Its a complex question. How will they balance the various rights that can sometimes come into conflict? The ACL's agenda probably reflects the fact that what a lot of fundamentalistt Christian and other religious groups say about other can at times amount to vilification.

This Human Rights Act is a farce being pushed by the minority weirdo groups. Australian laws adequately cover & reflect Australian values as they are now. The two big groups are the gay lobby & anti-abortion lobby with the free drugs lobby, free guns for everyone & the mentally challanged (not the disabled type)a close third, forth & fifth. It has the full support of Lawyers because they can smell a fat cash cow in the making.
I went to a Get Up meeting where, I think, only 3 out of those at the meeting didn't have some sort of mental problem or personal minority barrow to push. I have a tendancy to think the meeting was minority stacked & they were looking for a favourable outcome, when they didn't get it some of them were quite cranky.

I wonder why I feel the loss of some of my rights comming on, & another hit to my wallet.

Is seems this lot have talked to every special interest group, even been out bush, to talk to a couple of people, & a dog or two. I'm sure they will have a feel for the general community opinion, I don't think.

So we will get some more bull sh1t, another organisation of public, or semi public servants, service for most will be reduced, it always is with more bureaucracy.

Susan will feel good, & will probably have a new job, while we all wonder where our freedom [& money] went.

This Labor ex-Minister believes that: “More than ever, we need it (B of R)…” What, to protect us from the Rudd Labor Government?

We certainly do need protection from Rudd, but a Bill of Rights won’t do that.

As chairwoman for Human Rights Act For Australian Campaign Inc., Ryan is obviously going to tell the rest of us that we ‘need’ a Bill of Rights. She is one of the ‘elite’ who came up with the idea in the first place (based on her personal politics) without any consultation with the Australian people. They are all the same, these people: they feel that something is a good idea, so they try to force in on the rest of us – just like the republic, and just like today’s announcement that the TV ‘personality’, Ray Martin intends to push for a new flag. A media hack presumes to tell us that we should change our flag!

Mainstream Australians have shown that a republic for Australia doesn’t rate very high with them, and it’s very unlikely that a new flag will mean a lot to them either. Opposition to a Bill of Rights seems to have increased, too, as people, sick and tired of being told what’s good for them, are taking the trouble to find out about the pitfalls of another needless interference in their lives and thoughts.

Paul Keating was finally removed by the people because they were sick and tired of his obsession with his own ideas when those ideas did not gel with mainstream Australians: flags, a republic and personal thoughts that pandered to minorities and showed contempt for most Australians. Howard didn’t have a lot to offer, but he beat Keating by sticking to the middle of the road and listening to what people wanted, not telling them what he wanted to force on them.

The big question is: will Rudd make the same mistakes as Keating and push for a Bill of Rights which, so far, has been viewed with suspicion by moderate Australians whose interests lie in the economy, jobs and their standard ...

...of living than they are in airy-fairy ‘rights’.

Ryan’s “…unprecedented level of response for such an exercise” is, of course, meaningless – “40,000” views – hardly a done deal! Objections were “…considered in depth and received full response.” Again, meaningless because we don’t know what the responses were. People pushing a hobby horse are certainly not going to turn around and side with people against the thing they want to do.

Ryan tells us that the “The rights proposed to be protected were primarily the civil and political rights covered by the UN convention long since ratified by Australia…”, but doesn’t tell us why we need separate laws for Australia if we are signatories to the UN version. The fact is, that she and her colleagues never tell us anything that would allow us to make up our own minds; we are simply told that we need a Bill of Rights. Most of us have never been in the position in our own country where our rights even looked like being abused. With politicians’ obsession with minorities (and taking the majority for granted) it is not unreasonable for people to believe that a B of R is a damper on freedom of speech, and gift to immigrating minorities arriving in Australia to help out big business and big, controlling governments. One of the leaders in ‘rights’ is the UK, and look what has happened to freedom of speech if you are in the majority!

The only right I feel that is threated is the right to a free press with the new net censorship act.