That SBS doco is an eye-opener on what governments can get away with if we let them. Taken together with the recent application of the new anti-terrorism laws to certain unnameable Australian citizens of Islamic persuasion, it demonstrates clearly that Sept. 11, 2001 was the most successful "black ops" achievement of the US-controlled global intelligence community so far.

The US "Bill of Rights" was never a one-off enactment, it is a series of hard fought amendments to the American Constitution designed to correct some of its perceived defects. Not all amendments succeeded, e.g. the Equal Rights Amendment which would have given equal rights to women, and some, like the prohibition amendment, had to be repealed. The "right to bear arms" amendment only gave that right to "a properly constituted militia" and was designed to counter lawlessness on the frontier, not to encourage it in urban schools. Post-9/11 legislation like the Patriot Act is specifically designed to evade the consequences for the Bush administration of breaching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and, as many see it, the reason 9/11 happened. The Australian legislation follows from ASIO taking its orders from Langley, Va. to bring us into line with the US.

My point is that a Bill of Rights is ultimately only a piece of paper, and the actual rights a person has usually comes down to who is interpreting that piece of paper. The US Bill of Rights is a classic example - your and my interpretation of its 2nd ammendment is that it pertains only to militia, but the prevailing interpretation in the US is that it pertains to all individuals. I would say that this part of the US Bill of Rights has cost more innocent people their lives than any other legislation in existence. This doesn't mean that all Bills of Rights are bad, but it shows that a Bill of Rights is not the pancea against erosion of rights that some legal theoreticans claim it to be.

I have just been catching up with this interesting thread (George Williams, “Liberties rest in the hands of the vigilant”, Online Opinion, 30 June 2005). If my fellow-contributor Pierdsus really believes that Australia is “at war”, he suffers from a serious reality cognition problem. With which country or government are we at war ? Where and when was Australia’s declaration of war made in our Parliament ? Where is the mobilisation order to our ADF? Pierdsus may feel Australia is at war with terrorism – as we are at war with drugs, child abuse, poverty and all manner of things - but that is one person’s view, not a fact of state policy.

More seriously, I would like George Williams please to elucidate further the exact meaning of these sentences in his good piece:
“These [new anti-terrorism laws] include the imposition of a five-year jail term for speaking about or reporting the detention of a person by ASIO, including where that person has been mistreated. Another example is that non-suspect Australians can be detained at the behest of ASIO for one week, whereas suspects can only be held for 24 hours before being charged.”

I’ve read a lot about these draconian provisions in the media of late but it has never been spelled out whether this is a mandatory five-year jail term, i.e,. that if a person does speak out after being taken away for up to one week for secret ASIO questioning, he/she must be charged with that offence and if found guilty, that a judge must sentence him/her to a mandatory five years in jail ? Or, under the law as it now stands, could the judge if he/.she were so disposed find the accused guilty but impose a purely symbolic penalty? (to be continued)

(continued) What will actually happen when some angry innocent person, sooner or later, defies this law on conscience grounds? It seems to me that under Murphy’s Law, this is bound to happen. Sooner or later ASIO is going to take in some entirely innocent person for secret questioning, eg a journalist or a human rights lawyer, and that person is going to get very angry indeed, to the point that they will blow the whistle afterwards regardless of consequences. What will happen then, George ? Will it depend on what kind of a judge is listed to hear the case? Or is that five-year sentence truly mandatory?

And a further question. In this postulated situation, if someone were to speak out publicly about their wrongful removal for secret questioning, would the media be subject to the same mandatory five-year charge if they reported the fact of that person’s protest? Would such an aggrieved person thereby have no way of making the fact of their protest publicly known., beyond handing out leaflets in Martin Place or Federation Square ?

Perhaps these are questions our Senators should be considering, when they meet to consider the proposal to make these bizarre laws permanent. We need to explore what are the practical consequences of these laws.

What I would like to know, George, is this. How is it that you so blatantly and frequently advocate a Bill of Rights for Australia, and now Victoria, when you have just been appointed the Chair of the 'Independent' Committee to decide on whether Victoria needs such legislation? Is this evidence of bias or a commitment only to the appearance of justice and consultation?

Australia has no need of a 'Bill of Rights'. One of the major premises of a democracy is that it is based on the notion of ‘consent’. That is, the consent of the majority in the election of the government to establish a rule by the people, for the people. This is, perhaps a romantic notion, but nevertheless, that is the principle of our democracy. To introduce a ‘Bill of Rights’ for Australia is to presume that the rights the current society values and prizes are ones that outlast cultural shifts. One could label this arrogance.

I question also: why would a government want a Bill of Rights? Is it that it does not trust to the future an Opposition that may make decisions different to the ones it would make? Or perhaps it lacks the strength of its own convictions and would rather have the courts do its work. Either way the government that enacts a 'Bill of Rights' is really saying it does not trust the judgement of the electorate, and that it wants to bind the electors of the future to do something that may be against their wishes. Is this the logic we are supposed to accept?

There is absolutely no need for a Bill of Rights. Australia was not built on political posturing- why should we cave in now?

The problem with "rule by the people, for the people" is that the "the people" sometimes become a hysterical mob.

A good chunk of the Australian people have become a bit mob like several times in the last ten years. This was during a prosperous period. Imagine how we would go during a time of hyperinflation, large unemployment, and under threat of attack.

A Bill of Rights gives the individual some protection from the mob.