It is almost impossible to provide an appropriate response to Julian;s article on Human Rights in the limited 350 word allowed.
Any additional legislation purporting to uphold our so called human rights would be just more wasted time with the Parliaments drafting, arguing and voting on this irrelevant type of legislation.
If the courts of common law in our British based adversarial system can not appropriately deal with controversies between parties with the laws passed already and in force in all of the States and the Commonwealth there is not point creating any additional tripe for the individuals, who were Judges, sitting in persona designata jurisdiction, to ignore for the benefit of the ruling class who will continue to provide the illusion that has been relied on in the past to get us were we are now.
Julian would know exactly what the term means as he is fully aware of Justice Brennan's comments in Kable at paragraph 5, 14, 15 and 16 because it is this same High Court case where he obtained his blue eyed baby quotes from. If Julian does have any interest in the rights of the people of this country he should look very closely why the official statutory seals of the various court in Commonwealth are not publicly displayed or published in the rules as they are in the High Court Rules of Court. If Julian is honest about his concern for our so called rights he can provide the design of the Federal Magistrate's Court Seal and the Federal Court of Aust Seal as the Attorney-General, Ruddock, has failed and refused to provide the design of these seals which were designed by his office. How would any person know if they have been served with a document displaying on its face the genuine seal of the court and whether the seal displayed actually authenticates the process which is alleged to command a response for the person served. The peasant class are not to have any of this knowledge we are expected to pay people like Julian, at hundreds of dollars per hour.

Not being au fait with the contents of existing Bills of Rights and well aware that we humans are a chauvinistic lot, I must ask posters if an Australian Bill of Rights would include recourse for those objecting to unjust acts of:

1. Deliberate desecration or destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits

2. Industrial polluters affecting the health of communities

3. Inhumane or legalised torture of other species

4. Current governments who seek advice from their EPA departments then deliberately ignore that advice to the detriment of the Australian people and their eco-systems.

Any relevant laws or avenues of appeal currently in place, to "protect" citizens, other species or the environment have a similar effect to that of a soggy piece of lettuce!

Will a Bill of Rights simply be another wasted exercise comprising of the usual inane sophistry to defend the culprits and dupe the masses? And importantly, will appellants need to sell up their homes in their quest for justice?!

Not being au fait with the contents of existing Bills of Rights and well aware that we humans are a chauvinistic lot, I must ask posters advice on the following:

Would an Australian Bill of Rights include recourse for those objecting to unjust acts of:

1. Deliberate desecration or destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits

2. Industrial polluters affecting the health of communities

3. Inhumane or legalised torture of other species

4. Current governments who seek advice from their EPA departments then deliberately ignore that advice to the detriment of the Australian people and their eco-systems.

Any relevant laws or avenues of appeal currently in place, to "protect" citizens, other species or the environment have a similar effect to that of a soggy piece of lettuce!

Will a Bill of Rights simply be another wasted exercise comprising of more inane sophistry to defend the culprits and dupe the masses? And will appellants be required to sell up their homes in their quest for justice?

If a Bill of Rights was written, who would draft it, Faris, Burnside, Capon? - Who would finalise it, Andrews, Beattie, Fittler? Who would ratify it, a mean and tricky Parliament possibly, Larvatus Proteo, Tim Blair? Who would enforce it, Mick Keelty, the Qld Police Union, Armaguard? Who would observe its precepts - Noone

JamesH

I haven't missed your point. A Bill of Rights is about Human Rights, not just the rights of one gender or the other. And why set up an unnecessary competition?

While it's clear that on the whole women have suffered more oppression and disadvantage around the world than men, there are millions of men whose rights have been trampled upon too. We should show our sympathy and give support for all oppressed people regardless of their gender.

So if you're discriminated because you are disabled or black or impoverished or imprisoned for speaking your mind about politics or harrassed because of your religious faith or your sexual identity, then gender is usually a subsidiary issue.

If specific men are being discriminated against, a Bill of Rights may be able to address the matter; but why deny all who are discriminated against because one group is being ill-treated?

I'd be interested in the issue you are referring to. Is it a human rights issue or a public policy issue that should be addressed through regular law reform or policy review?

A Bill of Rights advocated by the Left? No way! Especially not one advocated by the very enthusiastic architect, with Greg Combet, of the plan to keep Australia’s rort-ridden, word’s worst practice waterfronts as the plaything of the Marxists and Communists of the maritime unions…and a blot on Australia.
If we had a Bill of Rights in this country, it would be designed to serve the Left….we would be even more in their stranglehold, and Australia would never again be the same.
Your concern for Hicks and Habib is very touching, but Habib was in Pakistan for spurious reasons, and his explanation doesn’t wash….since his only income was an Australian pension, how could he afford to travel to Pakistan to check out schools ? And what was his expected source of income , if he had moved his family there…Al Qaeda, presumably.
Hicks was a self-confessed terrorist, committed to the spreading of fundamentalist Islam and Sharia law by the use of force…and explicitly by the use of suicide bombings…he spelt it all out himself, long before he arrived at Guantanamo Bay
After 911, he didn’t come home to Australia…he returned to the fold of Bin Laden…reported for duty to fight all of us…the infidels.
We never see the Left take up the cause of real victims.
I haven’t heard anything at all from you or others on the Left, about the record of your man and Combet’s, Kevin Rudd, who was the closest adviser to the premier in the Goss Labor government that made a decision to illegally shred evidence to prevent scrutiny of sexual abuse of children in state government care. …after it had been requested by barristers for forthcoming legal action.
Not interested in the human rights of those children?
That same government, with Rudd at the heart, later brought to bear on an ordinary citizen, the full force of the law that they themselves had broken…ruined him… tried to have him jailed….what about those human rights?
Of course , your indifference is no surprise…you’re of the Left… if there’s no chance to damage Howard, you’re not interested