JO !!!
valuable contribution about Aboriginals etc.. and the mention of Pauline. But the biggest problem with Hansen was the media. I can give u chapter and verse on the 'style' of media approach used. If I were Pauline and could identify anyone calling me a 'racist' I would sue them into the poor house.

If I heard 'Racist' said about her once I heard it a million times, yet her viewpoint was not 'racist' (get the dictionary) .. Her suggestion of non preferential treatment is a worthy one. Your suggestion that 'they are the underprivileged' with its associated assumption that more money or more handouts will 'fix' them is fallacious.

The Indigenous people need more than anything else a sense of dignity and perspective. They, as we, are all victims of history. The most we can probably do is symoblic rather than material, but I can assure you, symbolism is powerful stuff. When I walk down the chinatown area of Kuala Lumpur where just about every street name is Ali or Mohammed or Chong or Tan or something, suddenly I see a sign that says "JOHN WESLEY DRIVE".. it makes my jaw drop ! Suddenly.. u feel 'more valuable' (as a Christian).

The best thing we could do is employ a goodly number of anthropologists to do a serious study of Aboriginals in terms of my favorite illustration the Yir Yiront of cape York Peninsula. There are the grand total of 15 speakers of this language left. Nearly extinct. There were specific identifiable reasons for their decline, which could have been prevented. The same will apply for each aboriginal group in our cities and remote areas. Identify those reasons, and things CAN be done. Its not about money.

I might put up some sign on my place acknowledging the tribal history :) I must sus that one out

Grace, you obviously don't know too much about the law. A Bill of Rights is not necessary and in fact is the worst thing that could possibly happen. It would destroy democracy in Australia and effectively allow the courts to rule the land. Read James Allan's paper on Bills of Rights published in the Federal Law Review:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2002/20.html

In any case, we don't need a Bill of Rights telling us what we so obviously have a right to do. We have a right to go to the toilet don't we? (in a discrete manner of course) - yet we manage to exercise this right with out a Bill of Rights! See my comments in response to Kenny above. If you say we don't have free speech then show us where the law forbids it?

You mention the High Court finding implied rights but note that this could change if the bench changes its political persuasion. That's true - but don't you see that a Bill of Rights will be interpreted in exactly the same way - except that then the court will have unrestrained power to strike down any government legislation they feel violates whatever rights they "invent" regardless of what the voters think! Unlike members of parliament, we can't vote out judges. That fruitcake of judge [in]justice Kirby will go crazy! The problem is that Bills of Rights are never used to guarantee basic rights but are always used to FORCE a radical social agenda onto people that would never accept such an agenda. A liberal Court will find rights for any and every minority group and deny them to larger more reprsentative groups. This has happened in the US and in NZ and in every other country that has introduced Bills of Rights. i.e. Australia could possibly be run by 7 tyrants on the bench (or 4 tyrants really).

Regarding defamation laws, they are in place not to restrict freedom of speech but to regulate it. Defamation occurs when someone says something FALSE about another which reflects negatively on that person, their character and those who associate with them. Note that you are only guilty of defamation if you say something FALSE. ie. unlike the Victorian RRT legislation, TRUTH IS A DEFENCE. ie. the 2 Danny's could not and were not found guilty of defamation, beacuse what they said about Islam was demonstrably true.

The point is that one cannot just come out and make any serious accusations against a person. You must have evidence or proof. If you don't have evidence or proof you can approach your local MP and ask them to ask a question in question time. You can also exercise freedom of info legislation.

AK

Aslan, the loud expression of your personal opinion, together with some nasty sledging, does not substitute for reasoned debate. You should read a bit more about the law, so that you can argue from a better informed position. I suggest you start by accessing the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law on the internet and follow the Bill of Rights link.

You might believe that a Bill of Rights is not necessary in Australia, but that is no more than an expression of your personal opinion. And as I mentioned above, I smell fear and ignorance. Australia is one of the few remaining countries in the western world that lacks a full expression of citizens' rights in its constitution. Your view that a Bill of Rights would destroy democracy in Australia is just childish, unless you believe that the USA and Canada, for example, have destroyed their own democracies by codifying the rights of their citizens, in order to protect themselves from oppresssion by the state. A Bill of Rights would secure your individual freedoms, Aslan, not diminish them. And you would still be free to go the toilet.

I assume you are aware that the "implied right of political communication" was found in our constitution by a small margin of the Mason High Court (including Kirby J), widely regarded by the right-wing as a dangerously "activist" or "inventive" court. This suggests to me that you would prefer that we revert to a position where no such rights are available to us in law, and we rely solely on the "black letter" law as provided in the text of the constitution. That would mean less "free speech" not more, Aslan.

In fact the composition of the High Court is moving more to the right as Howard has now had the time to appoint new judges that better reflect his political persuasions. I mention in particular, Callinan and Heydon JJ, and the lack of any women on the bench now that Gaudron J has retired. You might well find that your dreams come true some time in the near future, and that the "implied right of political communication" is gradually rolled back in favour of a more restrictive interpretation of the constitution.

I understand you are dead against any court finding in the law the same rights for "minority groups" as are available to the rest of us. But again, this is an expression of your personal opinion, and is probably a minority opinion in itself. I think that most Australians would prefer that we are all equal before the law, including the aboriginal people, for example. Incidentally, if you want to see a Bill of Rights in action in Australia, then you should have a look at the Australian Capital Territory, and see whether the "tyrants" have destroyed democracy there.

Your capital letter description of defamation law does not add anything useful to what I said above. If you have a look, you will note that I mentioned the need not only to reform, but also to "standardise" the laws that operate differently in the states and territories. Why do you think I mentioned "forum shopping"? Perhaps you think that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy for defamation, but many do not. Public retraction and apology might be a better result, addressing the injury directly, and would probably relieve the courts of a substantial workload. Reform of defamation might also relax the burden of proof on journalists who are acting in the public interest, for example. I will leave you to read further on the issue of reforming defamation law, and in the meantime, I wish you well in relying on your local MP to expose political corruption and the FOI laws in finding out about the inner workings of the bureaucracy.

Grace,

I am not just loudly expressing my personal opinion. I provided a link to a detailed academic paper by an expert in the area that was published in a peer-reviewed academic law journal. In this paper the author (James Allan) demonstrated how New Zealand's Courts used the Bill of Rights to usurp power from the government and therefore the people, and why such a Bill is not necessary in Australia.

If you were too lazy to read this paper then that is your problem not mine.

And the link you gave me was pretty light on in serious discussion of the topic. Lots of assertions though. Although it did have a few links to some academic papers including another one by James Allan:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/SydLRev/2003/4.html
And this one from former Chief Justice Harry Gibbs:
http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume6/v6chap7.htm

Did you read these?

AK

BOAZ-David

Thank you for your acknowledgement / agreement

I was interessted mainly in the detail of another post of yours

"Fred Phelps who just about dances on the grave of the homosexual who was killed after one of his sermons, who went to the funeral at it preached against homosexuals, who set up a memorial on the grave saying "THIS many days since he went to hell" is not exactly what I would describe as an 'evangelical' We call that type 'hyper fundamentalist weirdo'. You can tell the type within the first few utterances they make. One has to have the same balance as Christ had, and showed, to qualify as a balanced Christian. Hate speech is not for us. "

I was unaware of this Phelps person but accepting your statements as you wrote, his behaviour is exactly what I mean, by allowing the stupid to declare themselves in their own words. Far better he express his true self and we can all see the stupidity of his ways than he be presumed a martyr to censorship and build a following by claiming some "credibility" from being repressed.

Aslan, I suggested that you have a look at the Gilbert + Tobin Public Law website, because you appear to be arguing your case from a very limited perspective on the law. I had hoped that you might address the arguments yourself, instead of indulging in some more personal sledging. You have now descended into the same defeatist tactic that is adopted by so many others on this website, of demanding that I read an ever more expanding list of sources that serve to confirm your prejudices, including Harry Gibbs (oh dear!). For every one paper arguing against a Bill of Rights that you produce, I could find another twenty. And another twenty that argue for a Bill of Rights. Stand on your own two legs, Aslan, and argue a reasoned position yourself, you gutless wonder.