more concerned about the “rights” of a few troublemakers whose dictionaries don’t contain the word “obligations” to your country of birth or adoption

Leigh, protecting minorities and bucking majoirty opinion is what a legally enforced enunciation of rights is for. Tyranny of the majority is just as tyrannical and inimical to liberty as the most tinpot of dictators.

You know, there's no freedom of speech in Australia. There's freedom of *political* speech - and that was only established in 1992 - but no general freedom of speech. So much for common law.

Greg may be right to be concerned about the extreme measures of our anti terror laws, but he is wrong in claiming that the answer is a Bill of Rights.

The UK's Bill of Rights did not protect Mr de Menezes against police bullets. The US has a Bill of Rights and far more draconian anti terror legislation than we do. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia had Bills of Rights.

A Bill of Rights offers no magical protection against the erosion of rights, it is just a law like any other and therefore subject to interpretation by courts and modification by other laws. It is not the panacea that so many writers claim it is.

Once again the homosexual lobby uses any excuse to push forward it's vision of an Australia ruled by Justice Yeldham clones. A High Court full of homosexuals with the judicial power to over ride the People's Parliament is a vision of Nirvana to this group, and Democracy to them is very much a major inconvenience.

That this group would seize upon necessary anti terrorism laws in order to promote their own self interest is indicative of how little they care about the rest of society. That the main beneficiaries of a Bill of Rights would be homosexuals, terrorists and criminals is a price that homosexuals are happy to pay in order to be beyond the reach of Parliamentary law.