To Mr Spuds.

Your claim that “majorities” in Australia do not feel the effects of discrimination is utterly wrong. What we experience from people like yourself, is a desire to discriminate against the majority, in order to suck up to minorities. Examples of this would be the inappropriately named NSW Anti Discrimination Board who’s mission in life is to promote the rights of minorities at the expense of the rights of the majority. One decision by the ABS legalised the concept that homosexual “gay bars” in Darlinghurst may discriminate by refusing entry to non homosexuals. Another decision legitimised the right of Bankstown’s “Fitness for Life” gymnasium to exclude non Muslim women from it’s membership. THE ABS also granted a Jewish dating agency the right to exclude non Jews from it’s membership. One could imagine the furore from the chattering class had roles been reversed. “Equality”? Don’t make me laugh.

These decisions, and many others, simply reinforce the concept that “progressive” institutions like the ABS will become parodies of the very concepts of equality and anti discrimination that they were set up to combat. A Bill of Rights would be used in exactly the same way to attack majorities and promote the social and legal domination of the majority, by minorities. That is something that the proponents of a BOR would prefer that the electorate stayed ignorant about.

Instead it couches it’s sales pitch with statements like “ensuring the absolute right of everybody to full equality”. Read instead, “We will make it so the majority can’t do a damned thing about whatever minorities want to do.”

I had a bit of a wheeze when you pulled out the old todge of “Australia’s reputation”, since trendy lefties are famous for attacking Australia’s international reputation and chucking mud at us. Who can forget the so called “stolen generation” myth where trendoids paraded around the world claiming that Australia was guilty of genocide and stealing aboriginal children from their mother’s breasts? You could not care less about the international reputation of your own people. Spare me the phoney moral grandstanding.

Thanks Tim Anderson for raising important issues.
The diverse range of responses is, of course, a quagmire. It is natural to be irritated by quagmirish discussions. Such a reaction, however, is short-sighted. There is an essential lesson to be learned from wading through such verbal bogs.
That lesson is that democratic discussion must always be like wading through a quagmire. What makes democratic discussion a quagmire is the reality that in a complex society, on most issues, there will be a wide range of views, many of which will be opposed to each other.
Got the message? A genuinely democratic society would treasure the quagmire of public views as its most valuable resource.
A genuinely democratic parliament would wade through the quagmire of public views on every issue it deals with. A genuinely democratic parliament would not only allow each and every view to be heard, but would carefully consider each and every view before attempting to reach a conclusion and make decisions.
The fact is that our existing parliaments are contemptuous of the quagmire of public views. In other words, our existing parliaments are not genuinely democratic.
An even sadder fact is that our existing society is also contemptuous of the quagmire of public views. In other words, our existing society is not genuinely democratic.
I agree that human rights are important. But I think that human rights will continue to be an unattainable ideal (or false facade) until societies sort out what are the responsibilities of a democratic citizen.
My feeling is that genuinely democratic citizens are personae non gratae – not wanted by either our parliaments nor (on the whole) our society.

Aker,

Representative democracy is better than direct democracy because it helps save us from the tyranny of the majority as described by Burke in favour of a trustee model of representation, allowing our representatives to use their best judgement. That being said, their best judgement is often terrible.

Here's a question: if we have a Bill of Rights, can we have a Bill of Correlative Responsibilities? These could include defending our nation in case of war, having enough children to ensure our society can at least replace itself, not speaking obscenely, not being a trator, not inviting sedition, not commiting libel, not stamping on tradition and heritage in the name of non-existant "rights", and so on and so forth...

The point is, our rights do not exist in a vacuum. They are what is left over after the state has ensured its stability, our society ensures its replication, and we ensure that our customs and rituals are preserved. We do believe in a custom of open political speech, but it is no right of ours, if political speech involves inciting to violence and rebellion. To define them as "rights" is to try to pin them down rather than view them through the glass darkly... like the best of art, the ambiguity that currently exists sheds light on the intricate relationship that we call "rights". Like photography, a Bill of Rights kills art.

Thanks DFXK. Your question is a good one. I agree with what I think your question implies: that every right worth its salt implies a corresponding responsibility.
To take what I regard as the prototype of all worthwhile rights – the right not to be abused – this implies a corresponding prototypic responsibility – the responsibility not to abuse others. Please note that this universal responsibility constitutes – or would constitute if it were taken seriously – a very rigorous restraint on any claimed freedom or right to act.
Your assertion that “Representative democracy is better than direct democracy because it helps save us from the tyranny of the majority as described by Burke in favour of a trustee model of representation, allowing our representatives to use their best judgement” makes no sense to me on the following grounds:
1. our “representative democracy” is just a pretense; a real representative is accountable all of the time to the people s/he represents. In our system, “representatives” are accountable only on election day; i.e. they are accountable less than 0.1% of the time. In other words, they are unaccountable to the people they are supposed to represent virtually all of the time. That is not representation;
2. do you seriously believe we are saved “from the tyranny of the majority”? Our “representatives” are elected in winner-takes-all elections. The votes in our parliaments are all winner-takes-all. Our nation is involved in an illegal war because our government had the numbers in the House of Representatives, and paid no heed to massive public indication of opposition before the war. Wasn't that a prime example of “tyranny of the majority”?
The “trustee model of representation” is bogus. We need an accountability “model” where representatives are accountable to their constituents all of the time. Without such accountability, our government will continue to be corrupt. Our existing system needs a complete rebuild.