DEMOS: The case of David Hicks demonstrates the hollowness of assertions about "the rule of law not of men" in
Australia.

Once again I admire your wonderfully articulate way of saying things.

I have put it more crudely in the past saying dont rely on law courts, because countries (including Australia) were taken at the point of a gun and are still held at the point of a gun) or the men in command of the army.

I dont however agree with you about David Hicks.

belly, inform yourself about the history and political customs of switzerland. not only is democracy possible, it's real. the swiss are human, with their share of sociopaths in big suits and ruthless corporations. but, by an accident of history, ordinary people there are masters of their society through the use of citizen initiated referenda at local, cantonal, and national level.

can australians strive for democracy? sure. not even hard. but you have to know what it is, and want it. ozzies don't know what democracy is, because there is none, nor ever has been, here or in england. it is not in the hands of political parties, for their whole purpose is to take decision making power away from people.

yes, you need a social movement. it might be as simple as this:

establish a register of names on the web, of people who pledge one another to vote only for persons who have agreed to empower the australian electorate with an accessible and effective citizen initiated referendum. if there is no such person on the ballot, vote informally by writing "democracy" on the ballot.

there may be one or two elections when you have to forgo the thrill of choosing tweedledum over tweedledee. but don't despair: back when the labor party wasn't run by soulless hacks, they had cir on their policy paper. if they lose two elections and 'x' thousand ballots have only "democracy" written on them, they'll get the message. or the greens will, or the family firsters, or...

ozzies can have democracy, if enough of them show some determination.

DEMOS you raise some interesting questions. I'm glad such things as 'right' is challenged, and that the challenge is linked to 'power'.

Not that I see such an arrangement as ideal for society, but looking around, it sure is the reality. Might is right by and large, and rule of law is more the rule of the mighty, keeping the many in order so they can go about their business of becoming mightier.

Only when we have a higher source for our moral foundations can we genuinely speak of 'rights' rather than privileges. Anything granted by men is a privilege, what is granted by God is a right.

The idea that there are such things as 'Human Rights' is ludicrous apart from the divinely granted rights. Secular human rights can only ever be so by agreement, and remain so as long as that agreement is in force. As soon as one party departs from agreement, the whole issue is challenged.

Hence, I often refer to the 'make_it_up_as_you_go' crowd, where todays agreement is tomorrows disagreement.

I can't even speak of 'rights'... but more of 'duties' and responsibilities.
1/ Love God with all our hearts.
2/ Love our neighbour as ourselves.

Only "1" above makes "2" a duty and responsibility. Secularism will only give us 'ought' or 'should' but can give no abiding reason for such behavior. (apart from some convoluted mental gymnastics which usually end up being nothing more than cultural ethno centrism about how people should act).

So, I leave this post with the Lords words "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another"

boaz, to paraphrase stalin: "how many divisions has god got?"

there's no use talking to people who say they believe in god. i just wish they did believe, instead of using god's will as a pretext to get what they want.

Democracy can also involve plurality rule, not just majority rule:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html