It seems there is lots of criticism for 'Ryan's proposal' out there. But reading the posts it strikes me as obvious that there is a real uncertainty and vague understanding of the human rightslaws (as stated in the UDHR) that are currently protected at domestic law.

Currently Australians have very little access to remedying human rights abuses due the lack of a comprehensive domestic human rights law. International law remains out of reach or not at all adequate for individual claims. What will change you ask? Well for one, there will be a system for holding the government to account in terms of human rights and this includes in respect to new policies in the public service.

The Brennan report outlines a variety of recommendations which need to be considered to fully protect human rights in Australia and one of these is the need for education around what are human rights.

A few more suggestions apart from allowing asylum seekers access to the information used for their negative security assessments, for the Labor MP's who are interested in promoting a Bill of Rights to keep them busy until it happens. The Howard years were certainly useful for showing where some of the holes in human rights protection are in Australia are.

Firstly, changing the immigaration act so it is not lawful to lock up stateless people for the term of their natural life if a government so chooses, when they can't leave the country even when they wanted too.

Secondly, allowing people like Scott Parkin access to the information that got them deported.

Thirdly, if the Howard sedition laws have been removed by Labor, it has happened quietly. True, the secular Civil Libertarians would saddle up and ride to the aid of people charged defence (it's only medicos with a moral objection to being involved in what they regard as murder who should either be hit with coercive, draconian, useless and ill-thought out legislation, or remained silent on, in some current Australian secular Civil Libertarian thinking) but it would be more desirable to not have people charged for thought crimes to begin with.

The wish list could go on for pages, but this might get the social justice labor people started. True a Bill of Rights might help in all these cases, but why wait for one when the power is in Labor hands?

pericles, i'm not sure what you would regard as evidence. i would have thought the american bill of rights has been hugely beneficial. would you argue not, or that the example is irrelevant?

Susan Ryan wrote:
"Why does this group operating under a “Christian” banner choose to create such confusion about protecting human rights?"

I dunno, maybe this has something to do with it?

"Parliament in relation to legislation is always supreme and the existence of human rights act would not change that."

So the rules are: Government reserves the right to change the rules. Hmm, great game, I don't think I'll play that one!

I think it is a very good example, bushbasher.

>>i would have thought the american bill of rights has been hugely beneficial. would you argue not, or that the example is irrelevant?<<

The problem is, I'm not sure that the rights have always been used the way they were intended.

The First amendment:

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2006/08/25/Opinion/Wbc-Using.Hate.To.Abuse.First.Amendment.Rights-2239003.shtml

"members of the Westboro Baptist church "have picketed the funerals of military personnel ... claiming the deaths are punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. [with] picket signs that read: "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Semper Fi Fags."

I think our existing laws are capable of determining the difference between free speech (here protected), and straightforward vilification. It certainly did not in this case protect the families of the dead soldiers.

The Second Amendment.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4425-the-second-amendment-under-fire

It has been consistently used to "protect the right" of citizens to use guns to kill people. A classic example of unintended consequences.

The Fifth.

An absolute playground for lawyers wanting to buy their next yacht.

http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/98jan06.htm

"The Fifth Amendment means different things to different people, or different courts. To the Second Circuit, the Fifth Amendment plays a "role in preserving an individual's privacy and dignity," preserving our criminal justice system and protecting the individual citizen against governmental overreaching... To the Third Circuit, the Fifth Amendment is an annoyance that may hinder the government in establishing a defendant's guilt of the crime, but is no impediment to the more enjoyable act of imposing sentence"

Sadly, the evidence is that "Human Rights Acts" create a new level of debate on "what the law intended". Instead of acting to protect ordinary people, they ultimately serve only to further inflate the income of lawyers.

Bushbasher refers to the 'american bill of rights' as having been good for the US and he put that example to Pericles as a sample of the 'evidence' that Pericles asked for.

If Bushbasher wants to consider the US Bill of Rights as a valuable example for Australia then I put forward the proposition that he should look at the origins of that Bill, what was required to get it passed into the Constitution and also what is the process by which Amendments to it can be passed.
In both cases I would like Bushbasher to compare the (in my opinion) highly democratic methods used in the US and compare the methods proposed here - a Bill put to the Commonwealth Parliament, such a Bill passing into law by a simple majority of the two Houses.
I will deal with the way the first 'Bill of Rights' came into being in a separate posting if I can find the time.

However re the passage of any Amendment to the Constitution of the US two stages have to occur. Firstly a two thirds majority of both Houses is required before an Amendment can even be proposed.

When a proposal passes that stage it is necessary for three quarters of the State Legislations to pass the Amendment.

Now come on Bushbasher please. Is that even remotely like the quick draw McGraw whip it through the Reps and Senate in short order suggested here?. I draw your attention to the word 'whip'! On that issue alone it is inappropriate to compare the US to the Australian proposal.