Leigh,

An Israeli philosopher once said that Nazis do not have rights anymore because of what they did, but that nvertheless we owe them a certain treatment because of our own humanity, because if we did to them what they have done we would descend into barbarity, too, and then what would be the difference between us?

You say the dishing out of human rights to all and sundry, but human rights must by defintion be possessed by all human beings. You say some people behave in such a way to fellow human beings that they lose their right to our respect, that is true in a sense, but respect for humanity is not about specific good qualities of each individual, it is simply about a basic way in which no human being should ever be treated, after all it is precisely this that the people you mention have fallen foul of, they have breached human rights. If we didn't recognise a certain basic way nobody should be treated how do we recognise the "bad" people?

After all, terrorists say precisely that, they kill civilians and then say that they "deserved" it because of something they did. Don't you see that if we abandon a simple belief that nobody ever should be treated in certain ways, that is muredred, tortured, raped, etc. we all descend into barbarity?

We have prison for criminals, breeching their right to free movement is justified by what they did and by the protection that affords to everybody else. But we should not deny their humanity, if we do that we also lose our own.

Australian values comes down to being lucky enough to live in this rich and relatively free country; and that's about it.
The notion of everybody being treated equally is absurd. Do some reading on the nature of power in its many forms. If human beings were as wonderful as you suggest the planet wouldn't be in such a disgusting mess. Humans are basically just tubes of meat that turn animals, birds, fish and vegetables into excrement in order to energise them into plundering the world around them in a frenzy of greed and egoism.
We have a relatively safe and comfortable country 'girt by sea' so don't let your simpering need to be nice help any more of the fanatical demons in to destroy it. Islam is the enemy of all rational people and especially the feminists and gays who seem to think the enemy of their enemy (heterosexual males)is their friend. The terrorists are forcing us all to play by their (absence of) rules so the longer you keep up the nice liberal pretense the tougher it is going to be later.

Cripes.

How could anybody respond to most of the above comments, which began with a refutation of the basic liberal democratic value that all human beings are intrinsically deserving of respect and consideration, and went downhill from there?

Shame on you hatemongers. No wonder we're going to hell in a handbasket.

I have whatever Citizen is smoking.
Australia wasn't the "Lucky Country" by chance.It took a lot of dedication,sacrifice and hard work by past generations to achieve,which we are now at risk of losing.Thailand had another coup today and we can easily decend to that chaos in a few decades.John Howard is on the right path.

Australia is absolutely incredible and there is a whole ecology out there under threat which almost no-one is paying attention to because of the focus on synthetic lists of 'values' devised by hacks in political offices.

This is all so anthropocentric and narrow, bland and narcissistic.

I think Steve Irwin stood for Australia (Australian values) much better than the Prime Minister or the writer of this article or those who have commented and he didn't just stand up for humans.

We are turning this place into a desert full of talking apes.

Dear Shmuck
I had a close read of your post, and have to agree that the authors did address the issue of the 'whacko' element somewhat.

I think my main difficulty with their piece, is probably a matter of degree, and with regard to your comment on mine, I do have some serious reservations which I will now explain.

You mentioned:
"Paedophilia breaches the right of children not to be abused"

The key word there is 'abused'. We had quite a ding dong on the general discussion thread I raised about 'smacking' children. 90% of Australians do not consider this 'abuse' (I'm one of them) 10% do.

The danger in a morally relativistic society, is that such concepts as 'abuse' are under challenge and dispute 24/7. They are 'most' disputed and challenged by groups who feel they have the most to gain by such opposition and re-definition. This is what Nambla and the Paedo party in Netherlands are on about. Nambla says "Sexual experiences between older men and young boys can be a very positive thing".

I remember once when homosexual behavior was unquestionably regarded as 'deviate'. I still maintain that view, but I think its safe to say that a large proportion of the community hold a differnt view.

The question is: "What happened since the early 60s to achieve this change of mindset" ?

Well clearly, activism, shouting in the streets, outing, persuasive comment by opinion leaders etc.....

Do you think this could never happen regarding 'Paedophile behavior' ?
Of course it can. It will be 'incremental' .. u know.. evolutionary rather than revolutionary, so people are lulled into a false sense of false security. 'Small' changes don't seem threatening, LARGE ones do.
But just like you can eat an elephant 'one bite at a time' a lot of small changes over time, add up to one HUGE change.
Today's 'abuse' is tomorrows 'acceptable behavior' unless we have an anchor and in my case, I'm sure u know what I regard that to be.