The Forum > Article Comments > When consultation is not consultation > Comments
When consultation is not consultation : Comments
By John Ridd, published 24/3/2009The façade of a Charter of Rights consultation is the triumph of the New Class.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:10:26 AM
| |
Who is the "new class" or those that REALLY control what goes on in Australia and the world
Who represents the real threat to the freedom of the ordinary person? Who controls the commercial media and the cultural waste-land produced by the same media? Why not go back and check out the guest list of those who attended the garden party for Bush when he was here in OZ a few years ago. That is the class who really control things both here in Oz and world-wide too. Many of them would have very close links with the CIS, the IPA and by extension the movers and shakers that gave many countries world-wide the Shock Doctrine tactics as described by Naomi Klein Never mind that during the Howard years there was very little democracy, indeed even dissent within the ranks of the Liberal parliamentarians, from Howards personal agendas. Not one member of the government was on public record as to opposing the invasion of Iraq. Such is statistically and humanly impossible. And lots of social advocacy groups had their funds cut or stopped altogether if they criticised government policies. Never mind too that there was effectively a "new class" in control of the political and cultural agendas of Howard. Namely the various unelected hacks that worked for the IPA and the CIS, which were effectively the policy-making machines of the government. And they, via our version of the right-wing noise machine are still petulant that they no longer have direct access to the levers of power. CONSTANTLY ASSERTING THAT THE PEOPLE GOT IT WRONG, just like in the USA with the election of Barack Obama. The same petulant people in the USA are even talking about armed rebellion. Plus the fellow travellers of the IPA/CIS were the same people who monstered the social fabric of various countries world-wide, as described in THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. Anything even remotely like a democratic process was quickly done away with. Plus legislation and other mechanisms were put in place by these "freedom" merchants which prevented the new arrangements (imposed by them) from being reversed. Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 11:52:01 AM
| |
Contrary to the author's view, the government's consultation is as open, comprehensive and well-publicized as these types of processes can ever be.
http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/community.nsf/calendar Ridd of course would prefer any 'consultation' to occur through a referendum, which he knows full well would be soundly rejected, and for no other reason than the fact of it being poorly understood by the average voter. The government is to be applauded for at last acting on an issue which has been niggling away for years, and on which most other democracies have already grasped the nettle and introduced a bill, charter or act to protect human rights. The true reasons behind Ridd's objections soon become apparent in the examples he gives. Not for him, any ceding to soppy notions of cultural relativity. The idea that other religions and ethnic groupings might have rights equal to his own is obviously abhorrent to him. "They will be stating that the Parliament is acting immorally. No Parliament will allow that to happen so they will back off." Exactly, and what an improvement that would be. Parliament would at last be constrained by the need to observe basic human rights principles, which for most of the time it already does. But on the occasions it chose not to, there would be a mechanism in place to alert those in the media, the legal profession and the public who care about such breaches. This would enhance rather than detract from the democratic process. The public would be informed and debate would follow. There would be a greater involvement in the political process than is currently the case. Of course, if it's only those on the progressive side of politics who take these issues seriously, so be it. I agree with Judith Brett. Why, when it comes to human rights, should the opinions of the ignorant or uninvolved continue to be given equal weight to those of the passionate and the knowledgeable? Those minorities in society, who regularly find their rights being trampled on, need these informed and passionate people to speak up for them. Who else will do it? Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 12:08:56 PM
| |
Election issues are "poorly understood by the average voter".
Perhaps Bronwyn, Brett, et al would also support an election oversight committee to ensure that wrong election decisions are brought into line with the expectations of an unaccountable group of bureaucrats sharing the appropriate ideology. In the public interest, of course. Posted by KMB, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:08:44 PM
| |
Ho hum by name, ho hum by nature.
And Bronwyn, deal with the arguments John Ridd has put, rather than attributing motives. Bronwyn regards herself as one of "the passionate and the knowledgable" while those who disagree with her are "the ignorant or uninvolved". The left always has false notions of adequacy. Bronwyn says,"The idea that other religions and ethnic groupings might have rights equal to his own is obviously abhorrent to him." - ie, John Ridd. Probably not. It's just that bills of rights tend to work in one direction only. A bill of rights is, by definition, undemocratic. And stupid. Victoria won't take action against criminal bikie gangs because the loopy left in that State don't want to harm the gangs' "human rights". The gangs have no such qualms for everybody else, however. You raise the question of "cultural relativity", Bronwyn, and make it clear that you think every culture has equal intrinsic value. So, the Taliban are just the local good guys, right? Genital mutilation is fine with you, Brownyn? - hey, who are we to question local customs. Just Google "genital mutilation in Queensland". Some people in this country actually think the practice should be stopped. How Anglo-centric is that? And the usual gang of criminal dictatorships that make up the UN majority these days is OK too, right? Sure it is, if you're pro-human rights you must be pro-UN, it's part of the syndrome. In any of those places you'd have been denied even the poor education that you apparently have, you'd have been mutilated and you'd be, in effect, slave labour. You're OK with that, are you Bronwyn? Very "progressive" of you. Historically the left has supported an assortment of mass murderers, including Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh and, when no one else was available for adulation, they crossed to the ultra right and cheered for Hitler and Saddam. Great company "progressives" keep. Odd that none of those guys supported bills of rights. No doubt they were "passionate" and "knowledgable", though. Posted by KenH, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 2:39:47 PM
| |
I think perhaps that the author is being a little hard on the lawyers when he talks about it potentially being a 'nice little earner'. I've certainly experienced arrogent lawyers, and I have encountered some who seem to have solid bone in their cranial capacity instead of grey matter, but I think the lawyers pushing a Bill of Rights are genuine in their desire to make Australia a better place.
It is hard to say that all is well with our democracy when it is totally legal in this country for someone to be held for life in detention when they have committed no crime and they can't even leave the country as they are stateless. It also is not well when someone like Scott Parkin having been let into the country, can be deported and no reason is given. It not only is just morally wrong, but tarnishs our image on the world stage and also undermines Australians confidence in our system of government. I'm just wondering though if a Bill of Rights is the way to go. A Government could simply ignore a Judge's advice that legislation they put up is in conflict with a Bill of Rights, and chances are the Howard Government would have. Not a lawyer or a politican, but perhaps it would be possible to have legislation with teeth enacted in Parliament on each identified problem area, rather than to bring in a Bill of Rights with no teeth. A draconian Government could always rescind such legislation, but it might not be a good look to the voters for a Government to actively seek out the right to act in a way that many would perceive as unfair or even 'unAustralianly'. Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 3:01:11 PM
|
Good point. In all countries with a Bill of Human Rights, there has been a negative effect on parliament and, therefore, on democracy. It is simply not possible to have a Bill of Rights without taking power from elected parliament.
And, if we are to look at the United Nations for a guide to ‘rights’, the whole thing is criminal. As the authors correctly says, the UN brand of ‘rights’ is dictated by countries who do not allow their citizens even the basic rights of human dignity and freedom of speech.
“A Bill of Rights would empower a group of (presumably) lawyers to “examine” legislation that is before, or has been passed by the democratic process in Parliament, and then to decide whether Parliament’s decision should be allowed or struck down.”
Not that well! And: “The group that will pontificate on the rights or wrongs of Parliamentary actions, will be unelected, unsackable, have total power but no responsibility at all.”
Goodbye democracy.
The only thing disappointing thing about this otherwise excellent article is that the author has named the grubs responsible for this back door and undemocratic push for a Bill of Rights, the “New Class”. This serves only to disguise the fact that they are the ‘same old’ Leftist and authoritarian elite who believe the rest of us don’t know what’s good for us.
Unfortunately, Australians have been conned by our populist Prime Minister into thinking that he is a good man with our interests at heart. Because of this serious misjudgement of Rudd’s character, the Leftist (largely faceless) authoritarians have every chance of making a parliamentary democracy a thing of the past.