As an Australian Democrat, poor old Andrew Bartlett has to preach nonsense. Like other advocates of a Bill of Rights, he is much more interested in non-Australians such as illegal immigrants (posing as asylum seekers), visa over stayers etc., than he is in the people who actually pay his salary and perks to ‘represent’ a miserable (in all ways) 2% of the electorate.

Like all opponents of anti-terror legislation, he hates the idea of an elected government being able to govern without the interference of minorities.

Like all detractors of DIMIA, he uses words like ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘bungling’ in relation to the department. DIMIA is OK when it allows 90% of illegals to stay, but when it makes a couple of mistakes – Rau and Alvarez e.g. – they are incompetent.

Perhaps DIMIA, then, is also incompetent in allowing 90% of illegals refugee status?

The Senator bemoans the fact that thousands of visa over stayers are not treated the same way as illegal entrants in boats. True: it is very hard to deal with people who cannot be found after they disappear into the general population, hence detention for illegals. Are we supposed to tag people with visas, and lock them up the day before the visas expire just to ensure that they don’t stay. If it were as easy as locking up illegals, the Senator would be whining about that, too.

“Australians cannot afford to have a government that is willing to keep perpetrating abuses in our name. It is not only offensive to democratic values; it inevitably ends up severely damaging the lives of innocent people.”, says Senator Bartlett.

The ‘abuses’ occur only in the Senator’s mind, and the Government is quite obviously doing nothing in his name.

And, there is simply no inevitability of the lives of innocent people being damaged. But, of course, Senator Bartlett probably has a very different definition of innocence

For Andrew and other people arguing that these laws are anti-democratic. Here is some basic political science for you.

Democracy is rule by the people. Australia has a representative democracy whereby we the people, elect officials to represent us. The House of Representatives uses preferential voting where preferences are distributed until someone has a majority.
The Senate is elected using proportional representation, whereby those seeking election need to get a quota of votes. Preferences are then distributed to other candidates.

These laws do not impinge on representative democracy.

Perhaps there are arguments for the anti-terror laws being an assualt on our liberalism. They could even be seen to attack the Common Law and rights going back to the Magna Carta.

(As an aside, the Senate, which Mr Bartlett is a member, is one of the undemocratic features of our system. In the name of Federalism, the vote of a Tasmanian is worth many times the weight of a vote by a New South Welshman or Victorian. This might be OK if Senators actually stood up for states rights, but they don't as they are elected along party lines and vote in kind. The Senate is nothing more than a series of gerrymanders. If Mr Bartlett was serious about democracy, he would advocate reform of the Senate so the Government was held hostage by bible bashing zealots from Tasmania, Green zealots from Tasmania or Democrats in the political wilderness trying to get some media attention)

t.u.s.

A bill of rights! What next will the minority parties think of!

Australia does not need any such nonsense. A bill of rights will politicise the judiciary and cause a whole heap of other problems. Just take a look at the most recent edition (Oct-Nov) of "Family Update", newsletter from the Australian Family Association. In it, Bill Muehlenberg comes up with very some strong arguments against such a wacky proposal as a bill of rights.

I wonder when the Democrats, Greens et.al will wake up and realise that the majority of Australians think they talk a heap of nonsense. They advocate anything which goes "against the grain" including illegal immigrants, divisive Aboriginal affairs policy etc and have no regard for the Christian heritage this nation was founded upon. They would rather see a humanist, secularist Government which embraces "tolerance", "social justice" and other such lofty, wafty terms - to the detriment of everyone else. They would also rather see Australia acting subservient to the United Nations. To them, Australian law and democracy just isn't good enough. SHAME!!

Senator Bartlett and colleagues should wake up and recognise that a majority of Australians voted for the Howard Government and thus endorse the current government's policy on immigration, terrorism, Aboriginal affairs, workplace policy etc. I'm proud to say I voted for the Howard Government and would do so again.

Perhaps Mr Bartlett should take an overseas trip and talk to some of the European leaders who are up to their eyebrows with the worry of dealing with their "asylum seekers" and the amount of law breaking that is entailed.
Australia has not escaped that tide of opportunists but it was rationed a bit by the tactics of John Howard. I shudder to think what would have happened if Beazely had been in charge.
Andrew Bartlett and his band of Democrats have proven themselves to be a waste of space. They kept no one honest ..they should be disbanded , they serve no useful purpose.

Andrew Bartlett is making a final bid for relevance.
He and the other Democrats, having failed with the voting public, Andrew is now seeking support from the legally detained economic refugees who wash up on our shores, after a long and gruelling journey through many other lands in which they could have sought asylum!

Has anyone explained to him they do not have the vote - well not yet at least, not whilst we have a Liberal government who respects the taxpaying and legally resident Australians?

Ah well - foiled again Andrew - never mind, you will still have a few more opportunities to feel important as you crash liberal party shindigs and assault female parliamentarians before your tenure ends and we see if anyone at all bothers to vote "Democrat".

Mr. Bartlett should propose a Bill of Rights if he thinks this is what the country needs. don't just stand around talking about one - but put one together that he believes addresses the fundamental rights we, as dinky die Australians, should enjoy.

Put this bill to a vote and see who supports it.

I am quite tired of all the drum beating pollies that think they know what we Aussies should want but have no courage or leadership to make it happen. Who votes for these folks anyway?

Part One

In a dream a post-grad political student meets his favourite political writer, George Orwell, finding that this ghost of the great thinker already can read the student’s mind, telling him that he is not surprised that the world is heading for trouble again, as economic and political greed has again appeared on the agenda, even despite the end of colonialism and the finish of Soviet Communism.

The student had already learnt that colonialism and economic imperialism had simply appeared in a new form, less honest, and more sinister, some of the former prominent freedom fighters themselves becoming colonisers, aping their former European masters and grabbing most of the productive loot like the colonial overseers had done to send home to the Mother Country.

Land of Hope of Glory and Mother of the Free, the old swansong of British colonialism and the earlier free-market, has been now replaced by the Stars and Stripes Forever, carrying on Cecil Rhodes nightly prayer, that America would carry on the global role that Rhodes surely believed a Wise Almighty had predicted for the English-speaking Anglophiles, with the United States of America now top of the list, Britain and Australia, proudly by her side. .

The student has learnt that social revolutions are now seen as not necessary for the defeat of fascism. Neither do people believe in the possibility of promoting individual liberty and self government by means of even a social democrat government. In fact, socialism has ceased to be a part of public debate, even Labor leaders more interested in satisfying powerful pressure groups backed by big corporates, including the mass media.

Part Two

The worried student in his dream asks the shadow of Orwell for an answer - realising it was already in his mind, but he would not have had the courage to announce it to a world so sure of itself because the neo-liberal free market was keeping even battling consumers happy, with cheap imports from countries like China with low-cost labour, as well as dumped frozen or tinned fruit and veges from numberless other countries. .

What was already in the student’s mind was that low priced imported goods meant a call from government for a change in arbitration laws to enable employers to lower worker’s wages in order to compete. The student realised then how much that globalisation as part of the capitalistic free-market, was failing - the insightly student under Orwellian influence, knowing that a major crisis in global capitalism must surely cause a return to some sort of socialism, be it right or left.

The student discerned that the likely change initially would be fascistic, with a democratic government banning all opposition for the good of the country, with big corporates still calling the tune.

The student feels that the best answer from an angry people’s opposition, rather than taking up arms, is at first to challenge for a new globalisation, not based on corporate power and an ersatz free market but on the ethical precepts of a genuine global democracy backed by a strong United Nations, not one literally swept aside by this unipolar nation which naively believes in its own invincibility like middle age Rome. But without a strong UN or a Global Federation of Nations, as Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher warned, this new Rome must ultimately cause its own demise like Rome, its growing greed accentuating too much the survival of the richest as the fittest.

bushbred,
I like the way you think.

bravo bushie

It's nice to see that Andrew Bartlet has got off the parliamentary grog and has stopped abusing female parliamentarians long enough to tell the public what a bunch of moral reprobates we all are.

Hey Andrew, you wanted Multiculturalism and now you have got it. Terrorism and reductions in civil liberties have been the result. And still you want to bring in everybody who can find an Aussie embassy and ask how to fill out a dole form. Then you complain when the Libs enact legislation, supported by both sides of parliament, which is designed to prevent "Australians" from blowing up Australians.

I would personally like to thank Senator Bartlett for giving the Liberal Party's re election chances another significant boost. When will the Democrats remember that they are supposed to be representing Australians, not Iraqi's, Afghans, Zulu's or Hottentots?

The more that finger wagging, drunken Democrats talk down to the Australian electorate, the more irrelevant they become. The role of moral hypocrite ills becomes the good Mr Bartlett.

Perhaps it is time for Andrew to do a Jimmy Swaggart? Fall down on your knees Andrew, and cry "Ah have sinned, Lord!"

Andrew, your article copped a typical response from the Rabid RatPack who obviously believe that the notion of people having basic human rights in a Democracy is somehow obscene or treating refugees as human beings deserving of compassion has no place in their neo colonial paradise where workers are there to be exploited and Governments role is to stifle dissent and rule the populace through fear . Despite overwhelming evidence of the illegality of the war of agression that Australia helped Bush and Blair to wage, they cannot see the real reasons for Islamic 'terror' and seek to pass laws to keep the people in line with the pretext of fighting terror.
There are moves afoot to launch a Bill of Rights campaign......Get behind it Andrew.

If you are wondering what Mr.Menzies might have written about freedom try this site: http://www.menziesvirtualmuseum.org.au/transcripts/ForgottenCont.html

People argue against Mr.Fraser as being unreliable, a Socialist, or somethingelse as silly; what can be said about the father of the Liberal Party I wonder. Mr.Menzies indicates the breadth of what was once the Liberal Party; it not being a Socialist Party.

Generally, the opinions expressed here are spot on. However, its quite painful to see a politician distrust the process of democracy in his own country.

The issue is more about protecting the rights of Terrorists not the average citizen who are unlikely to be caught up in such legal issues. However, many fail to acknowledge this.

The sad truth be known people on the Left would love to see the overthrow of their own democratically elected Government so have a need to support the "rights" of terrorists with whom they secretly sympathize.

They do this under the guise of "protecting the average citizen" and are actually dangerous.

People like Andrew Bartlett are the truly frightening ones. They hate Western culture and sympathize with those who would destroy it.

Gee Bushbred. Give us a break. "Rather than take up arms". So your hypothetical student did consider shooting people who didn't agree with him? Yes, very clever and very approppriate!!??. The mark of tolerance.

Lazy people see greed everywhere. Hard workers see opportunity. Remember what George Orwell said? The pigs were the leaders after the revolution.

Mao's soldiers' coats all looked the same from the outside ... but the Officers had fur lining which could not be seen.

The day of the pigs is over, socialism is dead. Make way for benevolent capitalism

The usual suspect(s) has forgotten that the corner stone of democracy is individual liberties.

Despite the predictable hissy fits from the 'Rabid RatPack' (most apposite, maracas!), Bartlett is actually quite correct to assert that Australia needs a Bill of Rights (or a Human Rights Act) to protect its citizens and others within its jurisdiction - particularly in the face of arguably the most authoritarian governments we've seen since World War 2. However, it's rather a shame that he chose to use refugees as his example, since it was bound to invite the kinds of tirade we see above (with the exception, of course, of the wonderful bushbred et al) from the 'usual suspects'.

Given the Howard government's shameful attempts to ram their draconian legislation through Parliament with minimal examination or debate, we need for a Human Rights Act and a Bill of Rights to protect such fundamental rights as habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and freedom to criticise the government. I heard the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on PM (I think) tonight talking about some of the implications that the proposed legislation may have for the practice of journalism in Australia - worrisome stuff indeed.

Fortunately, there's a well organised campaign under way for both a Human Rights Act and a Bill of Rights. Stacks of information and commentary at New Matilda http://www.newmatilda.com/home/default.asp .

I can just see all the litigation and human rights lawyers smacking their chops in delight at the prospect of a Human Rights Bill.

The legal system will be more able to play one side off against the other and we will be in more confusion than ever.

It is hard enough to convict a criminal now and giving them more rights will only see our society decay even faster.

As I've mentioned before Andrew,how about a Bill of Responsibilities?
You cannot have rights unless you have forfilled your responsibilities by being being a positive contributer to your society.

It would be better that one innocent person be gaoled for a while than thousands being murdered by a religious lunatic.These nutters can seriously impact on our economy.If they bring poverty to this country,it will end in civil war as often happens in The Middle East.

Is it possible for the Democrats to be less revelant that Labor is at this moment?

Mr Bartlett didn't argue that the laws are undemocratic, he argued that the Government is displaying a cavalier attitude to Australian democracy. The Australian public elected a Senate to review legislation, a process Mr Howard is doing his level best to limit since he cannot avoid it. Previous commenters have suggested that Mr Bartlett has a low opinion of the public? It seems clear that Mr Howard has a low opinion of the Australian people. He seeks to avoid a Senate review either because he is worried that the Bill will be so odious that he will lose votes from at least one Coalition senator, or because he believes the Australian people will not support the Bill if they learn what it contains through a lengthy public review. A well-founded belief, given that changes were forced after the Premiers and Chief Ministers forced a review. Mr Howard understands very well that public opinion between elections is just as important as on election day.

That an elected government should be allowed to govern without the interference of minorities is a topic that has been argued by better men than any here, Tocqueville and Madison for example. Some very terrible governments have been elected by majorities. At the risk of invoking mistaken call of Godwin's Law, the National Socialists were one. Whitlam was another awful government that was elected by a majority, although obviously not in the same league as the former. Tyranny of the Majority is just as tyrannical as the most tinpot of dictators. A sense of the history of the struggles men have undertaken to protect their rights against an elected government is valuable - a reading of the struggles of the American colonists against the English parliament is recommended. They knew the value of a bill of rights protecting the rights of the minority against the majority.

Yes ,the left like Avocadia are always consumed with the rights of minorities so they can cleverly push their own agendas and over ride the rights and will of the majority.

How often do we hear today that criminals are freed because evidence was collected in an undercover operation and is rendered inadmissable in court?Does the majority have the right not to be assaulted,robbed,raped or blown to pieces by some fanatic?

The fighting has begun and in time of war some rights and legal nicities will have to be put on hold.

1. The draft terror bill was hasty, careless, vexatious, mischeivous and only vaguely true to it's stated purpose.

2. The bill works more effectively as a gag for the suppression of public dissent, enquiry, discourse and open speculation over the means, manner and motives of our nation's principal political players, with reference to their machinations.

3. Why therefore, am I NOT surprised to find that the leader of the Labor Party seems willing to go along with this one too?

You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see that the criminality which began with the boat people, has grown exponentially. The perpetrators have nowhere to go but straight on, full speed ahead. The lack of opposition cannot be explained by incompetence or cowardice alone. It cannot be that I, a greybeard loon, know more about the wrongdoings of this government than our stellar opposition.

I admit that Howard's tactics have engendered a sense of loathing in me, of an intensity that I didn't know I was capable of. But at least he galvanises me.

Beazley has shown me the depths of utter despair, and that's debilitating.

Cheers Andrew. More please.

“Human Rights” has now become the fallback position for Snivel Libertarians, who can not justify their loopy ideals to an unredeemably conservative electorate. Almost any trendy left wing “cause” can be made to fit an amorphously worded Human Rights decree, with a bit of judicious pushing and shoving. Promoting “Human Rights” allows the trendy lefties to adopt their favourite position of grandstanding on the high moral ground, promoting the concept of total equality for all, while at the same time displaying that they are superior to everybody else.

The problem for people like Mahatma Sitting Duck, is that it is perfectly obvious to that electorate that the usual anti Australian, anti American, anti damn near everything ratbags are the ones pushing for constitutional amendments which over ride the people’s parliament. And the swing to the conservative right, which has been highlighted by John Howard’s success in obtaining a senate majority for the Liberal Party, is a measure of how fed up the Australian electorate is with the loony left and their fave “causes.”

This swing to the right is probably being led by baby boomers, who once manned the barricades themselves, but who have come to wince at the memory of the contradictions and idiocy of their own youthful idealism. Their minds have now been completely inoculated to the virus of socialist promises by age conditioned maturity brought about by the necessity of imparting pro social values to their children.

Don’t worry too much, Ant, Ducky, Scooper and David, sooner or later your minds will begin to become mature also and you will probably grow out of it. You can even accelerate this process. Get yourself a girlfriend and rave on to her about saving the world and protecting minority rights while she washes the dishes and changes the nappies.

Atman you say : "... Make way for benevolent capitalism>"
Have a look at what Mr. Menzies says about benevolent capitalism in my previous post.

Some time ago there was a topic about conspicuous compassion which eminated from the Liberal Party. A great philosophy as it allows kicking a person when they are down and then criticising an advocate for trying to help the victim. The view of conspicuous consumption being the opposite to the parable of the good Samaritan.

The reason I bring up the issue of conspicuous compassion is that it justifies allowing subjugation of ordinary people with no sense of remorse. The saga of DIMIA goes on, the Howard government has done little to reel in the excesses of DIMIA.

We are now meant to trust them in allowing a Government Agency to operate having unbridled power and the scantist, if any level of control. In the past we were fed WMD from such Agencies; once being fed garbage do we come back for more?

It should always be remembered, that Andrew Bartlett would be fully cogniscent of the fact that 'small minority parties' even with just ONE seat in a closely contested election or balance of power, have ALL the power. (to thwart legislation they dont like, and advance (through deals) legislation they DO like)

So, in the end, its not about 'rights' or the such like. Its about how 'we' can gain power to push 'our' agenda even though the vast majority of Australians don't want 'our' agenda.

So, this is why such a small and irrelevant party like the Democrats, can still hold an electoral hammer over the rest of our heads.

All I can say in 'biblical terms' is 'Get behind me Satan'.....

Mahatma, today a Bill of Rights' tomorrow 'live sex shows in every bar and club' the only limit is our imagination. Unfortunately, the 'human right' of a so called 'refugee' is a denial of others democractic right to rule their own land. So, which human right do you choose ? Personally, I prefer the 'RIGHT' to elect a government, and have it reflect the views of most of its citizens. It is insulting to suggest we are not nationally compassionate, we have a LARGE refugee acceptance program. But we have the RIGHT to control it ourselves.

All references to 'human rights' and 'bills of rights' are just sloppy ploy's to open doors by the left in the legal profession to 'govern through the courts', even though they were not elected.

King Hezekiah's 'compassion and tolerance' of the Babylonian Envoys, was Isaiah the prophets 'STUPIDITY... they will not come and take ALL that you showed them'.

So, in terms of 'do for others...etc' I would expect THEM to protect the political and social integrity of their own countries, just like we should be expected to do so for ours.

The (failed) "International Socialism" agenda has no place in Australia.. sorry.

You are exactly the reason I could never support a bill of rights in this country, yes the concept of a bill of rights is a lovely little concept. However, the proposed version of a bill of rights on the democrats website is terrible.

Want to see a real bill of rights? go to America.

The concerted attacks upon an advocate of human rights demonstrates just how fearful conservatives can be. For their can be no other explanation for denigrating a person who wishes to protect others from unjust persecution and/or imprisonment, torture, or denial of the freedoms these cowards enjoy.
Leigh doesn't like 'minorities' interfering with governments. But governments are minorities who have perverted the role of Parliament and are no longer accountable to it or the people. DIMIA is not just bungling and dysfunctional, it was set up as a repressive regime which perverts or ignores legislative restraints and rights of people in its control.
Dinhaan says Australia does not need 'such nonsense'. We are more in need of enforceable rights than any time since federation. When governments try to ram through laws providing for secret house arrest or incarceration on feeble, specious, and unjustified pretexts, the need to protect us from becoming a secret police state is manifest. You will be bewailing the absence of any remedy when you are the victim. And why is the secrecy needed if the prospect of physical and mental abuse is not contemplated?
Human Rights are not incompatible with Christianity nor 'christian values', whatever they are. And we are not subserviant to the United Nations, but both our political parties have made us subservient to the United States. Why is that O.K., do you feel safer under colonial occupation?
Bruce wants Sen Bartlett to put a Human Rights Bill up for debate. The Democrats have done just that for years, but our undemocratic Parliament won't allow it.
The rednecks and other deluded conservative attack dogs pretend that MP's represent the people, when actually they represent corporations who fund their election, that government is accountable to Parliament when in fact government controls Parliament, and the High Court defends individual rights, when in fact it is complicit in denying rights such as individual voting rights. But they will deny such reality, because they fear the prospect of admitting they might be wrong.

Nous - Why don't the Democrats campaign next election for a Bill of Rights, deliver flyers to every household outlining what they want and how they will achieve it. I bet they wouldn't win, because aside from the legal fraternity and a few "progressives", the majority of people do not want one (or would be so disturbed by the Democrats other policies they would vote elsewhere anyway.)

Arjay - A bill of responsibilities would be a great idea. How about - you have the right to jump on a leaky boat putting your family's lives at risk but you are also responsible when the family is locked up in detention while asylum application is processed.

You have the right to take drugs but you are responsible for any crimes committed while under the influence.

You have the right to vote in elections but you are responsible if dimwit progressives such as the Democrats ever hold the balance of power in the Senate again.

t.u.s

works both ways tus.

you have the right to vote for the coalition, you have the responsability to go guietly and without complaint when you lose your job.

Oh there you are "the usual suspect." I accidently flamed you on another topic when I got your name mixed up with another person who uses a phrase instead of a noun for a name.

Sorry'bout that.

Hey

I think that these laws, for the most part, are an unfortunate necessity. I also hope when (if) the threat of terrorism goes away, these laws will also go away. But all in all, they might be necessary.

But I have some concerns. For example, I do not like America, and and I do not like John Howard. I don't hate these things, but I do not like them, and I have a democratic right to do so. If I openly say things like, "I don't approve of the war in Iraq" or "America help cause terroism" (which they did by supporting Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan) I hope I don't run into any trouble. What my main point is, I hope this new legislation allows people to speak their minds. Some might say I'm being paranoid, but I am afraid of the slippery slope, and I haven't really been able to read the new laws in full, which I think is a necessity. I'd like the government to address some underlying concerns.

Yes t.u.s, the weak left[Democrats] and the latte sipping lawyers know full well that rights are easier to peddle to the public since responsibilities require our personal effort, while rights usually require the efforts of others.

In the real world of survival,none of us should have rights unless we have fulfilled our responsibilities.

If a base jumper for example kills himself in thrill seeking we say it is his own fault,yet when a drug peddler [The perveyer of destruction]faces the death penality in a foreign land, with full knowledge of the consequences ,we blame the brutal regime.

Rights V's Responsibilities is not and easy orchestra to conduct; however if we are to enshrine one in law, a balance surely would require the it's complement be also included.

As an American who has experienced the prejudice of the Australian magistracy, I can tell you honestly that your country desperately needs a Bill of Rights.

One ugly result of not having equal protections under the law has produced a statistic that defines Australia as a sick nation: 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive.

That statistic is false, unless this country is truly sick.For the rest of the free world, the statistic is 5 out of 9.

Because men are not given equal protection under the law, any woman can go to a number of agencies and be coached in what to say, then remove her husband or partner from his and her home, denying him all his possessions and the means to make a living, and access to his children.
The simple application of equal protection will change that disgusting statistic because the woman will no longer be supported explicitly by the police if she does performs the actions she wants protection against. Currently, the police will tell a man that if he resists anything -- even bashing or other physical attacks -- he will be arrested. (I have the station and name of the officer who told me this.)

A magistrate may ignore all the factual evidence. The magistrate may exclude from the court records the whole of evidence taken out of context to convict. The magistrate may ignore even the complainants testimony that shows them to be perjurous.
In Australia, that is all legal because there is no Bill of Rights.

Who does this affect?
-- 30% of all Australian families every year. And Australia is so desperate to have children, the country is paying people to get pregnant?

It's not just the aboriginies Australia owes a sincere "Sorry."

Add one ...

There was a nationally published article last week where 2 national organizations urged young men NOT to have children in Australia. Why? --In essence, because there is no equal protection under the law.

The men are condemned by authorities before their children as abusers without proof being required.
The boys are taught, by example, to be abusive. The girls are taught, by the example of the authorities, to be victims.
If Australia were not a sick society before this self-perpetuating statistic were propogated, it will be soon. The prejudice in the courts will produce a national sickness, if it isn't already too late.

A Bill of Rights at this point would be a start. A very necessary start.
But then you have to cure the years of prejudice and sick example already in place.

NOUS, MARACAS, MAHATMA AND GANG

NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS IS GOLD
if the so called 'Bill of Rights' was actually that, I doubt there would be so many of us against it.

5TH COLUMN
But the reality is, its the thin end of the wedge, designed to link our legal system to the UN and that itself has been infiltrated and infected with so much pc thinking and multicultural lunacy its beyond a joke.

In short Andrew Bartlett raising the issue is alone enough to make a patriotic Australian VERY suspcious.

YES, LETS HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS !
The bottom line about a 'bill of rights' is the abdication of our sovereignty ! If say we did have a bill of rights, how about we make it LIKE MOST OF US WANT IT, and include the "right" of the majority of Australians to persue their cultural and social goals withOUT them being diluted and weakened by such bizzare and 'satanic' ideas as 'Multiculturalism' Ok.. lets do it... yes.. lets have a bill of rights decided by US..... I have a feeling that Bartlett and Maracas and Mahatma and co would kind of not like it. It's theme would be "Australia's rights"

THE POLITICAL ANGLE
Anyone who does not think that parties promoting a "Bill of Rights" see anything other than 'political advantage' a-blowin in the wind are without question naive, but quite possibly in need of serious therapy.

GOVERN WITHOUT MANDATE is the ultimate goal of such a bill, even though situations will arise which most Australians want to be dealth with in a certain way, some squirming lefty lawyer will remind everyone about the BOR.

It is the total absence of any fidicary duty of the state to the citizen that a bill of rights will help define a mandate to govern.
Whether lawyers are Left or Right is beside the point,the absense of an overarching principled approach to the rights of individuals and collectives needs to be enshrined in common law. Not a stop gap but a means my which interpretations of our bundle of rights are accorded to each one of us. This simply does not exist in law now.

OK,let's have a" Bill of Rights" complemented with my "Bill of Responsibilities"

* Lawyers will be financially responsible for vexacious and trivial litigation cases.

* Single mothers will be financially responsible for children after the second father.

*Criminals be responsible and pay for the the pain and suffering inflicted on their victims.

* Drug addicts be responsible for their criminal activity.

Just a start.Would others have some contributions?

There will be no Bill of Rights under John Howard.........

How it is
http://www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/dunstan.htm
In 1996, it all went wrong. In the time of Dickens, John Howard might have aspired to be the Parish beadle. He has all the right qualifications: limited horizons, antiquarian values, a narrow vision, and a taste for harsh rules rigidly enforced. He came to the Lodge with a vision which looked backwards to the time before Menzies gained power. In many ways, his world view makes Menzies seem progressive.


Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, and Exile

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-02.htm

Cuba frequently subjects nonviolent dissidents to arbitrary arrests and detentions. Human rights activists and independent journalists are among the government's most frequent targets, along with independent labor organizers, religious believers, members of independent political parties, organizations of independent academics and medical professionals, environmental activists, and others. These improper arrests and detentions, which serve as intimidating measures designed to silence dissent, violate Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cuba often ratchets up pressure on government opponents by subjecting them to repeated arrests, short-or long-term detentions, or criminal prosecutions. In many cases, the government then presents activists with the "choice" to go to prison, or continue serving a prison term, or be exiled from their homeland. This practice violates the UDHR, which explicitly prohibits governments from exiling citizens from their own country.1