It’s the pre-season round on a Human Rights Act

paul says:

08:59am | 10/10/09

Agreed Stephen, we can’t let Rudd (or temporary leaders like Turnbull) run from this one or play politics with basic rights like this. It’s time Australia got into the 21st century.

DaveA says:

09:35am | 10/10/09

The potential of a proposed bill of rights to deliver us a liberal government should not be underestimated.  There is no groundswell of support for a bill of rights, if there were then a referendum would be used as a vehicle.  In all likelihood Rudd will send this report off to another committee.  Its far too risky a move for a first term government.  Far more likely to get a run in the 2013 election assuming the ALP extend their margin in 2010.

Joe says:

10:13pm | 10/10/09

It was a totaly stacked committee. No other finding was ever in question. We can hand our goverrnment over to lawers and judges.

Keith says:

02:30pm | 11/10/09

To put it simply, the Australian High Court judiciary is empowered only by legislative laws made by an Australian government recognising the Westminster system, under The Separation of Powers, enshrined in that system, and under that system in recent history, religious leaders have had a mostly positive influence on political leaders’ policy decisions, but that is where their influence must, of their need to follow the teachings (in this case, Christian ), humble,  in their overall view of human justice, in a current polemic view, and they should take heed of any precipitous behaviour, to find a justification for any ill concieved collusion with the first attorney of this country. Failure to do this will only destroy their veracity.

travellingB says:

07:20pm | 11/10/09

The Human Rights Act is a disaster of an idea in all countries in which it raises it’s head.  It protects those who contribute nothing to society, and penalises those who do contribute.  It has been confirmed this week that the Human Rights Act has been used as a successful defence to keep foreign criminals - including rapists and murderers - in the UK rather than be deported after serving prison sentences.  Reason being their home countries are ‘too dangerous’ for them to be sent back to.  If this goes through, in ten years time we will all regret it massively in Australia.

rosscoe says:

03:15am | 12/10/09

Sorry Keith, I consider myself educated, but your legalese is meaningless drivel to me.  It may be correct, but I find it unintelligible.  Please go back to your legal practice or public service job, & leave the the debate to those of the common tongue, who can be understood.

amplion says:

06:48am | 12/10/09

It seems that some of the legal fraternity have made vast sums of money out of the rights industry that they have sought to create, and they want to make a lot more.

One of the many amusing aspects of the special pleading involved is that some of the mouthpieces are denying that money is their motivation, saying that “of course all rights lawyers work pro bono and don’t get a cent during a case.”

There may be some fine legal sophistry here - in some claims, the lawyers indeed get nothing during the case, but when the compensation is paid it goes to the lawyers, who extract their pound of flesh before passing on the residue to the plaintiff.

iansand says:

12:31pm | 12/10/09

How can there be a legal “rights industry” if there are not yet any rights?  Remember - every time a lawyer wins a case a client wins too.

John A Neve says:

12:36pm | 12/10/09

Rosscoe,
I agree with you. Have read Keith’s post three times and still cannot make any sense of it !!
Please explain Keith.

Jennifer Nash says:

01:47pm | 12/10/09

When John Howard eroded our fundamental human rights, Parliament sat by and allowed it.  Human rights are on the nose and highly unpopular with Australian politicians. 
Canberra Professor of Law, Margaret Thornton says Australia’s “attitude to human rights seems to befit colonial times.”
“Australia has a very poor record of upholding ethical standards in public life - whether in government or in parliament more broadly.  I would argue very strongly for the need for an ethics commission at the federal level” Professor Malpas, of the Australian Research Council, professorial fellow at the University of Tasmania and distinguished visiting professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne.
From my very personal experience I know the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (hreoNOT!) is highly politicised, very biased and little more than an alibi Commission.  Australian Commissions are quasi courts.  All our so called ‘independent courts’ are in fact highly politicised.  Political appointment of the judiciary is outdated, has no credibility or transparency and must be strongly condemned. 
Retired Brisbane Supreme Court Judge Geoff Davies QC says “Government stacking the courts with political favourites is the main evil in the administration of justice in Australia” Courier Mail September 1, 2006.
Being forced to elect politicians to do as they please for 3 or 4 years without the right to veto detrimental decisions via citizen initiated referendum is definitely NOT democracy.  ”Attempts to change the system to a more representative one ... have been strongly opposed by the business community and leaders of the main political parties who see it as a threat to their political power. The political elite is also firmly against giving the electorate the right to a citizen-initiated referendum” says Erik Paul, Honorary Associate in Sociology at Macquarie University, Sydney.

Summing up I strongly believe in 21st Century human rights for Australian citizens and direct democracy like the Swiss people have enjoyed for a long time.  I am also convinced that true democracy (direct democracy), truly independent, impartial and democratically elected courts, elected officials and bureaucrats, ethics, and human rights are strongly intertwined issues, which the Australian government appears to be very reluctant to address.  Direct democracy is in fact very simple as the following picture explains http://www.buendnis-buergergesellschaft.de/typo3temp/pics/7bd1b222e3.jpg  and there is no doubt even primitive tribal villages in the jungle have more say than we currently have in our 3-tiered dictatorship.  We are so very over governed!
I have detailed my personal experiences with human rights abuses, corrupted courts and my views on democracy and human rights in my following citizen journalist articles, which have been published by the international media including The Wall Street Journal:

Australia’s lone stance against civil rights bill: how juristocracy enables this and blocks debate http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=616222

Governor of Queensland’s charade and judicial corruption denial continues
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/21/770060/-Governor-of-Queenslands-charade-and-judicial-corruption-denial-continues-

The Misery and Fairytale Commission where complaining is simply illegal http://indymedia.org.au/2009/09/15/the-misery-and-fairytale-commission-where-complaining-is-simply-illegal

How the Federal Court of Australia selectively denies The Rights Of The Child https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/05/430998.html

Human Rights Commission defends regime – not youth http://perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=141714 

Let the People Elect Judges http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=555335

Attorney General misleads the people   http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/424062.html