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.

The author doesn't mention whether Australian women's sole right to male supervision will be included.

The nation's Constitution makes no provision for a women's legislature or women's jurisdiction at law

Timothy Watson lives in Melbourne and he can go down to Information Victoria in Little Collins Street, and for an investment of about thirty five dollars he can discover what twaddle he is talking here. He can buy a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and in it he will find as Schedule 2 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He can also buy the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) and in that he will find in s 13 that a schedule is part of an Act, and we have enacted the Australian Bill of Rights, as a Commonwealth Act, constitutionally guaranteeing the same thing as the Father Frank Brennan team is consulting on.

If he then does the student thing and buys a Constitution at the same time, he will see in S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, this Act is binding on the courts judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. He will also be able to look at S 109. That says that where there is an inconsistency between a law of the Commonwealth, and a State Law, the Commonwealth law prevails.

As a Tax Consultant, he probably has clients who pay land tax. Land Tax is illegal by reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it discriminates against landowners. Article 26 of the Covenant says: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

So as a Student he fails, and as a Tax Consultant he should be conscientious and deliver a bit of good advice to his clients. Stop paying Land Tax. The third thing he should stop doing is failing to research his subject before writing articles for OLO

m'lords might also note the Australian Bill of Rights Act 1985 makes no mention of women's sole right to male supervision.

neither does Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

neither does Timothy Watson.

someone should deliver a bit of good advice to Peter the Believer.

Compelling is the need for a greater realisation of universal human rights in Australia.

Australia does require a binding charter of its own to represent recognition of historical struggles. Legally for the sake of all minority groups, in the name of long-term civic health, human dignity and wellbeing. A charter to help work against all forms of stuctural volience and or careless degree's of social, economic and institutional oppression.

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

As John Clearly asked back in 2008, "Is the proposed new legislation about the rights of minorities or the tyranny of the majority?" Find discussion link below....

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s2446068.htm

Also hear Geoffrey Robertson on the History of Human Rights

http://abc.com.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/04/17/2545992.htm

Human Rights is on about more than just a nations conscience. It is a way to add some legal resource tools to citizens through the system.

Australians all need to do more to help understand and address the ideas of respect, fairness, justice and equality. The "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

Of most importance it may help to encourage common-sense policies and decisions that promote human dignity and addresses disadvantage.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

I wish to make a Catholic case FOR a Bill of Rights, and register the fact that not all religious or theological opinion is as opposed to a Bill of Rights, as Paul Kelly maintains. Indeed, my concern is that the Church's opposition to a Bill of Rights relates to its own fear of losing its exemptions in respect of its schools.

I take the view that the exemptions that the Catholic Church has regularly sought to Anti-Discrimination legislation are as unnecessary as they are unjust, and, far from enabling Catholic institutions to carry out their mission without fear of interference from the state, actually counter Catholic Social Teaching.

My additional concern is that legislative frameworks, such as the Code of Canon Law, do not provide sufficient safeguard against abuses of power in dealing with disputes within the Churches, especially as canon law shows scant regard for the principles and practices of 'ascending' authority that are drawn from democratic theory.

A case in point is the treatment of Fr Kennedy, a Brisbane priest, who has recently been ousted from his parish against the wishes of the vast majority of his parishioners. In a civil court his treatment would have been mediated by an attention to a much more open judicial process as well as the views of his parishioners, a consideration that has played no part in the existing canonical process in which the rules are made by a star chamber and without regard to issues of freedom of conscience and local conditions.

G'Day All; The Australian Independece was given by way of an enactment of the British Parliament which is governed by the British bill of rights. By that enactment we would be also through our Parliament be given those rights as we are still a member of the British Commonwelth & a Monachy as the Crown of Britain is our head of State, they also are subjected to the British Bill of Rights through thier Parliament.Check the Court papers (crown-v-whoever)then we as well must be subjectable to the Bill of Rights. It then goes to follow that what ever is prosecuted through our Courts must also face the scrutiny of the British Bill of Rights the same as the British Courts.The only problem here is that people wont stand united & keep with "she'll be jake mate".Thanks again. Dave.

dwg, the British Bill of Rights
when Australian Independence was given
provided for men's legislatures only.

there is no women's legislature
so the British Bill of Rights
still grants women the sole right to male supervision.

G'Day All; Yes Whistler that is the whole point. There has to be a recognition between equality & dominance.Twenty Five years ago(approx) men were starting to complain about how far the women were going with "Thier Rights". Then it was the rights of children 10 years later we have both men & women complaining about how far "Thier Rights" are going. We are supposed to be a "Christian Country" or so it is said so we believe in "God" then we believe in the "Original Sin" so from there we modelled our society. This country was to be a FREE country of FREE men but some where along the way we have lost that purpose. With FREEDOM & RIGHTS come responsibilities Equality is okay but the belief in God is the belief in Father- Mother- Children. Yes All I'll say it for you "SEXIST BASTARD" Thanks again. Dave.

yes dwg, the men who granted Australia independence were sexist bastards.
and the men they granted independence to were racist bastards.
with provision of women's legislature there won't be any bastards left!

G'Day All; Whistler, With womens rights we have more "Bastards" than ever before children of single women with no fathers present what do you call children out of wedlock. Blame the "Wakim Case" for there now being two different classes of children. What it all boils down to is that society is turning itself on its head. We need to build a social structure to protect our children so as to give them the safety & guidance that they deserve, too many today are interested only in thier own happiness & pleasure instead of realising that we are here to caretake a world for the children coming after us. We don't only need a "Bill of Rights" for women we need a "Bill of Rights" for all; male & female. The more a male is masculine the more the female needs to be feminine to balance each other. Thanks Dave.