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.