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.