The issue of competing rights and policy goals is very clear

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognised that, in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, persons :

“shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing the due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.

Yet we find our individual "basic human rights" are diminished, ignored, by those pursuing their "special assistance" policy imperatives.

There is no respect when segegation by racial testing of Australian families occurs, such as ours. Yes, we remain segregated by racial testing !

Opposition to resolving the issues involved includes obstructive actions to prevent relevant issues receiving judicial attention, such as denial of legal assistance, despite the court's recognition.

Mere existence of a human rights framework fails to achieve the focus of attention and debate on such issues, fails to increase likelihood of attaining fully considered and just compromise to problems, whilst the HREOC declines to proceed to public hearings as doing so may question their support for racist "special assistance" programs...

Despite their efforts to ignore,government is finally addressing some of these, yet the campaigners for a racist Australia, including Father Frank Brennan, are fighting tooth and nail to maintain racial division and racial qualification of human rights...

The purpose of the Australian Bill of Rights is to water down the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not strengthen it.

.

Hear hear, Polpak.

This article assumes that the definition of a ‘right’ is not in issue, or that government can find out what a right is or should be by consulting with the population as to what ‘rights’ they ‘feel’ should be ‘protected’.

But the whole point about a right is that it can be enforced. This then necessarily imports into the discussion the ethics of using force as a basis for securing social co-operation. A right is something you are justified in using force to obtain or defend.

It follows that a right cannot be a right for no other reason than that a majority feel they want or should have something.

There is no such thing as a right to enslave, to rob, or to rape another person.

But slavery has been legal in the past. If a majority wanted it, would it be a ‘right’ in the sense that the author is using the word? If not, why not?

Clearly, legality cannot be the test of whether something is a right.

That being so, the entire government-driven process that the author proposes is problematic, because it provides no way of distinguishing between a right and an abuse.

Attempting to provide statutory ‘rights’ by way of majority opinion provides no protection against the oppression of minorities by the majority. If the majority feel like declaring themselves entitled to other people’s property, that’s exactly what they will do. But if there is no such thing as a right to slavery, how can there be a right to someone else’s efforts, taken under coercion, on which the state relies for its entire revenue? Answer me that.

Attempts by appeal to law to limit the powers of government are notoriously unsuccessful, because it leaves government judging government.

The current leviathan of the US state is virtually unrecognisable from its Constitution, which states, over and over, that powers not explicitly granted to the central government are withheld. But you will look in vain in that Constitution for authority for a Food and Drug Administration, Federal Reserve, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Health and Human Services, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Education Department, Energy Department, classes on socialist feminism for Afghan peasants - let alone government powers pretending to harness the winds or tax the air!

Similarly the Australian constitution has been subverted by expansive judicial interpretation. One decision alone decided that the ‘external affairs’ power attracts any subject that politicians care to sign a treaty about. Needless to say, a flurry of treaty-signing followed. But honestly, if that interpretation were correct, why have a constitution in the first place?

Given the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the push for a bill of rights, and the demonstrated racism of such supporters as Brennan, we must conclude that the real underlying reason for it, is that it is desired as an instrument of social engineering that is more likely to produce injustice and abuse, than to further respect for human rights, which would be better achieved by greatly reducing both taxes and government.

Why on earth would anyone be against a Bill of
Rights Charter - that would afford protection
for minorities against the majority?

The best succinct argument for a Bill of Rights
that I've come across was given by David Nicholls,
President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. He
stated that:

"It would prevent religiously oriented or idealogically
driven governments from imposing tyranny on everyone.
A Bill of Rights would afford protection for minorities
... abortion rights, the right to choose voluntary
Euthanasia, the rights of lesbian, gay or transgender people,
the right for children to be religion free in state schools.

We have religious campaigners very strongly for Australia not to
have a Bill or Rights Charter."

Sorry Timothy, but as an official on the fence sitter on the human rights bill issue, you lost me with the raising of the whole Victorian Abortion referral clause issue. I suppose using words such as "breathtakingly cruel" and "sanctimonious thinking" is sort of countering the other side of the debate which is using words such as "fascist', but I didn't find it helpful. I don't regard myself as "breathtakingly cruel" and while I can certainly direct a good lecture at people I consider deserving, I don't usually break out into sanctimoniousness without cause.

The whole thing about the Victorian Conscience clause is that it is not being directed at medical staff who have being described by some as being "precious". It is being directed at people who genuinely believe that they are being asked to be involved in the killing of one of their patients. If the lawyers who have come up with this, were suddenly the subject a law that told them they didn't have to prosecute in the case of capital punishment, but they would have to find someone to be the hangman, the chances are they would refuse to co-operate. Furthermore it is being directed at people who before this clause came out, and abortion was legalised (a very good and sensible thing by the way) could have been prosecuted for being involved in the procuring of an abortion.

The whole problem of the Victorian Conscience clause is that it was excluded from being examined under the Right's act.

TBC

What I would have loved to have seen is that it was examined under the Rights Act and the responsibity for providing decent health care to all (not just women) and especially those women in rural areas where services are lacking, was slotted fairly and squarely back with the Victorian Labor Government, who by this nasty bit of bullying legislation, is seeking to give the impression it is doing something about health services, while doing nothing at all. Phew! anyway enough seeing red for the day.

Finally though it is a bit ironic that I believe the anti-clause people are seeking access to International Human Rights charters, when it won't be examined under the Victorian one, and yet the Pro-clause people still seem to think this is some sort of victory. It's a wierd sort of victory that sets off the alarm bells in fence sitters such as myself and keeps us firmly planted there.