Bill Of Rights

If gay marriage is too controversial for some federal politicians to handle – with entrenched positions on both sides – why don’t we do what political pragmatists are taught to do, and compromise? Say, with civil unions?

After all – they have civil unions in the UK and NZ and many other countries. To conservatives you can argue that this gives the gays their relationship recognition but still keeps marriage exclusive to the heterosexual club.  And to the gays you can argue that it’s a huge step forward – they get their ‘weddings’ now and all the state recognition that goes with them … and that eventually society may feel relaxed enough to move to marriage … one day … down the track. 

Seems like the perfect solution for any politician who just wants this debate to go away.  Like Prime Minister Gillard for example.

Continue reading "Hey Julia, civil unions are no substitute for real marriage" »

Alcoholics call it a moment of clarity. Oprah calls it an “ah-ha moment”.

Whatever you call it, a penny dropping is a wondrous thing, and yesterday amid the rabid brouhaha of Stephen Conroy’s Clean Feed catastrophe, I banked some vital coin.

Perhaps I’m slow, perhaps I’m a bit thick, but it wasn’t until reading the key findings of Catharine Lumby’s document on the proposed Internet filtering, that I realised I was operating under the false assumption that the web should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other creative product.

Continue reading "The time has come for an Internet Bill Of Rights" »

We forget to consult history at our peril. 

It is very relevant to the Rudd Government’s latest assault on the sovereignty of the people – that is the proposal of its hand picked committee, headed by Father Frank Brennan, to impose upon them a charter of rights masquerading under the title of a Human Rights Act.

The last time Labor tried for a bill of rights it was by way of a Constitutional amendment to insert a mini bill of rights with the aim of continual enlargement.

Continue reading "Bill of rights is a dangerous lawyers’ picnic" »

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, although drafted by Lord Macaulay, speaks with the coyness of Queen Victoria.

It states: “Unnatural Offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life …”

A law directed against homosexual acts dared not use words like “buggery” or “sodomy”.

The euphemism of “carnal intercourse against the law of nature” was necessary and the Courts were required to fill in the missing spaces.

Over the years, the Courts of India confirmed that any form of sexual penetration other than vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman was “against the order of nature”.

On the second of this month, two judges of the High Court of Delhi declared that s.377 was unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice, Ajit Prakesh Shah, and Justice Muralidhar held that the law would now only apply to non-consensual acts and acts where a party to the act was younger than 18 years of age.

Continue reading "Only now is it legal to be gay in India" »