I wish, just once, that a "Human Rights" lawyer writing on the topic of "Human Rights" and the need for a "Human Rights Bill" would tell us in plain English what is being proposed.

The whole of the Human Rights case seems to rest upon obscurity and obfuscation.

>>There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system that requires a judge simply to interpret the law when it is screamingly obvious that the law is a bad one because it hasn't taken into account the deleterious human impact of the law.<<

No, no and again, no.

There may well be something fundamentally wrong with a Law that does not take into account "deleterious human impact".

But this does not in any way, shape or form provide evidence of a failure of or in the legal system itself.

There is a great deal wrong with the manner in which our laws are conceived, constructed and enacted. But this does not provide valid justification for the introduction of an even shakier legal construct, "Human Rights", against which other laws may be measured and found wanting.

The horror of this paragraph is not only its sanctimony, but its sheer infeasibility...

"A statutory charter should not allow Courts to strike down laws that are incompatible with human rights. However, if we are serious about implementing our international obligations, we should give Courts the power to provide meaningful remedies to individuals who are victims of human rights violations."

So, A goes to the law for a remedy against B, and loses on a black-letter decision: the law does not support you. But somehow he is able to persuade the Courts to give him a "meaningful remedy" anyway.

It's a Looking Glass world, people.

"There's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."

"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.

"That would be better, wouldn't it?"

<< "the so-called boat people? ...Their chosen method of arrival, however, removes from us as citizens the right to ensure that they do not come with intentions to harm us" >>

Yeah, because every nation's preferred method of attack is to put desperate religious minorities on leaky boats so that half can die en route and the survivors can beg for mercy on arrival.

I'm sure the SIEV-X was loaded with people who were willing to endure starvation and exposure just for the opportunity to come here and harm Australians.

What a worthy, realistic argument.

As for removing "from us as citizens the right", what we need is some kind of government department to oversee immigration on our behalf. We could call it "the Department of Immigration". I'm surprised no such organisation exists, and people are still permitted to enter Australia without any scrutiny or interference from Australian officials.

John,

Surely your job as a judge is to administer the law as approved by the people's representatives in parliament. If you think a law is wrong, you should do what the rest of us would have to do, which is to get elected to parliament so it can be changed.

You post makes me think of the machinery question of how the people should go about effecting a legal reform in the teeth of the opposition of the entire legal profession. If, for example, a substantial majority wished to bring back hanging drawing and quartering, and had the votes to pass a referendum to that effect, would this be enough, or would the referendum also have to remove all current justices on the High Court, and replace them with a nominated panel?

If I am not mistaken, some members of the judiciary may actually care about all people regardless of race, creed or otherwise,
BUT
they also fear an accusation of treason.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/current%5Cbytitle/37BA4B1F187B70ABCA256F71004F4FA9?OpenDocument&mostrecent=1

and a pertinent extract:

" ... Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

When the Dalai Lama said:
"By INTENT or otherwise, there is a cultural genocide taking place"

he may have done so with an awareness of the sorts of arguments, if they can be called that, which have been made in Australia.

STOLEN GENERATION:
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
" We weren't tring to do 'em wrong, we did it for their own good."
!HOLY JESUS mother of SATAN!

DESERT CAMP CHILDREN:
(b) Causing serious bodily or MENTAL HARM to members of the group
I have not read any of the "deceit" that has been proferred to refute this one by the likes of howard and his knowing and obliging child
abusing mates. Verily, the pre-emminent society of psychiatrists in this country (and not just them) stated, DO NOT do this to these children as MENTAL ILLNESS will be the result.

TREASON or not, my view is that the "crown" is a genocidal institution at times and it has been for a very, very long time.

*NOTE* No good only acting after the fact. That leaves some irrepairabley harmed.

...Adam...

Upon the experience of my nearest and dearest's human rights abuses, the suffering has taught me to be more compassionate to others and really look at power imbalances that exist throughout our system. I wondered why such a complete disregard for human rights is supported when we are all human beings and deserve to be treated equally, that those who are vulnerable are protected and dignified. I even extend that to those I feel less compassion for, that have abused others human rights. The best "punishment" for human rights abusers is to learn and understand what suffering they have caused and learn to treat others with dignity and respect. Authoritarian ways are really for the simple minded - there is not much intellect in brutality and not much to be learned from cruelty and torture, except hate against the people who did these things. My hope in humanity is the fact that the human rights declaration was made so purely and without corruption of its principles, the fact that the declaration still exists and you are writing this article is hope for salvation without a religious under-toning - just the "good" of humanity.

As President of HREOC, Mr. John von Doussa had the opportunity to DO something about it when I complained against UNSW Vice Chancellor who has banned me from entering the University. Given that I am Australian and there is not one shred of evidence that I am a security risk, the only legal basis on which I could be banned is ‘ownership’ – that I am not Australian. The Police did list me as Sri Lankan despite my strong protests that I was Australian. That was lateral majority power influencing the Police – the Parallel of the reason for detention when Australians do not know the background. Mr. John von Doussa did have the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 under which I was arrested by the Vice Chancellor through the Police, to find the Vice Chancellor guilty of Unlawful Racial Discrimination. But due to his rulings, the current vice chancellor Mr. Fred Hilmer sent armed officers to break into my home and remove assets to pay his hired lawyers. Experience says Mr.John von Doussa is not true even to himself. Hence he does not qualify to speak on behalf of Common Australians. He needs to limit himself to the intellectual path – however narrow that may be in Australia.
I wrote to Mr. John von Doussa – that Human Rights is separate from Equal Opportunity. Mr. John von Doussa did not respond. But to me karma ‘happened’ – with the Commission now being just Human Rights Commission. Likewise karma happened at UNSW . I complained of unlawful racial discrimination and my services were terminated even though I was expressly recognized as a high performer by users of my services including the Dean of Medicine. Karma happened after I left and UNSW spent millions of dollars defending itself against charges of racial discrimination described as scientific fraud in the Hall matter and also with Mr. Ul Haque – a UNSW Medical student being charged for terrorism. KARMA SURE HAPPENS. Mr. John von Doussa failed to see it coming because he did not see himself first – before seeing others