MEDIA ARE the reason we do not have a bill of rights.
I reiterate ... ALL we require for a bill of rights is a constitutional statement that the citizens of Australia have a RIGHT to unfettered, uncensored access to public media forums in all the major news outlets.

Simple enough?

You watch the fur fly if that proposition is ever put before parliament.

There is only one thing that traditional Oligarchic (rule by the few) governments in Australia fear ... having the Australian people as their masters and not a handful of pliable prima donna media barons. These media barons manipulate us so well that some idiots even think it is our fault that we don't express our opinions.

When Media barons employ Itaesque spin doctors with half a dozen degrees in manipulating populations and psyches, do you really think you are going to have any time for your opinions other than how to keep up with the Joneses? Come on people look at the advertising on TV and radio. Do you really believe that represents the average Australian. In your dreams! We know the enemy, we know what we need and we know how to achieve it. It's time to make us some room, think for ourselves and make a stand.

Further, we cannot expect this forum to last forever. It already has a problem in that the editors choose the topics at a time most suitable to themselves. That in itself is a form of censorship. Also, the Sydney Morning Herald forum vanished the day after September 11, with no explanation and it has not come back since in anything but a tightly controlled and watered down "your say". Doesn't that tell you something? If we do not get a bill that guarantees public media forum access we are, as I have said ... effectively slaves.

This is the only bill of rights we need and it won't cost the government or legal system anything except their freedom to lie to us and serve select minorities at the expense of the population at large.

Correction: re: typo. I said: “Remember only about 10,000 people voted for Howard to represent Bennelong and then only a handful of Liberals voted him in to lead Australia.” Actually, John Howard received about 40,000 votes from about 86,000. More than half the voters in his electorate did not give Mr. Howard the nod.
The swing against Mr. Howard and Liberal policy was about four percent. That is more than Petro Georgiou who some Liberals disown because of a less- than- two- percent swing against him. It is likely that the swing against Petro was because of Liberal policy. The swing against Mr. Howard was despite his one- billion dollar pre-election, public-relations campaign. I think it is wrong of Mr. Howard and his media machine to claim a mandate.

Re: Bill of Rights, Biblical Commandments, or like documents. I think that they are meaningful only with political, community and personal will. However, all action needs some sort of a guideline. Yes – the Golden Rule must be the basis of all action; and the Sanctity of Life, which, I think, a God must encompass, must be the guiding Principle.
Nevertheless, Government agencies (and private agencies) and citizens must be accountable for their actions. Yes that should be enshrined in law.
Citizens also, I think, need to aspire to high ideals and worthy goals. Ideals that are kept prominent in our private thoughts and public discourse; rather than settling for the base, defeatist and negative and that end- justifies- the -means thinking that is so dominant in society. I think, we need to persevere with the Aristotelian (once Christian) idea that only good means can preserve the universal truths and attain an ultimate good end. Every time a lie, a killing, a slight against another (such as ASIO locking up citizens’ at its discretion) to attain an immediate end is justified and that action accepted as valid then the authority of a universal truth or right is undermined .
I think that a Bill of Rights can help achieve the positive end of upholding the value of civil liberties .

Oh Barbara,am I the "studied ignorance"to which you are referring?You seem to be in panic mode with such hyper-idealistic aspirations of the of the individual being too busy to connect politically with your elite.You see the public have good grasp of reality and good crap detectors.

Many politicians are lawyers and they have created a system to suit themselves.Big money law today is about selling people their rights and whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant.

A surgeon recently told me of how litigation lawyers sniff around the hospital wards asking patients if they were satisfied with the outcome of their operations.They inform them of their rights and the fact it will cost them nothing if they lose and have only to share in the bounty.You know what,to insure the validity of their case,they tout for medical practioners of low moral standards to bare witness to the fact that a particular procedure was not done to a particular standard and pay them undislosed cash for their professional opinion.

What a grey area for the legal disease to seize upon.This surgeon has to pay over $100,000.oo pa for medical indemnity insurance just for himself.Do you think this might be adding to the protracted waiting periods for people to get basic medical attention?
Lawyers have blown the cost of medical services public liability way out of proportion.This surgeon wants to leave this evil system that lawyers and Govt have perpetuated.We have diminished medical services and a public consumed with rights without responsibilities.

The legal fraternity is an absolute disgrace and need some serious introspection.They feed off our weaknesses rather than our sence of responsibility or courage to achieve.
If we are going to have "A Bill of Rights" ,we also need a counter balance "Bill of Responsibilities"

So George, you want something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - that noble document that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia etc, etc. If you really believe that Rome is burning, why are you "fiddling around" with a useless Bill of Rights? Seems to me to be something to do when you can't do anything. I'm amazed that our fragile, tenuous democracy has managed to survive this long without a Bill of Rights.

Seems that you're not really concerned about the threat of terrorism George. I wonder what the reaction would be if we were attacked? Seeing that the whole state security issue is being used as a weapon to score points against the Howard government I suspect the event would be met with a certain amount of glee. I would suggest that George should put forward his plan to protect the most basic of human rights - the right to not being blown up by scumbag terrorists.

A “Bill of Responsibilities”. I like that Arjay, a lot. Of all your posts that I have read this is the first of your ideas that I agree with; the second is that lawyers lurking in hospital corridors is unforgivable and perhaps this Bill of Responsibilities of yours can do something to address ethically challenged lawyers and politicians – put their incomes into mandatory indefinite suspension until they can prove themselves worthy as service providers.

You rightly mention balance. Nobody knows when this “war on terror” will cease, if ever. The idea of perceived terrorist threat followed by legislation followed by community acceptance followed by perceived terrorist threat……. Where will we be after five more years of this - unchecked?

A balance between the need to protect ourselves against terrorism and the need to preserve basic liberties – we are just winging it - we have no mechanism.

Anyone interested in freedom of speech: Have a read of how Carmel Travers had her hard drive smashed to bits with a sledgehammer.

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-06-22&headlineid=981

I really can't see how a Bill of Rights would actually (as opposed to theoretically) protect us against draconian anti terrorist legislation. Consider the US and UK, both have Bills of Rights, and they also have far more draconian anti-terror regimes than we do.

Remember also that it is the US Bill of Rights that gives its citizens the right to bear arms, and look what tremendous harm this has done.