"The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused Erin Maitland's application for exemption from
anti-discrimination laws, saying it was not justified under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights.

The tribunal had previously granted an exemption to another women's-only travel service, but Ms Maitland's
application was the first since the charter was introduced three years ago."
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/womens-only-travel-blocked-20091118-iklb.html

evidence for the crucial requirement in a Bill or Charter of Human Rights for the acknowledgement of every
Australian woman's sole human right to male supervision at law under the nation's archaic men's legislatures
only Constitution.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cruises-to-defy-schoolie-order/comments-e6frg6nf-1225799502521

Now young people are also being denied their 'human rights'. P&O, those nasty human rights abusers!

OK, the evidence is in.

Now, who is still in favour of Human Rights being enshrined in law?

Thought so.

Just the lawyers.

Whistler,

thanks for the extra info. As far as I'm concerned it simply shows the flaws in the legislation.

For once I agree with H it should be ridiculed or at least changed to allow for legal games.

Pericles
Codifying human right on a micro situation is at best using a demolition ball to crack an egg.

In my mind Human rights are at best limited and should be at most codified that way.

Bring back Ultra Shakespearism "first execute all the lawyers"?

examinator,

human rights legislation is an excellent candidate for consideration at the inaugural sessions
of the women's and the men's legislatures of the parliament of an equal rights republic.

“It has been a few days since I visited this particular pursuit of the irrelevant and I see a few have made comment to my previous post

Houlle “how did the wedding go”…

Perfectly thanks H.. I will send you a pic through the usual channels .. not sure what we used for the toast, I just paid the tab but whatever it was it suited my palette and the new Mrs took 3 days to come back to earth…. I might modestly add, as a function of the wedding… not the honeymoon :- )

I get your point about standards. Some things are best reviewed and if no good reason is found to change them, be left as they were. Marriage is like that and the “Gay Union” agenda is not a valid reason to let every deviant and twisted mind front up for a marriage union.

Pontificator “See you have told us something about you, you're a homophobe. Who would have guessed!”

Call me what you want, your view and name calling is stupid anyway.

Homosexuality is “abnormal” and I do tolerate the “abnormal”.

However, that does not entitle the “abnormal” to be given the exact same treatment as if they were “normal”

any more than those abnormal folk who seek wedded bliss with animals (or their cars) or NAMBLA, deserve to be awarded “equal opportunity” with “normal” heterosexuals.