“Recent international criticism” should not have any bearing on whether or not Australia needs constitutionally enshrined human rights. Bruce needs to forget international criticism (we should never be forced into anything just because of foreign views of us), and he is out of whack with a constitutionally enshrined B of R; even the doyens of human rights like Geoffrey Robertson don’t believe the constitution should be used. If such legislation were to be considered, it would have to be in the form of statute.

Taking “heed” of the United Nations is also a definite no-no considering the totalitarian countries involved in the human rights arm of that useless organisation. They are the sort who preach to Australia while their own citizens have zero human rights.

“Australia has put the management of part of its refugee responsibilities in the hands of the Indonesian Police and Army.”

No we haven’t. Bruce is confusing Australia’s responsibility under an out of date Convention with our attempts to prevent the smuggling of illegal immigrants into the country. “Rights” for Australia is one thing; attempting to extend them to non-Australians, particularly illegals, is quite another.

How Bruce connects ‘rights’ with the Alice Springs housing affair – where the ‘leaders’ have knocked back the money offered, even though the residents want better housing – is too incomprehensible to go into.

Bruce, from his very first post, has always come across as left-winger who, like many of his fellows, has been very disappointed in the Labor Party which was supposed to come up with the goods that he thought they should. I think that, if we are ever saddled with an unnecessary Bill of Rights, Bruce will be very disappointed in that too

Could I say I am sick and tired of atheists, secularists, and other do gooders who write for this forum, failing to do their due diligence before putting an article online.

I have said it before but it seems that either the people concerned cannot read, missed it, or don’t believe me. In 1986 we got a Constitutionally Guaranteed Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It is Constitutionallly guaranteed because S 109 Constitution makes any law of a State inconsistent with it invalid. Further S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 makes the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth passed under this Constitution, binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. How much more of a Constitutional guarantee than that do you need?

Doing Due Diligence as the writers of this article should have, I traced the Bill of Rights through Parliament in 1986, and sure enough it passed. So too did the act repealing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 also just enacted, and putting it as Schedule 1 to the Bill of Rights Bill, but the rogues in the executive failed to send the Bill of Rights for Royal assent, and also the Bill repealing the Covenent, from the Human Rights Bill, to the Bill of Rights Bill.

This has allowed the dishonest members of the legal profession to pretend they can still lawfully practice exclusively in Australian courts, and their mates the Judges and Magistrates of Australia have true to the form of lawyers since Biblical times, refused to accept the will of the Parliament.

I think all people who express opinions should first do some research, and that includes you Leigh. While Statutory interpretation is something done first year at law school, it should be a compulsory refresher course for all lawyers, every year, including the authors. I just wonder how many lives would be better if our lawyers were honest, and open to competition

Peter the Believer,

Although I usually disagree with Bruce Haigh, I simply cannot believe that he would be ignorant of the things you claim to be fact.

"In 1986 we got a Constitutionally Guaranteed Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth."

Why are we arguing about a B of R now, then? Are you the only person who knows about this B of R. All of the lawyers in the country haven't heard of it. Is that what you are saying. People like Geoffery Robertson write that there is no guarantee of rights in the Constitution, but you disagree?

I hate to say this for obvious reasons, but: "Please explain".

Peter the Believer: "atheists, secularists, and other do gooders". That is so funny!
Do not expect to be taken seriously anywhere outside the tinfoil hat club. It is a good thing that folks who talk to God are so obviously nuts.
Re the article...
It is fair to say that the Left is pretty disappointed with Rudd and co. Internet censorship is a good example of something people actually care about where they should have shown leadership, but instead buckled to the noisy religious minority. I'm not sure we can talk about universal human rights when our economy is based on so much exploitation. Nor can we single handedly save the world from it's own stupidity.
I don't trust the current crop of pollies to come up with anything radical and new. I believe I am coming to an understanding of conservatism: It comes from a deep mistrust of anyone with more power than oneself.

Peter the believer.
No I don't believe you. It may have escaped your attention in the fog of your rant that we do not put articles online, the publisher does, in this case OLO.
As a committed commentator,you might at least consider putting your name to your posts, which would demonstrate a degree of moral courage and ownership of the rubbish you claim as having some intellectual worth.
You will note that Kellie and I have put our names to a carefully considered and researched article, do not expect to be taken seriously if you cannot do the same. In other words cut the moralising untill and unless you come out of the closet.
Bruce Haigh

Bruce Haigh, I would put my name on these posts if we had a legal system, and any decent lawyers at all in Australia. Why don’t you go on a small click hunt, you and your co-author, and check out what I say.

The first click should be Google, and click on Comlaw. The second click should be Current, The third, should be on Hu, a Page will come up with four forms of electronic reprint of an Act, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. Word or adobe will take you to it. Click four should be on one of those. It will say: This compilation was prepared on the 26th March 2006. Scroll down.the contents pages: It says Schedule 2 –The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Four clicks and you stand shot down in flames.

Go back, to the Current page again. Click on Ac. The fourth act is the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, It says This compilation was prepared on the 6th January 2009. Go to Sections 12 and 13. 12 says every section a substantive enactment without introductory words; 13 says: Headings, Schedules, marginal notes footnotes and endnotes. 13 (2) Every Schedule to an Act shall be deemed to form part thereof. Back to current, Click Co. about half way down is the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. It says This compilation was prepared on the 25th July 2003. S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 still says the same as it said in 1900, and so does S 109. You and the lawyer lady, should consider a rewrite.

Not to be too hard on you, the people fooled by Father Frank Brennan, and Robert McClelland include every Judge and Magistrate in Australia, most of the partners in every big law firm in Australia, and 99% of our elected representatives. The Human Rights Commission is a scabby substitute for free and unimpeded access to a court. Those having a go at me for being a Christian I will answer next. Jesus said I am the way and the truth

No Peter, Jesus said that the way and the truth is through "the self", not "my self". He was warning people about authority and the way that it corrupts wisdom. The texts were deliberately mis-interpreted by Constantine's collators.
Poor guy, all these moral ranters saying the complete opposite of what he intended in his name. What part of "Love thy neighbor" is hard to understand? Blaming atheists and secularists as if they were a single church is simply ignorant. Christians are *not* demonstrably better behaved, but they do get aggressive a lot.
</rant>
You may be right about the Lawyers though, it is a pretty corrupt legal system that makes little attempt to be a justice system. I'd put it on par with the big churches: thoroughly self serving and frequently spouting uninformed rubbish.

It is good to see someone else make the connection between the legal profession and the Big Christian Churches, like Ozandy has. The reason we have not had the International Covenant on Civil and Policical Rights accepted is that it is in effect a Protestant Christian distillation of the principles of the New Testament and the principles underlying that English Constitution. The monolithic legal profession has gone into the same organizational structure as the Roman Catholic Church, and used its dominance of the Liberal Party, and its significant presence in the ALP to legislate to make membership of that Church structure compulsory, and resistance very expensive.

The is really very little difference between the Holy See in Rome, and the High Court in Australia today. An ordinary Roman Catholic has about as much chance of influencing policy in Rome, as an ordinary Australian has of influencing policy through the High Court. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would fix this by abolishing discrimination. Prior to the hostile takeover of Australia’s legal system by the Lawyer’s Church, State by State starting in 1927 in SA, by installing Priests as Judges, just like the Church of Rome, The Queen did not discriminate, and was deemed to be present in every court.

If Bruce Haigh wants to call me a liar again, I suggest he looks at the Australia Act 1986, and observes that in S 11 The Australian Courts Act 1828, is preserved. This should ensure that in an Australian court the Queen (God) reigns. It doesn’t because the New State Church, formed out of the alliance between Atheists, Lawyers and Roman Catholics, has installed a Lawyer as State Priest.

I don’t know if any of you have ever tried to argue with a Roman Catholic Priest. As soon as the argument starts to go against him, he will call upon the higher power of your heavenly Father. Taint no different with a Federal Court Judge. They can have a jury trial, in that Court, and the money to pay them is appropriated, but it is against their lawyers religion.

The law as a religion is not new. The reason JC came and taught the separation of powers, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23, was because the Jews had adopted the law as their religion, and had plenty of law, but not much justice. The reason that the Roman Catholic Church was such a bloody church, was that they had lots of law, but no justice. The reason the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not accepted by lawyers, is that it would deliver justice, and repeal a whole swath of oppressive State Law, by reference to the Constitution. This would end the exploitation of Australians and the States are probably finished and bankrupt, if the Commonwealth is serious about enforcing what it legislates into law.

Currently a question leveled at a State Lawyer Priest, about State Law, will see the inevitable answer, Parliament has legislated it. The Federal Lawyer Priests who could allow anyone at all to have the legality of a State’s legislation, tried as a criminal would be, will not allow this to happen, so we have billions of dollars raised as revenue illegally. They themselves are criminals, these State Lawyer Priests, but they have become so entrenched in power, that the Commonwealth has not moved against them.

Every State Lawyer Priest employed by the Commonwealth as a Judge, owes his first allegiance to his State Law Society Church. This Law Society Church, and the Bar Association, to which all Barristers must subscribe, at the cost of at least $6000 a year, is living proof of what Jesus taught. Where your treasure is so too is your heart. Being a fees paying member of a black church, to get a return on their investment, they must have Courts. Courts with a capital C are un-Constitutional. Every civil Court in Australia is a Temple to the Law as God. Unless they accept that the Covenant is law, they are not courts of justice.

This is why McClelland has Father Frank Brennan running around saying we have no Covenant. Its against his law as God religion.

What an extraordinarily ignorant and hateful rant. Who was the idiot Foreign Minister who would appoint such an Australia-Hater as this Bruce Haigh to an ambassadorship!

This article has merely hardened my resolve that we must defeat this Charter/Bill of Rights, and these truly awful people who are running the Yes campaign!