I have no interest in a Bill of Rights unless there is a very detailed discussion and inclusion of the responsibilities that go with those rights.

So I agree with Kenny’s short but very deep and multidimensional statement.

"Kenny"..."deep" ? in the same sentence ? *checks if there is a different "Kenny" joined the forum*...nope.. :)

Sorry.. can't resist

Skeptic...HOW will your bill of rights protect the freedom to tell the truth about Mohammed and Islam if you happen to be one of those 'evil right wing bible thumping hyper fundamentalist Christians" ?

You refer to Muslims being called names...... etc.. well, we 'brain damaged, moron, bozo,lunatic, armchair Nazi's' who are called by the name "Christian" (just some of the names used in this forum towards us by among others Muslim Irfan) would like some of that protection also.

Looking around here in Victoria we hava had to my knowledge ZERO examples of Christians taking Muslims to court for such things as being described in the Quran (BY NAME) as 'deserving of Allahs wrath' etc... Now..in terms of the RRT2001 that is in my opinion defamatory, and degrading and marginalizing and holding a group called 'Christians' up to public ridicule.

But.. lets look again. We had a couple of Pastors who said such things as 'Muslims will seek to take power' here..and guess what... now we have quite a number of Muslims in custody over alleged plots to assassinate our PM and his family..among other things.

Ok..they did not differentiate between 'Mainstream' Muslims and 'Those who are radical/extreme' etc, but their view is, that the radicals/extremists are in fact the true-est to their foundation documents.

It seems to me that even withOUT a bill of "rights" we Christians are getting the very rough end of the legislative stick.

I further contend that if it were not seen to be in the specific political interests of the ideology you represent, you would not give such an idea the time of day.

The problem with a 'bill of rights' is not the rights in themselves, but the interpretation, as we found in the Catch the Fire case.
Legislation can say this and that, but when judges ignore this, and interpret it how they like, we have a problem, especially when it
is USED as a political weapon against the majority.

I'm no ostrich, I've never seen a convincing argument for a Bill of Rights, but I've seen strong arguments against. A BoR will remove many issues from the political arena, where they belong, to the legal arena, where they'll be subject to people such as Michael Kirby. No thanks.

The last line speaks of the paranoia inherant in the proposition for the bill of rights... "that's what Germany did in the 1930's"... a paranoia held by the left towards the imposition upon the people of duty and responsability. Our rights are nothing more than what if left after our duties and obligations have been counted up, and fortunately for us, we are a peaceful, prosperous nation. Why do you hate our traditions so much?

This is an interesting article, Bill of rights is the question, well, and here is a link to Irfans mate: Peter Faris QC: http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/?p=396 Read with due vigor and diligence. Leftism on the march again!

“Anyone who has heard, Dr Mohammad Abdullah, imam and research fellow and director of Griffith Islamic Research Unit (GIRU), Griffith University:"

Interesting, and what do you know about this fellow?
Do you know what it is in Islam to become an Imam?
Well if you had that knowledge then that part would have been deleted from the article, thus the article is a text of no consequence.
So I consider it a Leftist ploy to play on the Ignorance (Brainwashed) ideology of others.
You can dream on: It will never happen, nor will thinking people let it happen.
An Imam in Islam is ? and what must he have done to gain a title of Imam? Out side of a Caliphate.

If you are going to convince me about a BOR you will need to explain to me why I would or should trust an unelected judiciary, who may not reflect my views and opinions, over an elected Parliament where I vote for those who do represent those views and opinions.

I am happy to trust judges to enforce and even occasionally interpret legislation. I would be most unhappy with them deciding what legislation means in the context of a BOR, without some easy way for legislators to over-ride their more inane interpretations.

A BOR seems to be a discussion fostered by an elite of non-ostriches who simply despair of ever seeing their preferred candidates get elected. Much easier to hand power over from a government they don't like to a judiciary with whom they feel a far stronger identification.

Regards

Kevin