“Possibility (a) is that he genuinely thinks that it is possible to have a Bill or Charter and leave the supremacy of Parliament undamaged. Well, either a Charter will have an effect or it won’t. If it does have an effect (influence/power) then that must come at the expense of Parliamentary supremacy. If it will have no effect, what are we going on about?”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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'.

A bill of rights granted by parliament is the equivalent of the slave telling the boss what he and cant do. The people are the sovereigns not the parliament. The parliment is the servant of the people and as such it needs to take direction from the people. The greatest threat to democracy today is the parliament/government, we only have to look at the anti terrorist legislation and the new Queensland laws to find examples in Australia of the government trying to enslave the people. We do not need a bill of rights to tell us, the sovereigns what we can and cant do. What we instead need is a bill of government where we the people tell the government what it can and cannot do.We must be very black letter about what the government can do by stipulating the boundaries,responsibilties and accountability of government to the people

This circus conducted by Father Frank Brennan a Lawyer, Roman Catholic to the core, as was Chief Justice Brennan, is the latest in a long line of whitewashes organized by the crime syndicate that calls itself the legal profession in Australia.

While we had full employment, even though we had one hundred thousand homeless, almost all able bodied and healthy men and women in Australia were too busy making a living to give a toss.

The alliance between organized crime and the legal profession was cemented when the Liberal party was given almost unlimited funds to unseat Chiffley in 1949. It turns out a good deal of this money came from organized crime. If Abe Saffron’s son was telling the truth, his father has been sitting like a spider in the centre of the web of Australian politics until his death in 2006.

Without the safeguard of a functioning legal system, which Menzies destroyed in 1953, when he gave organized crime the authority to close down the Federal Supreme Court so the organized gang that funded his 1949 election campaign no longer had a court to fear, Australia will see domestic violence on an unprecedented scale.

This whitewash will not solve the problem, but KR might. The first of the white collar criminals who are part of this scam was sentenced to two years jail this week. As most honest coppers say, if we don’t get them for one thing we get them for another.

To survive this economic crisis, the Commonwealth Labor Government will have to get back to core values that KR says he has. It should scrap this consultation and accept as fact that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted by the Federal Labor Party in 1986. Despite the control of most State Parliaments and the Judiciary in those States by the Labor Party, the Constitution guarantees it is law.

KR is going to have to question the loyalty of McClelland. Is his first loyalty to the Commonwealth or the legal profession. Is he a true blue Labor man or a closet Liberal

Ho Hum

I agree, the so-called "New Class", the one with all the clout, is certainly not comprised of Progressives or Leftists.

Right wing think tanks and their corporate backers have as you say dominated public discourse and economic policy for over two decades now, and just look at the mess that's got us all into. No wonder their followers are casting around wildly in a desperate effort to discredit those who correctly point out the stupidity of letting greed and the market rule our lives. The ridiculous "New Class" label is just another in a long line of deliberate ploys to marginalise the reasoned and well justified condemnation directed at them by a growing band of critics.

KMB

"Election issues are 'poorly understood by the average voter'."

What I said was that it was referendums that are usually poorly understood by the average voter, and that is why history shows them to invariably be defeated. I wasn't, as you have incorrectly stated, talking about election issues in general. Likewise, my reference to the Judith Brett quote was specifically in relation to human rights, not politics more broadly.

I would appreciate it if you would read my words more closely, before twisting them to suit your own purposes and taking cheap shots and misinterpreting my intent.

JL DEland

"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 agree. It's simplistic to tar all lawyers with the same brush. There are rogues among them for sure, but there are many decent caring people in the profession, many of whom go out on a limb to speak up against unfair legislation and who do hours of pro bono work to assist those in the community who need their help but can't afford to pay for it.

But again, lampooning the legal profession is a convenient fallback for those who don't want their governments to spend time and resources on addressing human rights problems.

The trouble with the rights is that they are ever-expanding and ever-whackier.
They may include, but are not limited to:
the “right” to marry someone of the same gender (now),
the "right" to marry one’s parent/child (later),
http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/
the “right” to abort one’s eight-month old foetus,
the “right” of a pair of aging homosexuals to foster young boys
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
the “right” of men to slip on a frock and use women’s change rooms
http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf
,etc, ad nauseum.
A charter of rights is simply a device for “progressives” to facilitate the above without being hamstrung by the democratic process.

Thanks for agreeing with me over the good intentions of the lawyers Bronywn. We will have to disagree over Judith Brett's quote though. It may be maddening to have to keep plodding slowly along and try to change people's attitudes to issues you feel deeply about, and where the truth and the right way to go is very evident to you, instead of just sweeping in as part of a 'elite' with a superior moral compass and getting things fixed, but it's just the way it's got to be.

It's very dangerous for one group to decide that their opinions are superior to anothers so they can completely disregard the other group's feelings. It might be easy to say 'but they are uninformed, or not involved' so should be ignored to justify it. It might be though that the elite group doesn't like what they are hearing so labels the others as disinterested.

Also very good intentioned people can do bad things without intending too. The policy makers who decided to remove the Aboriginal children almost certainly thought they were improving those children's futures. If we give a elite superior rights to decide what is best for us, similar things could happen.

Then there is the loose cannon who acquires a unquestioning following because of their perceived superior judgement. Think of the deep sleep therapy of Chelmsford. It wasn't just one person working there who committed the abuse.

Then there are different lines of thought on issues both of which may have value. Anne O'Rourke for instance from Liberty Victoria is strongly in favour of a clause that tries to compel doctors with a moral objection to refer patients for an abortion and that the women's civil liberties come first. I think that I have an interest in Civil Liberties and I am pro-choice, but I very strongly disagree with her.

to be continued...

I see it as bullying doctors who genuinely believe that they are assisting in the murder of one of their patients by referring and treading on their civil liberties. I believe the State (that's the Victorian Government) has a moral responsibility to provide decent women's health services for women in rural areas, and to keep all women informed on accessing such services instead of coming up with this clause which equivilent of handing stranded passengers of Connix iceblocks instead of fixing the system.

There are so many shades of grey around the area that some people will agree with Anne O'Rourke, and some with me, but who knows who is right? If a elite came in with the ultimate decision to make these choices for us, it would come down on one side or the other with no debate. At least this way it has gone through Parliament and draws from a wider base than either O'Rourke or myself's views if we were the 'elite'.

So nope, spare me being under the sway of an elite of moral guardians. It is the responsibility of human rights activists to educate and bring people to consenus, rather to impose from above.

JL Deland

I wasn't suggesting that anyone should 'impose from above'. I actually commended the government on its grassroots approach and its attempts to consult widely throughout the community.

Nor was I condoning as you suggest that one group should decide 'their opinions are superior to anothers' and 'completely disregard the other group's feelings'. I was making the point that minority groups need the passionate and the well-informed to speak up for their rights, or as in this case to see their interests enshrined in a human rights act.

There is rarely a majority interest let alone a consensus when it comes to fighting for the rights of minority groups. Saying as you do that we should wait until we 'bring people to consensus' is tantamount to saying ‘let’s do nothing’.

None of the three examples you gave are likely consequences of introducing a human rights act. Conjuring up random examples of worst case scenarios is more akin to scare mongering than it is to mounting a compelling argument.

Apologies for misintrepreting your stance Bronwyn. I'll address Brett's quote again that here gives the impression of justifying elitism. I'm trying to come to a position myself on the Human Rights Act but beginning to swing against it.

Hopefully what I say here isn't to far off the point of the discussion but it might help you see where I'm coming from. I probably count as one of those people who you feel that "minority groups need the passionate and the well-informed to speak up for their rights" so I'm not saying, 'just do nothing' while consensus comes around. I have been doing something, and we have the kids out of detention and David Hicks home, though things still could be better, and quicker in both departments. I've done my share of rights activism. I think things should happen when a Government gets it wrong, that people should get active and we need to get things changed. If a Bill of Rights turns out to be a magic bullet that will speed things up and assist people in distress, I'll be only to pleased, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that it will be yet.

My examples (admittedly a tad extreme), I used to try and say that even good intentioned people sometimes get it wrong so if Brett supports what I'd call elitism, they are not completely irrelevant and dismissed as pure scaremongering.

Using one in another way, if Anne O'Rourke and I were Judges and a challenge to the Victorian conscience clause came before either of us, we would I'm sure try to remove our personal views from it and be impartial (and probably stand aside) but we would bring different perspectives into it, as would any Judge. Similarly Civil Libertarians have protested last year about taxi passengers privacy being infringed, while the taxi drivers would say that it's part of their civil liberties to be safe.
...to be continued

A Bill of Rights will be open to interpetation and Judge's decisions could fall on either side. I might hate the outcome of the Conscience clause vote in the Victorian Parliament, but at least I know that it was voted on by people who were chosen by the people to represent them, and I can vote against the Government next election. A Judge's verdict would be one person's interpretation in grey areas.

I admit when I chose a couple of my examples I had my personal experience of well meaning people being so sure that they are right, that they can't see when they are doing wrong in mind. I've posted this story before, but it has impacted on my perspective on life so I'll repost it. I (a leftie housewife) hasn't been able to sit in public events in for the last 7 years, in Melbourne in total confidence that I won't be singled out and harrassed because someone either put out that my friend of the time worked on something nasty for the Howard Government, or that I was some sort of Government spy which I most certainly wasn't. I'm definately more one of the watched class rather than the watcher.

Almost certainly these people who harrassed me (still no apology) would support a Bill of Rights and join mainstream Human Rights organisations. While it was a small number of people,and others were welcoming, I still feel a little jaded, and I don't automatically assume that even well meaning people have it rights. Passionate and committed people can get it wrong, so if Brett wants them to to be treated as superior thinkers, I'd still like to exercise caution.

Lobbying a Government for change, and changing the community's attitudes is hard work but maybe means a healthier and less resentful community rather than people feeling they have been imposed on by the courts. I acknowledge though the suffering that occurs while injustices are outstanding and if the Bill of Rights is a magic bullet, I'll welcome it.

JL Deland

"I'm trying to come to a position myself on the Human Rights Act but beginning to swing against it."

I wasn't sure to begin with either, but I'm falling in behind the idea now. At first I was persuaded by the argument that it would take power away from our elected representatives and hand it to the courts, which I thought would further weaken the democratic process and risk clogging the courts unnecessarily. But I now view that back-up of judicial oversight as a strength rather than a weakness.

The following points, put out by the Queensland Human Rights Consultation Group, summarise the benefits of a Human Rights Act rather well I think.

"Governments would have to consider human rights when drafting laws, making policy or delivering services.

Governments would have to be open and explain their decisions to pass laws that could infringe on human rights.

Courts could interpret laws in accordance with human rights laws and make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ if the Courts believed laws breached human rights.

Parliament would retain the power to make, retain, amend and remove laws.

Government authorities and service providers such as Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office would be required to comply with the Act when making policies, decisions and delivering services to the public."

If parliament did go to pass laws infringing human rights, a Human Rights Act would ensure the public at least became aware of it. Parliament would then need to persuade the public of the merits of its position and the threat of this process in itself would I think inhibit excess. Legislation such as Work Choices, mandatory detention of asylum seekers and the NT Intervention would have faced much tougher scrutiny.

The views of Frank Brennan, currently conducting the National Human Rights Consultation across Australia, are both instructive and I think reassuring. They demonstrate to me that this group is listening and that there are no ready-made top-down positions on this proposal.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/we-need-to-find-balance-between-individual-rights-and-common-good-20090401-9jpl.html

I think the existence of a Human Rights Act would definitely improve the quality and fairness of government.

Bronywn

Thankyou for your thoughts and the link to Frank Brennan's article. I'll keep chewing over it, and hopefully eventually settle into a position. I suspect I may share my confusion with a large number of people out there so Brennan's and the Government's work is cut out for them.

Maybe as a solid proposal is put up things will gel for us... Something to cut off the flow of draconian legislation that we are still seeing from the States would be a positive thing.