The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style > Comments

Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style : Comments

By Stephen Keim, published 19/10/2009

The campaign in favour of a Human Rights Act captured the imagination of a large section of the public.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Thanks for this thoughtful piece, Stephen.

An essential difference between Brennan and Albrechtsen is their attitudes at the outset of the human rights inquiry.

Brennan entered the process a declared fence-sitter on the issue of statutory human rights protections, and he used the process to gain a deep understanding of the issues involved. To my knowledge, Albrechtsen has always been against statutory human rights protections. Her participation has been limited to cherry-picking the points that could conceivably prop up her view.
Posted by woulfe, Monday, 19 October 2009 8:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this article although well written and thought through from a conservative's perspective does little to advance either side of the cause.

I find it hard to reconcile that Frank Brennan is anything but a Clayton's conservative. Given his life long commitment to the Catholic Church and its dogma it is hard to see that this wouldn't influence his reasoning in favour of status quo (religious influence). It could be argued that a bill of human rights might alter undermine this influence. especially if it involved contentious issues like abortion etc.

Janet well, is at best an entertainer like Bolt and about un-objective pushing their own versions of manipulative philosophic arrogance. Janet like all so called 'influencers'(sic)seemingly do not understand the needs and influences at the other end of the continuoum of society, towards which the marority are skewed.

While most of them are eloquent/clever they all have similar faults, in their arguments specifically, they cherry pick supporting evidence ignoring the rest.
And are IMO all part of the problem (more biased noise)pushing their own selfish perspectives.

I therefore don't believe that they have anything meaningful to objectively add to this or any debate about what is good for the public.

In one aspect she does have a point in that 50k submissions doesn't necessarily reflect the will of 20 million people. It merely demonstrates the more active.

Sadly This article should re titled FB&JA : a contrast in conservative thinking.

I would suggest an objectively worded (not 'balanced') booklet of all the arguments from both sides be produced and distributed, followed by a referendum some time later.

PS I would suggest the issue should be the human rights bill concept not these two unrepresentave individual's differences
Posted by examinator, Monday, 19 October 2009 9:54:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rather than grasping the "Imagination", I would suggest that it got the "Attention" of the public. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" might well apply here. The cries of a minority who can't get their agenda passed any other way should be ignored.
Posted by fairgo, Monday, 19 October 2009 11:49:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have read Father Brennan's exemplary report and heard a number of radio interviews. But do I believe that even the ALP is committed to human rights? No more, not after how I and other local government councillors were forced to voluntarily resign our jobs recently, and by our own political party. Forced to resign honest work, with NO interest in our human rights whatsoever So I can work for a political lobbyist, a hard core union, a greedy financier, a person of questionable character.... but not for a MP. Like so many others I am losing considerable income and it is hurting but our human rights, our civil and political rights, were trodden on. And to add to that, most of my peers are terrified of saying publicly what I am here.
Posted by Ange, Monday, 19 October 2009 1:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "If it ain't broke don't fix it" might well apply here.

it is most definitely broke.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 19 October 2009 1:47:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ed Coper, in the same edition of The Australian, argues convincingly that those who seek to invalidate the response of the public to the Consultation (and the overwhelming support for the concept of a Human Rights Act) have failed to realise how important new communications technology is in encouraging members of the public to become involved in public debate"
"Of the five specific ways that human rights could be improved that were included in the survey, support for all of them was over 50%, and in some cases as high as 90%. However, support (and preference) was highest for those options which did not involve any additional definition of rights or protection." Appendix B Colmar Brunton community research report: Summary
"The telephone survey had a total sample size of N=1200, and was stratified as n=150 in each state / territory in order to allow jurisdictional analysis. To maximise the representativeness of the survey sample, true random digit dialling was used; and age, gender and metropolitan / regional quotas were used to structure the raw sample, with statistical weighting used to correct any final discrepancies to the actual population."
So they conducted a random survey of the Australian population to elucidate their views on how human rights could be improved and as you see above, a Human Rights Act was the least preferred. So much for the "overwhelming support for the concept of a Human Rights Act".
Posted by blairbar, Monday, 19 October 2009 4:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy