http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-105.htm

rancitas - please have a look at this page, and tell me what the figure was that voted for john howard in the local bennelong elections.. if the result is over ten thousand, then i'm sorry, my friend, but you are an agitator, a liar, and you live in an 'ideal world', detached from reality, of your own making..

wake up. and please, stop having a go at people just because they say something positive about john howard.. he is, after all, a fellow australian, and worthy of your respect.... or, are you everything you claim to hate? prejudiced, biased, and ignorant..?

Everyone mentions Rwanda and Zimbabwe, but has anyone here thought of the United States of America? I guess not.

Someone mentioned giving the Ombudsman further powers. Well, if you do this, the Ombudsman will no longer be an Ombudsman but a de facto administrative judge. Which means we are back where we started - more lawyers and more money to people like me!

The great thing about pseudo-conservative racially-motivated neo-Nazi nutcases that congregate these forums is that their solutions always end up making the average punter poorer and me richer. Once again all I can say is SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

I love it how many here including the author have no information on the proposed "Bill of Rights", yet dismiss the idea. While laws in Australia may exist that cover all perceived strengths of a Bill of Rights, they are subject to easy change at a political whim.

Bill of Rights are supposed to contain inalienable protections. That is where the strength resides.

the usual suspects from the left are in the vanguard calling for a bill of rights......well going on their record with other legislation over the past 30 years, anything they support i instinctively reject.

what exactly are these 'rights' that those deranged lefties want to protect?? would it be freedom of expression perhaps??

perhaps they could have a word with bracks down in victoria and mention his anti villification legislation which persecutes innocent people simply for making comments about some religion which may offend some politically motivated mischief maker.

consider the case of those 2 christian ministers who were hauled thru the bracks inquisition simply for quoting from the koran at some small religious meeting. apparently this caused some members of the congregation to larf out loud and in brackislavia this constitutes religious villification.

so far those ministers have been forced to pay $200,000 trying to defend themselves and may yet find themselves in the grey bar hotel.

so to all those bleating heart lefties calling for a bill of rights, where are the rights of these christian ministers to make religious comments in good faith and be protected against political persecution from power crazed left wing goverments and their obnoxious agents.

So Irfan is lost for words and is reduced to name calling.Neo Nazis eh?
GABMUCS LAWYERS
Hello, this is Gabmucs Lawyers,we are deeply offended by this scuttlebutt that has tarnished the reputation of a pristine profession which has the economic and social welfare of this great country uppermost in every case of litigation.We are the intellectual cream of society and as a consequence,you should be greatful of the opportunity to owe us a living.

We have a long history of having to tolerate innuendo,abuse and satire.Over 100 yrs ago,a cartoon depicted a lawyer milking a dead cow.Well it simply isn't true,because I tried it;got sick from the rancid milk and had to sue the farmer from whom the cow was stolen for negligence;ie allowing his cow to be stolen and then run over by a train and not warning of the danger of rancid milk.The million hardly made up for the trauma and loss of income for that week.

Imagine if we didn't have the path of litigation to sell people their rights.We would have to resort to conveyencing and making wills.This would entail secretaries,organising and taking responsibilities for a mere Doctor's salary.We are the ostracised fringe dwellers of society and only have money to comfort us.We suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder,amassing vast sums of money because no one trusts us.It is just not our fault.My psychologist verified this saying that plaintiff lawyers had a common malady of missing the gene for empathy,ethics and morality;and it was inherited.Well didn't my litigation antennae stand erect;I could sue mum and exclude the rest of her siblings from the will.Then I remembered than gran was loaded.I had a financial orgasm.ALL WOULD BE MINE!

So if you are really wondering who we really are,just reflect upon our name.
Yours satirically
GABMUCS LAWYERS

Do we want more of the above Irfan?

Steel, at some point, theory needs to meet practice.

>>While laws in Australia may exist that cover all perceived strengths of a Bill of Rights, they are subject to easy change at a political whim. Bill of Rights are supposed to contain inalienable protections. That is where the strength resides.<<

Who is going to uphold a citizen's rights under the bill? Not the government, if it doesn't suit them, so it would have to be the courts.

What would be different?