Its interesting that in an article about the diminishing protection for free speech in Australia, no mention is made of racial vilifcation laws. In particular, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which prohibits ridicule of people on the basis of their religion. The author seems to save his concern for smear merchants and terrorists - both darlings of the political left.

The fundamental problem is that no rights are absolute; all have limits and all must be balanced against other rights. A bill of rights, legislative or otherwise, would allow unelected judges to make determinations on the extent of our rights rather than the legislature. As a keen observer of US politics, I am horrified by the extent to which the American people and their elected representatives are observers in deciding important legal and social issues. I believe a bill of rights would lead us down the same troubling path.

Mr Williams,

I agree with you in principle, yes the implied freedom of political communication is in trouble, particularly with the latest appointments to the High Court. However, should this give rise to an American style Bill of Rights?

The reason why a Bill of Rights was not included in our Constitution to begin with, was because the Founders of our Nation (mostly Lawyers) felt that the common law provided better protection to basic, fundamental rights and freedoms, which could be protected in such a way as to allow for adaptation and change over time. This approach was clearly adopted because of the American experience at that time, where express rights had been strictly construed, normally in favour of businesses. The brilliance of this approach was summed up succinctly by Sir Owen Dixon (then Justice Dixon of the High Court) in the Communist Party v Cth ((1951) 83 CLR 1), where he held that the 'rule of law' was implied in our Constitution.

But what of this protection; which only exists where strict legalism can protect it; today? We have laws which acheive what the Commonwealth failed to achieve in 1950, and one must ask what has changed? Would a reversion to strict and complete legalism save this country? I believe that it can and should.

I also note, that Singapore provides express protection to a right of 'freedom of speech and of expression' but in practice, restricts speech to a similar extent to Maoist China. Therefore I see no benefit in a 'Bill of Rights'.

Olmert has now clearly stated that his only goal is to demolish the entire population of the south of Lebanon - some 1 million people, their homes and their livelihoods, in the vain hope of stopping less than 3,000 "soldiers" with mickey mouse rockets.

That to the world is acceptable as we sit by and watch Israel doing exactly that but then we lambaste Mel Gibson for words. Did the words cause the deaths of civilians, destroy their homes, smash their livelihoods? I don't think so but his drink driving could have.

We see our papers full of anti-muslim bile and hatred even though it is us bombing them and their nations into oblivion and Howard is silent.

One word against Israel or the IDF committing war crimes and we are the most evil people on earth.

Leigh, let me tell you, with all your scorn for human rights - I would support your human rights with every breathe if you were in Gitmo Bay without charge, a refugee in a refugee prison, in jail without a trial or hurt in any way.

Human rights are not handbags to be put down when we don't like someone.

Marilyn,

Are u on drugs? Hezbollah fired 20000 rockets before and killed 8 israeli soldiers and captured 2. When u get surrounded by these islamic psychos, Israel has no option but to defend.

Where r u when they send peaceful rockets and push israel to sea?

Wake up or Blow up

The author is correct!

Australian's have never had to spill blood on home soil on mass to protect themselves. Australian's are lazy and apathetic on politics, regarding anything like this as pure paranioa and conspiracy.

Consider how journalists interview Government membes since the Sedition law came into affect as well as the letters to the editor that no longer appears. No more do you hear a journalist ask the government hard hitting questions due to the fear of being imprisoned, such is the cowardice of my fellow Australian's. American journo's go to prison every year and become heros while Australian's cower and weep.

Australian's are losing not only the right to question their governments, we are losing our rights to hold a job over a peasant from poorer nation, our right to know how to vote and to do so actively.

Remember, first they took away the guns, then they took away the right to defend our family...now look around you.

That's 2000 mickey mouse rockets less than 5 foot long that have a range of 25 km. Can someone tell me how that sort of rocket managed to get to villages 35 km into Israel?

Compare that to the 450 Kg bombs, the 1,000 Kg laser guided bombs and the bunker buster sent by the US to bolster the apache gun ships, the tanks, the armed forces to the tune of 10,000 invading Lebanon illegally today, the navy lobbing bombs into Beirut, blockading the ports, and the airforce dropping bombs from 35,000 feet. It is just like Iraq only we were the aggressors. At least get some facts straight.

Then show me all the demolished town and cities in Israel compared to what all commentators call total destruction of towns and cities all over Lebanon.

Talk about disproportionate force from the IDF who commit one series of war crimes after the other with the US and the fundamentalist lunatic armageddonists in the US backing them.

And what does that mean? They believe that all the Jews should be in Israel for the second coming.

They are total nutcakes but in Australia we must not mention that. Only muslims are lunatics and killers in Australia aren't they?

That is why George and others are complaining about our lack of free speech, it has been hi-jacked by the fruitcakes on the right.