real says: 'We never see the Left take up the cause of real victims.' And gives the example of the Goss Labor government's '...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.'

I personally, and a large number of other citizens in several organisations that I belong to and some I don't, have been fighting that issue and a number of related issues in other States since about 1995.

We are certainly interested in the human rights of those children - who are now adults still struggling for justice for their appalling lack of rights as children - and still, as adults.

The Queensland Government last month introduced a redress scheme for people who were abused in 'care'. It's not as good as the Irish scheme but it's better than nothing.

real, you say: 'Of course , your indifference is no surprise…you’re of the Left… if there’s no chance to damage Howard, you’re not interested.'

Apart from the label/libel issue, your analysis is factually incorrect, it's dismissive of real efforts being made and it's likely to alienate some of the children you say you are interested in helping (including my brother who is fighting an abuse case).

The issue you raise is a classic case of failure of accountability. The 'carers' who abused young vulnerable children got away with it because no-one thought children had rights. The Government officials who destroyed incriminating evidence thought they could get away with it because accountabilty was weak. There was no Bill of Rights to protect them.

One of the advantages of a Bill of Rights is that it would articulate a transparent set of rights, and enable those whose rights are trampled on to seek redress from authorities who would be more accountable for abuse.

Hi there...

To - **Red Fairy...

Thank you for your kind sentiments, I really appreciate them. I don't really know if Dr Haneef is guilty of any offence, nor do I know whether he is an associate of terrorists, known or unknown.

However, it seems that Messrs Burnside, Russo and ors. are always first to defend the undefendable ! I often wonder what their motives are ? What they REALLY are ?

I hear them speak in platitudes, seemingly attempting to pitch their rhetoric always towards those of the 'left'. But at the same time, totally disregarding the views and needs of many ordinary men and women, out there in the dormitories, of any large Australian city.

**Red Fairy, I'll not bore you any longer with this tedious assault on the politics and motives of those identified herein. And, I'm cognizant of your inalienable right to fully express your views and support. But, as I said at the outset. I often wonder what their REAL motives are ? Do any of us know ?

Again, thank you for your response.

Thanks for this article, I now see some reason for me to support the introduction of a Bill of Rights. Democracy as we practice it is mob rule and I fear the future possibility of a mob which could have the numbers to introduce sharia law here. I assume that the first principle of any statement of rights will be the separation of church and state, something we could use here and now.
The problem is its drafting, I totally support the writer who asked for something clear and down-to-earth. What on earth does 'life, liberty and the pursuit of property rights' mean to most people? Just a rich field for lawyers, as are most things.
I'll put my hand up for a Bill, anybody want to put forward a draft?
Diana

Funny isn't it - how ex coppers hate any progressive changes to law and rights.

If one asks for rights, they haven't any.
If one asks what their rights are, they haven't any.
If one believes rights are contingent upon gender, age, race or religion, they are wrong, they haven't any rights and don't know what rights are.
The government that protects the rights of individuals is called a "Republic" with "democratically elected representatives".
The government that protects the "desires" (not rights) of the majority is called "democracy" or socialism if one prefers.
Australia is neither. AUS is a "corporation", where a ceo is democratically voted to oversee the management of the six countries on the Australian continent (for a profit). The "Federation Government" used to handle this, hmmm whatever happened to them?
If you are an "AUStralian", you are an officer and or employee of the corporation AUStralia and in essence this is why you have to do everything they tell you.
So after learning what rights are ,one can then order/demand their state Premier to recognize these rights.
So you know, Australia has no obligation to recognize the rights of anything.
The only way to have "privileges" not rights, recognized by the corporation AUStralia is to lobby(bribe) the AUStralians to protect your group ie. women, children, Jews, one legged ethiopian water neuts, the list goes on, but does not include "man".
Only one's state can provide a BILL recognized by AUStralia. But the state cannot intitiate these rights unless the people tell them what they are. If the state Premiers or John Howard were to initiate writing a Bill of Rights it wouldn't be a Bill of Rights. They are not our masters, If you can understand this you've now figured out how they fooled us for so long.

"While it's clear that on the whole women have suffered more oppression and disadvantage around the world than men,"
FrankGol

The Battle Of Alesia

In The Shadow of the Gladiator (below) one gets a glimpse of how badly men were treated by those who had power over them during the first half of the Roman Empire's existence. Not only were millions of men killed, maimed or enslaved during this period, but a consul such as Crassus had 10% of the soldiers in one of his very own legions beaten to death simply because they had followed their commanders into a battle which Crassus had not authorised.

And when it came to political power, throughout most of history, in all places and at all times, it was violence such as this, pure and simple, that gave rise to it.

And is was mostly violence against men.
http://www.angryharry.com/