I watched the recent Q&A program (re the Magna Carta) featuring Federal Parliamentary Bronwyn Bishop and Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs.

What I noticed was that there was a strong element that Gillian Triggs is very professional in her conduct and speech, despite some of the vile some people have thrown at her in the past. Note this was the first time I had seen and heard her.

Gillian was concerned about human rights of all, including that of Bronwyn Bishop - not just pushing a party political line.

Sorry Bronwyn Bishop (and the Labor Party for that matter) you are not getting my vote. I'm not going to let a few people who commit crime to dominate my personal life or that of others.

Nathan,

Being "very professional in her conduct and speech" doesn't mean a thing. Adolf Hitler was a very professional orator, and he swayed millions to his way of thinking.

Triggs has brought her office into disrepute, politicised it, and acted in a partisan manner. She has also made shocking, unprincipled claims against the detention of illegal arrivals which have been proven to be maliciously false. She sat on her hands while Labor lost control of our borders: she didn't say boo to drowings and complete disappearances of boatloads of people. No, she waited until the Coalition came to power, and she has maliciously hounded them ever since. The woman is a menace. You are able to choose not to vote for Bishop, but there is nothing you or anyone else can do to get rid of Triggs and to stop her abusing her office.

Nathan, perhaps you can vote for the Clive Palmer Party, we all know what a man of the people good old Clive is. The Greens might be another good option for you, being a vegetarian.

Dear Nathan,

I also watched "Q and A," on Monday night
and witnessed the "impartiality expert,"
the Speaker of the House in Palriament -
Bronwyn Bishop's attack on the Human Rights
Commissioner - Gillian Triggs. It was shameful,
but understandable coming from such a staunch
Liberal Party supporter as the Speaker.

However, the Human Rights Commissioner -
Gillian Triggs was more than capable
of replying to the attack and she did so very
well in her usual classy style. She
explained that she was an independent statutory
officer whose job it was to act according to the
rule of law. Which is precisely what she did with
her report on children in detention.

She explained
that there were many reports written when Labor was
in power - and presented to the government at that time.
Her current report was always due in 2013 - she had
no way of knowing which government would be in power
so she just went ahead with the job and presented the report
by its due date. She made it quite clear
that the report was retrospective - also covering
the time under Labor. It was not aimed at the current
government and was not political but objective.
The rule of law was followed to the letter. Gillian Triggs
was merely doing her job.

Of course any criticism of the current government's
policies and actions are always seen as being "political"
by members of the Liberal Party. Hence the attacks on
Gillian Triggs. One would think that their concern would
be about the children. Their plight was what the report
was drawing attention to. Neither party fared well under
the report.

Things did not end well for Julia Gillard and Labor.
It's becoming hard to see it ending any differently for
Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party and tactics like those
displayed by Ms Bronwyn Bishop on Monday night in full
view of the public does not help matters.

It only confirms the image of the Liberal Party being -
nasty, punitive, and out of touch.

Foxy,

What? You, of all people, suggesting that Bronwyn Bishop or anyone else should be impartial. LOL. But, of course, you were defending a woman who publicly lied about conditions in a detention centre, and also claimed the presence of armed guards - also proven to be false. A woman who also thinks that sceeching in an upper class falsetto, "I'm a lawyer", excuses anything she does. I suppose that if you have the gall to do that, you would be blissfully unaware of your hypocrisy in expecting niceties in others you do not have in youself.

NathanJ

one day you will wake up to the fact that people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to care don't necessarily do so. Being 'professional' as someone paid huge amounts of money does not equate to anything. People who truely care about things put their own money where their mouth is. Many regressives put tax payer money where they want to promote their cause or ideology.

Dear ttbn,

You need to seriously do some research into
the facts of the matter before making
comments if you want to have any credibility
on this forum -
otherwise you shall susequently be ignored.
Also you need to provide evidence to substantiate
your claims and sweeping generalisations.

Try again.

Conservativehippie,

I have no intention of being a member of a political party, (I actually have a life).

You didn't answer my question though - that Gillian Triggs (or her role) is to be concerned about the human rights of Bronwyn Bishop, other Liberal party members - along with all other people in Australia.

She is not simply there to do whatever a government wants or says to do. To me this downplays the role of having a Human Rights Commissioner.

Many people face discrimination now, having to go Equal Opportunity Commissions. I haven't done this, but one day when I was charity collecting, I had a very bad epileptic seizure. An ambulance was called as I was unconscious and not responding. The shopping centre management wanted me banned as the ambulance vehicle had blocked the main entrance.

At my next appointment to my Neurologist I explained the situation, and she responded re OH&S. I said what do I do, something, nothing in life?

Human rights (at a basic level) should be protected, not something needing to be fought for.

Dear Nathan,

I fully agree . The Human Rights Commissioner is an
independent statutory officer. It has to go by the
rule of law and is not subject to (nor should it be)
government control.

The following link explains the shameful recent dirty
pool tactics by the government and its ministers
on her and their attempts to slur her reputation and get
her to resign:

http://theconversation.com/brandis-and-dutton-play-some-dirty-pool-in-their-fight-with-gillian-triggs-42948

Lucky for us in this country she refused to be intimidated.

Foxy,

Nobody could ever prove anything to you. You are too much of windbag.

Dear ttbn,

Actually many people have proven a great deal
to me on this forum. Of course they've all been
people whose opinions I've respected.

We have enough ranting, raving, braying
like asses, boorish politically obtuse
blowhards with their political agendas.

But what the heck. This is a public forum
after-all and it takes all sorts.

So, if I'm a windbag - just because I'm not buying
what you're selling. What does that make you
I wonder?

What a dreadful story NathanJ!

That shopping centre management should be reported to as many people as possible, so hopefully they will all complain loudly to that centre.

No one can tell when they are going to have an epileptic fit, or faint, or have a hypoglycemic attack, a fall, or indeed any other fall down illness they may suffer in any public place....whether in a main entrance or not.

You, and anyone else going about their lawful everyday business, have just as much right to go to the shopping centre as anyone else.

It is people like Gillian Triggs who would stand up for your human rights, no matter what political party, race, colour or religion you were. And she does it with dignity in the face of bullying tactics used by a PM and his close cronies.
They are not worthy enough to lick her boots....

ttbn you are a rude person.
The very last person that deserves your poisonous words is Foxy.
A wiser person would be hard to find.

Okay, I'm convinced.

How do we proceed in nominating Gillian Triggs for Sainthood?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Gillian Triggs doesn't seek or need sainthood.
She was appointed as the Human Rights Commissioner,
an independent statutory officer - independent
from the control of any government and all she
should be given is the respect that her position
deserves, and which she has more than earned by
doing her job according to the tule of law.

Dear Suse,

You are a compassionate, caring, and good person.
Thank You for you kind words.

Certainly Gillian Triggs has done more for human rights than an supposed saint ever did Conservative Hippie.

Foxy, you are very welcome :)
The voices of reason are very few on this forum, and tend to suffer bullying from unreasonable contributors. I am pleased they keep on keeping on!

Suse,

I see that you and Foxy have a mutual admiration thing going. Two sisters against all the bad guys, eh?

I agree with you about Nathan's story. It is dreadful, and totally unbelievable.

Oh what's wrong ttbn?
Are you worried you have no one on the forum who admires you?
Never mind, I am sure Runner and Onthebeach like your views....

It ought be remembered that when talking about "Human Rights" there are the declarations and associated instruments at an international level, and then there is (in the case of the signatories) the implementation of same into local domestic law.

Unfortunately in the case of ugly Australia, we have only a very poor subset implemented into domestic law, so bad in fact, that in some cases the local law bears little resemblance to what guvment representatives signed up to voluntarily in the first place.

..

Oh, did anyone see the recent gaff by that moron Dutton who said in relation to the proposed changes to Citizenship laws:

" ... We can't have the courts second guessing the decision of the Ministers. ... "

It makes a strong case for would be politicians to have minimum knowledge about how the legal/guvment system works does it not?

Human Rights and politics mixed together in sentences sounds like good propaganda to me. "Human Rights" headlines may sound good yet having political dictators attempting to maintain law and order by shooting people whom complain about living conditions and food prices has been what wars solve. Two countries leaders can conspire with each other to start a war against each other to solve local over population problems. Wars over political differences, only solves one main problem issue. Problem solved are fewer people to feed and house. Time spent during wars can be seen as women having fewer children. While Human Rights sounds good, for those whom believe they are on the side of good, are future wars contrived to maintain an allusion?