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.

You cynics might be surprised, a Bill of Rights could be closer than you think.

Apparently on their last visit to London John and Janette had lunch with the Blairs... and Cherie was heard giving Janette advice on a career as a human rights lawyer.

Watch this space.

I had to look up the Justice Yeldham reference: and even then I thought the long bow redneck drew re the Bill of Rights and homosexuals would have looked good in the hands of Robin Hood.

I even re read the previous possts to seek out any other references to the homosexual lobby - which I thought was downstairs in a hotel in Oxford Street - just goes to show you what I know.

Still I am not convinced we need a Bill of Rights - I think it unlikely we'd ever get one - but we need the debate. And we need a rational debate that drowns out the some what wierd claims about the sexual orientation of the High Court and homosexual conspiracy theory;- I am sure there are as many dumb gay people out there who think they will get blown up by some terorrist as there are straights

I agree with sneekeepeete.

And we should be careful of who is behind calls for a Constitution, Preambles, a repubic and now A Bill of Rights.

While it would appear that these proposals are progressive they may, in fact, be generated by conservative interests.

I see Greg was very much involved in the republican movement campaign several years back ie Chairing the Australian Republican Movement.

This 1999 campaign just happaned to be headquartered at Malcolm Turnbull's corporate office in Sydney. Turnbull also heavily financed this campaign with his millions.

While Bill of Right(ists) may have the best of intentions their campaign may well be harnessed by others towards more persoanal political ambitions.

Hi Sneaky Peter. So you have not figured out yet that the homosexual loobby is not only the leaders of the ant everything brigade, they are also the most passionate advocates of the Bill of Rights? Do you walk around with your ideological blinkers on all day? It is time for you to take them off and have a look around.

Justice Yeldham is a homosexual who is noted for his trendy lefty viewpoint, and he is also the most dissenting judge that the High Court has ever had. By a very big margin.

Homosexuals are also prominent in the Human Rights movements and the former head of the NSW Anti Discrimination Board was homosexual advocate Chris Puplic. Mr Puplic hastily resigned from the post when suggestions were aired in the press that he had shown inappropriate bias towards his very good friend "Bunny" who was a litagant seeking damages from the Board.

Previous articles in this debate site advocating a Bill of Rights have been submitted by people who have no shame in announcing that they are prominent homosexual civil rights advocates.

Finally the homosexual electorate of Darlinghurst had the highest vote in Australia in favour of a republic in the past referendum. That it also has the highest proportion of cocaine arrests in Australia might give you some clue to the sincerity of the presumed moral superiority of the chardonnay sucking and cocaine snorting inner city trendoids.

Of course, if you do not have the wit to figure all this out for yourself, then I can assure you that I am encouraged by the discovery that my opponents are so poorly informed.

Redneck I have enuff wit to kno Justice Eldham was a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW not the High Court and his sexual orientation has little to do with much at all. Just as the high, reputedly, number of arrests for cocaine use in Darlinghurst has little to do with anything or for that matter the fact that there may be homosexuals active in Civil Rights/Liberty movements.

And why should there be anyone feel shame about being a civil rights activist and gay?

A bill of Rights is about people not sex.

I dont even advocate a Bill of rights just the fact it needs to be the subject of a reasoned debate and not one clouded by wacky conspiracy theories, irrational fear and prejudice.

I wouldn't worry sneekeepete.

The fringe of society and intolerance of views that "redneck" represents would be of increasing interest to ASIO.

Its no longer as fixated with the extreme left. Its increasingly looking at groups prone to violence of whatever political shade.

In fact one of the UK anti-terror proposals that may eventually be applied hear is language that incites violence.

Thats where increased interest in "redneck" will come in.

A Bill of Rights is as Jeremy Bentham said (to borrow a phrase)

"nonsense upon stilts"

Bills of Rights merely state what society at the time thought was the correct way of doing things.

The people that suggest that there are fundamental rights, what are these rights? and more importantly given that society is changing and dynamic, who are you to tell generations 200 years hence what to do? Or are these people all knowing and all seeing?

A bill of rights does nothing but provide a chance of activist judges to legislate from the bench (which is great for lefties because their views would never gain the appeal to win an election).

How about some of these decisions (which were legislated from the bench and have never faced debate on the floor of the legislature, which is surely the fundamental right of everyone, to have their representatives debate law).

Roe v Wade

The Pledge of Allegiance Case (about to come before the Supreme Court in the USA, however a circuit court of appeals ruled that the words "under god" should be removed from the pledge)

The recent attempt by the ACLU to sue New York Police for searching bags at train stations

The ten commandments case, in which an historical stone plaque of the ten commandments was removed from a court house because it "instituted religion"

The case in california where a city council had to remove a sign of the cross from its insignia (the cross that it represents is actually a landmark and the picture was of the landscape of the bay)

Yes lets have a bill of rights and give the nutcases the keys to the assylum.

While we are at it, lets bury democracy, because it will become the rule of the political correct minority.

Brent says that "a Bills of Rights merely state what society at the time thought was the correct way of doing things." So in 2005, the idea of separating church and state is no longer correct? Wow! Are the Taliban are looking for a new spokesman?

Redneck complains about "people who have no shame in announcing that they are prominent homosexual civil rights advocates." Perhaps he or she forgets that it was not long ago that said people were vilified and prosecuted for how they conducted their private lives. They fought for a place in society and most Australians have no problem with this. Redneck's demonstrable intolerance gives the "homosexual lobby" a continuing reason to fight with the support of the "none of my business"/"live and let live" majority.

To Sneaky Pete

Too bad you don't have enough wit to learn how to spell.

Yeah, David Latimer, I deliberately stuck the "no shame" shot in order to spark a reaction. People who get angry and emotional over their fav. causes tend give away their own self interest and reveal where they are really coming from. I hope I am not giving too much away teling you that little trick.

Look, I do not really care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Although I don’t think that the public should foot the bill for the proctologists who repair the damage to their rear ends.

The decriminalisation of homosexuality was never put to the electorate as a voting issue. Like Multiculturalism, it was simply imposed upon the people by gazette. While I agree that most people may have accepted decriminalisation, decriminalisation certainly did not automatically bestow respectability on this group by the public. And the homosexuals know it. This is why homosexuals are always savagely attacking the society that they know does not accept them. And if the people who make up this group continue to be prominent in the anti everything brigade, which constantly attacks the values, attitudes and morals of my society, then I do not see why I should not consider them as a hostile group and return the complement.

The Bill of Rights is a Trojan Horse of the homosexual lobby. It is constantly promoted by the homosexual lobby as a means to get around the laws of the People’s Parliament. If “most” people “have no problem” with homosexuals, then homosexuals would not have any trouble at all obtaining the equal rights that they constantly demand. The fact that they have to stoop to subterfuge in order to pull the wool over the public’s eyes to try and get what they want, clearly displays that you are wrong when you claim that most people accept homosexuals as equals.

Bill of Rights the cure all for society's ills, wrong wrong wrong.
It is a straight jacket for societal and democratic development.
All it does is lock in todays values for tomorrow's future.

Imagine establishing a bill of rights 100 years ago, would homosexuals have any rights, of course they wouldn't when the prevailing law at that time was that it was illegal.

The prevailing view of the that time was that women were regarded as chattel wouldn't that too be reflected in the bill of rights created at that time.

Look at how section 92 of our current constitution has been interpreted. It was meant to ensure that there would be no tariffs between the states yet became the barrier to Federal Government's ability to nationalise industry, some may argue this is a good thing but clearly it was never the intention.

Societies values change and the legislative process must not be hampered by outdated relics of the past.

We will be going through some significant changes as the biotechnology revolution approaches. Issues will arise in the next 50 to 60 years that we cannot even imagine today, how is it that we are supposed to establish a framework for decision making for events that we cannot even comprehend or imagine.

Greg Barnes falls into the age old trap of wanting to have a safety net for bad laws. If there is a Bill of Rights won't the parliament be less careful about infringing people's rights on the basis that there would be a court based safety net.

Shouldn't the parliament be accountable for bad laws and face the wrath of the population.

People say that the Bill of Rights can be amended, the reality is like all constitutions it becomes a holy grail and is very difficult to amend.

The question we should be asking is not whether we need a Bill of Rights but whether we need these tough anti terror laws, where is the need, have our security level gone to red?

Society must not be panicked into political image making agendas.

First of all, to redneck: if I had to make a choice between spelling correctly on the one hand and sanity and truthfulness on the other, I'd choose the latter. Yeldham never served on the High Court. Perhaps you're thinking of Kirby? Even if you are, to turn his presence on the High Court into the foundation of your homosexual government conspiracy is, shall we say, a little rococo. (I think I'm having a sexual identity crisis now: I used the word "rococo")

In any event, the issue at the bottom of Greg's call for a bill of rights is the very dangerous territory into which we are entering. The scariest comment made in respect of his article is that such laws are to be directed only at the bad people. Thousands of years of human history teach us that such laws will usually be abused either for personal agenda or for simple bloody mindedness.

I don't know whether a bill of rights will do any good in Australia. To have any lasting effect, it would have to be implemented as a constitutional amendment. One may doubt whether any referendum to limit the powers of the parliament to legislate against terrorism would succeed in the present political climate.

What we really need is for the people whom we elected as members of a broad church of conservatism and liberalism to stand true to the values they espouse. How could any inheritor of the conservative tradition in this country support the effective abolition of basic freedoms won over the centuries? How could any heir to the classical liberal tradition form the view that the laws now proposed are an acceptable concession?

Well Done David,

you've managed to take an intelligent debate and turn it into something stupid.

But you make my point precisely, my argument is that you are trying to tell everyone 200 years down the track how they should live.

As for the separation of church and state, last time I checked the head of the commonwealth of australia was QE II, who is also the head of the church of england (anglican), so where is the separation? 128 merely says that the commonwealth cannot impose a religion but it does not bar a state from doing so.

Bills of rights create problems as they institute one set of values for all time, and become an excuse for loonies to abuse in their search for a way around the will of the people.

You can have a Bill of Rights but you had better bury democracy at the same time, but then again most of the people who like bills of rights aren't fans of the will of the people anyway.

The comments here are very interesting. I think the work of the Canadian Courts in response to their Bill of Rights is worth a look at too.

The most interesting point made in these posts are "gazettal" of policy. Bureaucrats suggest or respond with a legal platform for their masters (sometimes even in response to public thinking!) this is 'debated' by backbenchers and cabinet and a Act of Parliament is produced. This act is then backed by Regulations developed by the bureaucrats and then further 'interpreted' by departmental guidelines and policies, to the point where the implementation of the Act is at odds with the stated purpose of the legislation. Doesn't happen? Try looking at the Office of Film & Literature Classification.

I remember entering a NSW department with a few of my children, who were very well behaved I hasten to add, and being met with some bemusement by departmental staffers who gave the impression that they hadn't seen a child since leaving school.

The point is, regardless of the Bill, the implementation process is just as important and if there is an imbalance of policy makers being representative of the wider community, then we will have policy / implementation issues

Thank you Nick Ferret, it is indeed homosexual judge Justice Kirby who is the most dissenting judge in High Court history, not Justice Yeldham. If you think that my “conspiracy theory” is “rococo”, then at least I made an attempt to articulate my premise, while you have merely claimed I am wrong without even bothering to formulate a counter argument.

I stand by my assertion that the Bill of Rights is the cause celebre of the homosexual lobby, and the main beneficiaries will be homosexuals, human rights activists, criminals and terrorists. I have already cited my reasons why homosexuals are the main proponents of a Bill of Rights. In addition, Respected former NSW Labour premier Bob Carr opposed a Bill of Rights, pointing out that the main customers would be criminals.

To point out how dangerous a Bill of Rights can be to national security, I need only point out that Britain has abrogated much of their own democratic sovereignty to the European Convention on Human Rights.

With the bombings in London, the Blair government has finally cracked down on the extremist Muslim terrorist endorsing imams and has instituted a package of legal reforms. These reforms are designed to deport religious extremists, close down mosques that foment violence and begin the screening immigrants for Islamic radicals. These reforms have now been legally challenged in the ECHR by “British” Muslims. A perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

But that is exactly what happens whenever any worthy moral value is elevated to a moral absolute. Any moral absolute can be taken to extremes where it becomes a parody of the very rights and values it was originally set up to protect. Handing politicians sweeping power can be bad enough, but at least politicians are limited by separations of power and by elections. No such restraints hold back activist judges who can use the law to go into places it was never intended to go. I cite the notorious attempt by one judge to use the NSW Family Law Court to order the release of detained children in Australia’s detention centres.

Thank you Mr Reality Check. You may be interested to know that Canadians are calling their High Court “The High Court Party” because of it’s unashamed political activism.

I am not surprised that departmental staffers looked askance at you for bringing children into their department. One suspects that they have little contact with children because such an outcome would be biologically impossible with their “partners.”

Which brings us to the hallowed halls of the Office of Film and Literature Clasification. There is no doubt that there is a big push on to bring in a Bill of Rights which would sanctify The Right to Free Expression. But with younger and younger children dying today of drug overdoses, and with children today being involved in serious violent crimes like rape, robbery, extortion and murder, one wonders how much longer the public will tolerate an entertainment media which brazenly promotes, glamourises and endorses violent criminal behaviour and drug abuse to out youngest generation.

The fastest growing crime statistic in the US today is juvenile homicide, while the Australian Institute of Criminology claimed in 2000 that it was "puzzled" at he significant rise in serious juvenile violent crime.

With pop stars, artists and movie directors now stooping to undreamed of levels of vulgarity and depravity, and with a public becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the images that their children are seeing or hearing in the electronic media, certain sections of the media look to a Bill of Rights to enshrine their “rights” to creativity and to protect themselves from future public control, for ever and ever.

A Bill of Rights would become like the US First Amendment. It would be a shield to greedy corporations and their troupes of performing vulgarians. It would be an obstacle for families and a threat to children for generations to come.

Nothing above counts as intellegent debate. The so called argument against a 'bill of rights' is a homophobic rant mixed in with a confused understanding of religious freedom.

Section 128 concerns changing the referendum. Brent, you will find that section 116 is about protecting the religion of minorities and in particular unpopular monorities. (see Jehovah Witnesses Case, 1943). In Australia, the Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church.

I’m feeling depressed today.
Yesterday, all the state and territory premiers signed off on John Howard’s draconian new antiterrorist legislation. There’s absolutely no doubt now where this tragic country is heading — inexorably towards a quasi-fascist police state. Now anyone, innocent or not, and at official whim, can be lifted off the streets, or worse, tossed into the bowels of some Oz version of Lubianca and be subjected to — yes — torture.
We know there’s no Bill of Rights or guarantee of civil freedoms in Oz. That’s why a reactionary prime minister was able to win over the conservative ‘Labor’ premiers. It was too easy. No legal impediments.
Australia has always embraced authoritarianism, despite our fondness for believing we have a laid-back larrikin nature. I guess it goes back to the very foundations of our birth — a country that began its European history as a penal colony, murdering the original inhabitants in the process. Official violence and contempt for the individual is as Australian as a meat pie thrown in a footy game.
I don’t think it’s far-fetched to say that we’re going down the gurgler.
The antiterrorist industry is celebrating its new licence to grow without limit or accountability. Exploding spook bureaucracies like ASIO can and will encourage an even more vicious climate of lies, hearsay and innuendo. Free speech and political criticism will be costly. Say or print something disparaging of government policy and it will be construed as being ‘against the national interest’. The next thing you know, some goons are at your door, inviting you down to the nick for consultation. The citizenry, already manipulated by a cynical government, will become even more fearful — of exaggerated terrorist threats, of the police and of each other. Welcome to Stasiland.
If I were younger I think I would be seriously thinking about chucking in my Australian citizenship and heading to New Zealand or back to Canada. But at 73, I’ll likely be saved the horror of witnessing the future and what this once promising country had become.

To Macropod. I am sorry that you are feeling depressed. Just think, If Australia had been smart enough to keep Muslims out of our country, all of these anti terrorist laws and all of these assaults upon our civil liberties would not have been necessary.

Instead of blaming John Howard, blame the Multicultural industry which imports the terrorists who ant to murder all of us in our beds. You should have voted for Pauline.

Response to Redneck:

To "keep out" Islam (which is a religion) would, of course, involve astonishing violations of human rights. Islamic fundamentalists would indeed leave us alone, because they are strongly against multiculturalism, from their perspective, the immoral influence of the west.

Giving into terrorist demands while rekindling support for Pauline Hanson – a masterpiece.

Stuff "human rights". I care only for the welfare of my own people and for the welfare of our related kinship groups in Europe and America.

Australia is the new Athens and America is the new Rome. You stand around inviting all the Goths, Visigoths, Gauls, Huns and Mongol barbarians into our country because you think that they are just swell guys who's cultural values should be preserved by Aussie taxpayers.

Multiculturalism has been a disaster in every society cursed with it. How many times does it have to fail before people like you who's brains are impervious to reasoned thought, finally figure out it is a not a good idea?

Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, and recently, Thailand.

Lets add Australia to the list of catastrophes. In a hundred years time, historians will use Australia as an example of how to take a peaceful society and turn it into a dungheap.

Response to Redneck:

You say "stuff human rights" and you "care only for the welfare of my own people". Which is it?

While I have heard it argued that "America is the new Rome", but Australia is as the new Athens? Very imaginative, but quite silly as Greek civilisation was many centuries older. Your analogy to barbarian invasion is lost on me, especially that you list "gauls", (conquered by Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC). Would you like a history tutor?

And what is this list of lands and countries? Is that the "reasoned thought" you are referring to?

Let us not put Australia in the dungheap. If you are not proud of Australia, its values and its people, nobody is forcing you to stay. I recommend to you spend time in a place called North Korea, one of the most monocultural places on earth. And you'll not be bothered by "human rights" ever again.

Redneck, you continue to align yourself with dictators and extremists. Have a real hard think before you post again.

and grumpier ... check this simple ether scenario ... IF my partner was of overseas origin and was for some reason under this Draconian / Orwellian legislation "detained" ... I cannot find out what has happened to her ?!*!?
There is NO avenue by which the comm or state gov's can release any information (under the secrecy inclusion)
talk about 21st century disinformation ...
For HOW long?
By WHAT ethic?
My HOWARD ... WHY are you eroding ALL the principles set about by our forefathers ...(not only this legislation)
IS there some hidden agenda ?

Written in extreme awe of what this nation has become, ashamed to call myself an Australian

You trendies use “Human Rights” as some sort of trump card which you think wins every argument. Name any cause popular with the Brahmin caste,and when you finally batter them into a corner from where they can not escape the contradictions in their own logic, out comes “Human Rights”

What is “Human rights?” It can mean anything that people like you say it is. The Americans claim that they have a “right to bear arms”, but I will wager that this is one “right” that you disagree with. How would you like arguing with an American gun nut over gun control, who simply responded to your arguments with “Yes, but firearm ownership is my right!”

Rights change with time and rights conflict with each other. There are no human rights which are absolute because morality can never be absolute. Claim that any right is absolute and some clever dick will find some way to take that right to such extremes that it becomes a parody of the concept which that moral value was created to protect.

Your premise is that Australia can not bar Muslims from immigrating to Australia because we must respect their so called human rights. Could I remind you that Australia is a sovereign nation and we will decide which rights are appropriate for our community?

You snivel about human rights, yet you are unable to make the simple connection that Australia’s civil rights are being necessarily eroded because in the name of misplaced humanitarianism, we have allowed people to immigrate to this country who hate our guts? And these people want to murder as many of us as possible in order that they will be blessed by Allah as Jihadi’s, and they can then spend the rest of eternity screwing the brains out of 72 self regenerating virgins.

The ancient Greeks once said that the protection of one’s own people is the highest morality. That is a sentiment that I agree with.

Redneck may be pleased to know that Human Rights do mean something. I can make him aware that the Australian parliament passed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act in 1986.

Redneck is correct that article 2 of the US Constitution is not a human right, but a constitutional right. It does not apply outside the United States.

Australia has decided upon the rights it shall respect and it has laws which forbid discrimination based upon religion.

Most of Redneck's post revolves about an invented conflict between international human rights and Australian sovereignty and law-making that does not exist. He ends with a slur on every good and decent Australian Muslim without any reason whatsoever and without any basis whatsoever.

So once again, we see Redneck use the same arguments and same thinking as a terrorist. Note again, the slur against Australian Muslims. That is exactly what the terrorists say about us, to justify their murderous attacks on the innocent and the unprotected.

Additional note:

'Salus populi suprema lex', but Cicero was not Greek.

Greetings, I am new to this forum but please bear with me. Being an average citizen I'm not at all sure how a "Bill of Rights" would be of benefit to anyone. However I must agree with redneck that the interest of the majority should be of greater inmportance than the rights of the minority. Yes I agree that the majority of muslims may be law abiding citizens, however it was the minority that flew airliners into buildings giving us the now notorious 9/11 and again the Bali bombings carried out by the again minority muslims. So if the "Bill of rights" would give these low lives any protection at all I like redneck am dead against it. And yes if they want to live here in Australia they should assimilate. Perhaps someone who is university educated may come up with a Final Solution to muslamite problem.