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.