O sung wu, I suspect that we may always disagree about the motives of the Human rights lawyers. Firstly, I have never heard them give any support to violence or allowing 'ordinary' people's rights to be trodden on, in their quest to keep Australia a place where the Australian 'fair go' is paramount. Secondly, I'm prepared to believe that they are pure. The stakes for someone like Burnside are very high. He has made himself personally available to distressed people who have been caught up in terrible situations despite committing no crime. It can be pretty emotionally harrowing and he didn't need to do this. He was a high flier before taking on his human rights work.

The motives of Russo etc. I think are also clean. They are representing their clients against what can only be described as the authorities machinations as they try and justify what can only be described as stuff ups. I'm glad they are out there! Who knows who has my old Hong Kong travel card for example. If old Bin Laden is living it up big time in Honkers and using my card, I could be for the drop.

I know for a fact that concern about this is not just coming from the 'left'. One can hardly describe Malcom Fraser as a supporter of communism but he is to the forefront of this. A safe guard of all people's rights cannot be a bad thing.

And now the High Court has handed down its decision in the case of Jack Thomas challenging the constitutionality of his control order. That's basically house arrest - without a trial of due process, just a hearing, still less a jury, or public evidence. Thomas' sole conviction is a fake passport; certainly enough to deny him a passport in future, and enough to have him serve a term of imprisonment (he's done that time, nine months), but not enough under historical law to suffer indefinite house arrest.

The High Court found in favour of the Commonwealth government having such powers under the Constituion, 5-2. Justice Kirby dissenting (as he did in the States vs Commonwealth IR case). Kirby said that had the present High Court heard the Dissolution Act case of 1950 (where the Commonwealth government under Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party), they would have ruled in favour of the Commonwealth and upheld the law.

We can no longer rely on the High Court to defend the "implied rights" of the Westminster system. We need the rights to be explicit. We need a Bill of Rights.

Hi to you all... and - Rainier.

Funny isn't it, how our intellectually diminutive little mate Rainier, emerges from the anonymity of his notionally inassailable sanctuary. To once again 'snipe' at the efforts and opinions of others, with whom he either disagrees or, does not understand.

His shrill and minatory syntax leaves one wondering what motivates this rather wretched and derisory little bloke ? Who often seems to feel the need to aggressively challenge some hapless corrospondent who has inadvertantly incurred his wrath.

It is a real pity that our only introduction is necessarily confined to this august forum. I would have been most humbled indeed, to have had the rare pleasure of meeting you in person. I'm sure we would have learnt so much from one another ?

"I remember well, when we returned in the dead of night, not being allowed to wear our uniforms, lest we 'upset' anti Vietnam War groups. Our welcome home parade along Sydney's George Street, where a female demonstrator felt the need to throw paint over our CO. I was never so ashamed of Australia as I was then...."

o sung wu, I was spared all that, and to tell you the honest truth I didn't care then. I was too busy having a good time.

Maybe you could spare half a post to enlighten me. I'm not being condescending - I really would like to know more.

Cheers... Chris

(PS. Tonight I'm cobbling together some sweet & sour chicken, and you'd be welcome)

Hi Chris...

Thanks for the invite, sounds like you and yours are going to have a real beaut 'nosh up'.

Probably not. There are many of those on 'OLO', who loathe and deride veterans, and talking about it only gives them sufficiency to further denigrate and vilify us.

I can just visualise many of those herein, falling about themselves with uncontrolled hilarity. As I attempt to recount how many of us felt on our return to Aussie.

I'll say this much, I/we arrived at Mascot about 0130h via a chartered TAA DC6B Prop. driven Aircraft (apparently, there was no curfew or prohibition on piston driven A/C in those days). We were not permitted to wear uniform and we were told not to have family or friends there to meet us.

It was the end of June and quite cold, so was our welcome home. There were two Customs blokes to process us through the formalities. They were absolutely marvellous ! All they wanted to know was, if any of us were in possession of weapons or ordinance.

We were all then cut lose, I was picked up in a Hire Car (on my own) and taken to my Grandfather's place at Lane Cove. No sleep the remainder of that night, nor the next, or next. It was too cold...too hot...too quiet.

I saw my girlfriend the next day. She hadn't changed a bit, in the twelve months. I didn't know what to say to her. We'd spoken of marriage before I was sent overseas. On my return however, it was the furthermost thing on my mind. We broke up.

My friends,didn't have any particularly interest in my war service, or any of the 'warries' I tried to recount either. I suspect they didn't believe a word of it ? I was completely lost, I hadn't a clue what to say or do with people.

I do remember that I was extremely 'hyper-vigilant'. At 64, I still am ! I've attended the VVCS on and off for seven or eight years. For anxiety, panic attacks and hyper-vigilants.

Thats it I'm sorry.

Well, I'm just turning 60. Old enough, but my marble didn't get picked.

And like a lot of people, I began to get politicised around the end of the war - too late to help the likes of you though.

Did you cobble a family together in the end? If so, give them my love.

- and have a bit for yourself while you're at it.

:)