nice post saintfletcher, but I remain "on the fence" with Bill of Rights and here's why

excellent example is current racist Howard campaign against "deadbeat dads" [even adopting the American word]. It is just another blind following of Hitler's methods based on Hitler's words "it is a great fortune for governments the people don't think"

The Howard "chase deadbeats to their graves" campaign is IMHO worse than Hitler's initial "big nose Juden" leading up to Crystal Night, AND it is TOTALLY ILLEGAL but Howard knows he can get away with it simply based on media savvy and total lack of PROTEST by blokes

In USA I know a deadbeat arrested will say "I'll take the 5th" and there the Bill of Rights protection ends because as in Oz he will grab a lawyer and THAT will be the end of arguing his rights under the Child Support law, becaue USA is same as Oz where biggest lawyer employer IS govt so no lawyer is ALLOWED to argue your rights [or he is "sent to Coventry"]. That is not rocket science, it's just the way it is.

Point is as long as bloke goes by HIMSELF to judge and talks plain English, the judge will find for his Rights [espec if he boned up on Privacy Act], but blokes always do the lemmings to the sea and use a lawyer, and as I understand it, SOMEONE still has to ARGUE rights under a Bill of Rights so it seems I answered own question as we only have 1,000 deadbeats induced to suicide per annum here but 10 times that [per capita] in the United States of American Apple Pie [said with hand on left breast]

and God bless America!

I didn't know the slanderous term "deadbeat dad" so I had to google it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadbeat_dad

That one is complicated. I'm not an expert on this topic. Maybe this one could be further discussed and considered in legislation. It is too specific for a Bill of Rights. I can't see how a Bill of Rights is that specific. The Bill of Rights in the US is open for interpretation. George W Bush once said that the Constitution was just a piece of paper and he was the president, so the constitution was a "liberal plot" against his God.

From what I read this is from legislation in the United States, and every State has a different law.

The PM used a derogatory Americanism. It is a complicated issue.

Ironically Howard is the most American Presidential style PM we have ever had.

For example, no Prime Minister before Howard has ever dared to address the troops before a war. The troops are not the property of the PM. They are answerable to the crown and the Governor General. That may explain why so many soldiers refuse to solute the PM. He is not their boss.

His press conferences are now presidential. He uses American tactics, American style patriotism, and American style mean legislation when it comes to social security. It has been against the law to cut social security since the 1911 act.

He is also the first PM to have the audacity to say that Australia will "definitely" never be under a future King Charles. Howard has decided, so I guess Malcolm Turnbull will be his anointed one.

What is un-Australian? Turnbull's republic, or a Bill of Rights and our stability with the crown?

Divorce Doctor,

Viet-nam was not about Communism. Rather, it was a remnant of the Far East's fight against colonialism and the East's lean towards nationalism against, and, the imposition of unnatural and imposed borders. Ho Chi Minh, the Nationalist, not the Communist, sought assistance from the West after WWI, and Truman in the 50s, did not want to upset the French by standing against colonlisaton. Else, perhaps, we may have had an quasi-ally [Saudi Arabia] in Viet-nam against Communism in the 60s era?

If Pig Iron Bob was generically concerned about Asia, why did he export iron ore to a known Militarist Japan, against advice?

Money from iron. Money for oil. Artificial borders in the Middle East. Articial borders in Asia. Fractionism/civil wars at that time and this. It is all so confusing... Except the political spin, of course

I guess, anyone who does not want to adopt Australian Values has the choice before them, don't bother to come here.

Halayly and Co represent a few who, from their own mouths have displayed an intolerance of Australian Values as they are and for whom removal from Australian society would be best for all concerned.

No one is forced to migrate here.
No one is prohibited from departing.

Anyone who cannot tolerate what are deemed the values adopted and exercised by the vast majority of Australians, including tolerance of others, should exercise their democratic right and leave. They will not be missed by the rest who support "Australian Values" and decide to stay.

Col: Could you please provide a list of this values?

It's UnAustralian to label people UnAustralian. So this comment is UnAustralian.