There seems to be a degree of misinformation in the public arena which believes that "human rights" law is to be applied equally to all.

The Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has just been given a new power.. "The right to intiate actions in the absense of complaints" Could this possibly create a 'star chamber' where the VHREOC compiles a 'list' of politically unfavorable entities which are singled out for 'special treatement' ?

I would like to know if there are those among us who believe that such laws should be applied equally to all...or should those 'equality' laws in fact discriminate against certain perceived 'power groups' in the interests of raising the power level and status of minorities?

Are "Human Rights" the same rights for all...or just for some?

Are they a tool in the hands of certain elements, to actually implement a different agenda.. say Socialism?

Is the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in fact 'universal' ?

If, for example... a power structure existed in our society which held a) view that human rights/equality laws are not mean't to be applied universally and b) Had the power and position to impose an unequal applicatio of such laws...

What is the likely outcome ?
Which body(ies) might that be ?
Who's interests are served by such an imposition ?

Please show and support your position by examples..

It always intrigues me when religious types oppose human rights and processes to ensure that they are observed. What do they have to hide?

Of course human rights laws should apply equally to all. Why should some people have more rights than anybody else?

I think that the amendment to allow the initiation of investigations without a specific complaint could work well in cases where human rights abuses exist and people could be victimised further by being identified. Think of what happens to 'whistleblowers' currently.

There are many areas where complaints may not be forthcoming despite widespread knowledge of a problem such as in the illegal sex trade and trafficing area. I suspect this is the sort of thing this legislation has in mind where complainant are not forthcoming due to fear and enslavement.

While we should all be wary of the potential for government's to abuse these powers for some political agenda I think most reasonable people know the difference between villification and criticism.

I don't believe this means one won't be free to criticise the teachings of Islam just as a secularist will be able to continue to criticise the School Chaplaincy program or RE in public schools.

The Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has just been given a new power.. "The right to intiate actions in the absense of complaints" Could this possibly create a 'star chamber' where the VHREOC compiles a 'list' of politically unfavorable entities which are singled out for 'special treatement' ?
--

Well such a star chamber has already been created [outside the Constitution] by the CSA in their self created COAT process [ie their Change of Assessment Team process], which "grew another leg" as RICAT [Registrar Initiated Change of Assessment] where CSA allows themselves to snoop on deadbeat dad bank accounts or whatever and then apply their process [which operates outside of Rules of Evidence] to the victim, with no comeback at all, or in fact no recourse to a proper court [despite what High Court said in Brandy about such processes being illegal].

So IMHO such a star chamber is doubly bad because of the "power to initiate" and the actual process. As the High Court said in the Lemah Meat case, it would love to initiate a suitable case for the court to argue that there IS a Privacy Tort [so someone PLEASE give us a vehicle]. Of course no one ever has or will so govt departments get away with gross abuse of the Privacy Act simply by pasting their "Privacy Policy" on their web site.

There is no such thing as a Privacy Policy, you simply obey the law.

So if any one is to Initiate action let it start in the High Court or at least a Chapter III court under Constitution and not just another feminist quango

DivorceDoctor, it is always about the nasty feminists with you isn't it?
I would suggest that the 'deadbeat dads' you talk about would not need any extra departments to look into their financial dealings if they just paid what they are due to pay for their kids upbringing.

The male politicians who agreed to set up this department are keen to get all the financial gains they can for children of broken relationships so the Government doesn't have to fork out as much.

Why don't you take up your beef with the predominantly male politicians
who voted for this department?

Dear folks.. encouraging contributions so far showing both the dangers and potential problems.

CJ.. you are a serial pes-....oops..I mean...misunderstander.... I am not opposed to human rights at all...I am opposed to their selective application by politically motivated (and appointed) people who are more interested in social engineering and 'abolishing the white race'
http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html ...than they are in equality and justice equally for all.

For those who are interested... please check this out..it's highly worth a read.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=news/national-lottery-exposed-vicious-anti-black-racists

OH...those horrible 'anti black' lottery people.... disgraceful and disgusting.....

Pericles...this is your queue...

*drum roll......* speak..NOW.