Vinni, that is the most important recognition of The Greater Parasites writing laws to suit them selves; A greater display of Dislocated ideology exists within The frame work of N G O’s ; i.e. U N, and now European Union, these are the best available e.g. available of the parasite’s wielding a stick - and Do as they Command - Or else.
Read what was reported in The Quadrant magazine: “Judicial Adventurism and social debate” or worded differently “Bill of Rights” is actually what is meant.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=580

And this article Criticising Judicial Adventurism; - same magazine:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=821

The thought of being lead by The Supreme Parasites, is something only a Doctor in psychology should diagnose, and not be left as a weapon against one’s own Civilization. Dr Richardson has a great deal to answer for; For his contribution of such a degradation, and nil attention to the psychiatric needs of those afflicted.
What should be on people minds it the caliber of Intellect of people that continually try and find ways to control – WHO and what you are, and Control your thoughts and What You do.
In the real world of Freedom, these laws are not needed, so Question why some would implement new laws, they are not Laws that protect us- they are laws to protect themselves from us- When the Population wakes up to what it is the greater Parasites are doing.

They are meant to be working for the Public- Protecting and preserving our life- not the public working for them protecting and preserving what they can steal from you- That is what we have now- Looters as visionaries-

I know that Vinny’s and All-‘s approach to lawyers and judges is stronly held by a segment of the community. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the law in general and importantly for everyday life, administrators in child protection departments, tax offices, local governments, licence registration units, and even Heads of University Departments like Mirko, also perform interpretations based on their reading of rules: dealing with applications, complaints, staff-customer/client disputes etc.

They make judgments (based on rules/guidelines/internal dictionaries etc.) that affect your rights and where the organisation will not budge, that’s often when a review by an umpire – sometimes a judge, sometimes not – with no attachment to the disputants gets to make a call that stands unless it gets taken further which does involve a court.

It’s also useful to remember that the more consistent understanding of key concepts is a disincentive to unreasonable judgments and the litigation costs that cause writers like Vinny and All- concern. And not just consistent actually adaptive too in order to deal with new developments – for example, like new meanings of privacy intrusion (an important human right for protection given science and information technology).

I like the way Simon Evans described the link between stating rules and interpreting them in discussuing charters/bills of rights - www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=16512

“Parliaments have democratic legitimacy and policy making expertise. But they can’t predict the future and every possible ramification of the laws they enact. Courts look backwards and see how laws have affected the human rights of particular individuals. This dynamic relationship between parliaments and courts … draws on the strengths of both institutions to protect human rights, enhancing and not undermining democracy.”

On a different note, are we not in trouble if as Mirko suggests, free press is essential for human rights given monopolisation of it and the sedition provisions of the new (popular!?) anti-terrorism laws?

If the argument is that we need a Bill of Rights because we don't trust parliament, then it is time to abandon parliamentary democracy... so lets call it what it is, the people advocating a Bill of Rights want to turn back time over 2 thousand years and install a group of people with whom they agree politically to tell everyone what to and those people never have to face the people who they oppress.

In respect of the argument that a majority of Australians (which is entirely wrong on a preferential basis) did not vote for Howard, how many people voted for Bob Brown or any of his left wing mates? A damn sight less than voted for Howard, and at the end of the day, this is what lies at the heart of the arguments for a Bill of Rights. Bills of Rights are used by vocal minorities and activist judges to reshape society in their image, regardless of wishes of the majority of society. Their real agenda is to rule society, without the legitimacy of being elected.

If you wish to see the mess that Bills of Rights create, have a look at Roe v Wade. Despite the angry left, the reason that abortion remains controversial is that a group of unelected judges made the decision, denying the people the right to govern themselves (oh and before you say that the majority doesn't always agree with government policy, you can hardly say that Telstra compares as an issue).

Further Bills of Rights merely enshrine the thoughts of the writers as to basic freedoms. For exmaple 200 years ago, it was a basic freedom to have a gun, thats gone really well for the ability of governments to restrict things like gun ownership. And before you say, we'll just amend the Bill of Rights, have a look at how many referenda have passed in 100 years, I think about 4, how likely do you think people are to give up ANY rights.

This is nothing but another demonstration of the arrogance of the "rights lobby".

"How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition."

10,000? Good try. It's a lot more than that, especially when you take into account the distribution of preferences.

A Bill of Rights will clearly do nothing, but at least we will see that it has accomplished such a result in Victoria, before we have to see what a waste of time, resources, and assorted mucking around, it will be at a federal level.

Mirko,

You have based the entire article on false premises. You say _

"The best protector of important human interests is not signing up to abstract ideals, but a robust democracy with a free press."

Here are some definitions from an online dictionary for the word democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Which of those fits what government we have here?

Here's a definition of the word oligarchy from the same source:

Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

Those making up such a government.

A state governed by a few persons.

Which one sounds closest to what we have? Keep in mind your choice at elections is between two parties as the government, Coalition or Labor. Also keep in mind that preselection is done behind closed doors by people you never hear of. Also keep in mind those that win preselection have to obey what they are told to do or else no preselection. Is that the democracy that you refer to?

Hicks, Rau, Alvarez and no doubt many more demonstrate exactly why we do need stated rights.

We do not have a democracy in Australia and the media is not free and open and you know it.

We do need a bill of rights, to protect us from politicians, beaurucrats, religion, PC's, multinationals economic rationalism and ourselves. Realistically we can't have one until we adopt a system that accounts for the changes we require. To do that we first have to instil legislative responsibility on politicians, beaurucrats and business leaders. We also have to change our legal system so that it reflects community expectations and start supporting victims instead of perpetrators. Then we have to make the judiciary more responsilbe for their actions and decisions.

As is pointed out by other posters, a bill of rights doesn't nessecarily mean that they will be upheld in the way they were designed. For this country to survive, we have to change our system, as this one has certainly fallen of the cliff and could crash and splatter at the bottom any time.