Cross-posted from No Right Turn
Three years ago, the Australian government passed draconian sedition laws as part its knee-jerk response to the “war on terror”. Now, Kevin Rudd is planning to repeal them:
The Howard government’s controversial ban on sedition will be scrapped and replaced with legislation that bolsters the protection of free speech under a series of changes to the nation’s terrorism laws.Yesterday the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, flagged plans to increase oversight of the national security apparatus and promised to accept the bulk of the recommendations from the Clarke inquiry, a 2006 Australian Law Reform Commission report on sedition and a parliamentary committee report on intelligence and security.
(The ALRC review recommended replacing the law with a narrower one bearing more resemblance to criminal incitement, with stronger protections for academic, artistic, scientific, political or journalistic speech to make it clear that merely criticising the government, or reporting or studying such criticism, was not in and of itself seditious or treasonous. They also recommended removing the ludicrous claim of universal jurisdiction which allowed people who had never set foot in Australia, let alone bore it any allegiance, to be prosecuted for “disloyalty” against it).
But its not all good news. There’s this bit:
The new counter-terrorism laws – to be drafted in the first half of next year – will cover attacks that cause psychological as well as physical harm…
This current internationally accepted definition of terrorism (as seen in e.g. New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act) includes acts which are carried out for the purpose of “induc[ing] terror in a civilian population” – but it still requires that they cause death, injury, or serious destruction. So, in order to be “terrorism”, it has to involve killing people or blowing stuff up. Allowing psychological as well as physical harm runs the risk of substantially lowering that threshold, allowing the misclassification of other offences as “terrorism”, with all that that entails. Given that anti-terror laws are already overused, that would be a Very Bad Thing.
The path to totalitarianism is a ratchet. Each step one government takes, another backs out – but never fully. The eventual result will be a police state.
It will be interesting to see how much gets backed out by the Obama administration.
So now I can walk down the Armidale Mall screaming “Fuck N______” [i.e. the appropriate politician/head of state] and not be gaoled for sixteen years – or is that only for throwing shoes at Penny Wong?
On a slightly more serious note, the laws were never workable anyway – unless they eventually intended to lock up probably over half the country.
It must be at lesast half a century since they locked up anyone under the old sedition laws. The AFP can’t be pleased.
Good riddance to more Howardian “in order to protect democracy we must suspend it” rubbish.
You’ve got a word missing there, I think. “Removing” or “Abandoning” or somesuch.
Now, Kevin Rudd is planning to repeal them:
.
Good on ya Kevvie. And about damn time!
More confused, mixed messages from the Rudd government. On the one hand, decent plans to abolish sedition laws. On the other, an increasingly shrill and retarded internet ‘filtering’ plan. WFD. At least when the Coalition were bad, they were uniformly so.
Yes, that bumbling, flightless, possibly extinct, illiberal booby of an internet ‘plan’ (and I use the term contemptuously) has the stench of evolutionary dead-end about it.
It wasn’t meant to survive in a world of competing policy ideas.
Rudd seems to have a soft spot for the Euro-style laws against known fascists using hate-speech and holocaust denial or displaying Nazi paraphernalia. If thats what this is driving at then I would support that with a couple of proviso’s.
1) It would have to be extended to all known LEFT fascists using hate-speech and holodomor denial as their criminal incitements to violence. And ban all displays of the red swastika – the Hammer-and-Sickle. This is only fair…and very sound policy too imho in order to minimize violence in politics and attract more women to it.
2) As these means and measures would add to the power of the state then there would have to be an offset or trade-off. Power corrupts and so for every new power granted our public servants another must be taken away. A timely one here and now would be the net. Leave the net alone and confine the new laws to hard-copy hate-speech incitement only. Let freedom reign on the net and that is actually a check and balance. The best one we have right now. The size of the state need not increase at all as this is a change of priorities and emphasis above all.
Psychological harm is widely considered practically equivalent to physical. For example Captain Cook flogged more than Captain Bligh…there are plenty of modern examples more recently where the word preceded the deed – such as Rwanda radio.
Then we had that dismal nutbag Alan Jones inciting violence right here in Oz.
I think the case can be made and folks like Faulkner, Gillard and Tanner have already put out a lot of markers for more open and transparent government.
This is a tough one but I think those three might be able to thread the needle.
Goofs like Keelty and Conroy need obviously their retirement slips yesterday.
The only way to protect free speech from wrongful interpretations of so called sedition acts, however worded or amended , is a bill of rights.
Jacques@6: “At least when the Coalition were bad, they were uniformly so.
“
So twisted, they were even able to turn consistency into a vice.
Assessment of “psychological harm” or the purpose of acts is subjective, and wide open to abuse. These are not criteria which should be used for defining separate classes of crime. As I implied on the Haneef thread, killing people, maiming people and blowing things up are aleady very serious crimes, and all that is needed is to treat those acts as such.
Being a loudmouthed political dissident or otherwise different from the flock should not be grounds for suspension of one’s rights.
If terrorism is some sort of mystical super-crime, and psychological harm done to the populace is terrorism, then Howard and all his mob are terrorists. That is the only potential good that I can see coming from such a very dangerous viewpoint.
“The only way to protect free speech from wrongful interpretations of so called sedition acts, however worded or amended , is a bill of rights.”
It seems so Peter. Maybe all the states will end up with one before the feds get enough gutse to give it a go. Any thoughts on how the Vic and ACT arrangements are working?
joe2, I havn’t made a study of the Vic and ACT legislation and the effects but there seems to be some good work going on in Victoria:
http://www.hrlrc.org.au/html/s02_article/article_view.asp?id=422&nav_cat_id=180&nav_top_id=69
Mind you the Albrechsten’s of the nation have come out with the usual rubbish:
Janet seems to have forgotten that the judiciary will interpret the new law, as they do with any other law, which was in the case of the Charter, made as a “democratic decision(s) of Victorians” no less.
Julian Burnside believes rightly that if the states all get a bill of rights (showing that the sky won’t fall down as a result) there will a precedent and stronger case for the feds to follow suit.
I hope he carries it through, I really want a reason to vote Labor at the next election. The Internet nonsense and the lack of support for the green economy have been a real disappointment.
Peter Kemp @ 8, I doubt very much that a mere Bill of Rights is sufficient (or even necessary) for freedom of speech. I refer you to Section X of the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, which covers most of the territory you’d expect of a BOR. I presume I need not go into details about how well it worked?
If you read this story – http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24844816-5014239,00.html – you can see why we need to be constantly vigilant against police abuse of power!
Well Chookie, in reply I’d have to draw attention to our separation of powers and our High Court which is not run by Communist party apparatchiks.(Well, apart from Senator Heffernan who probably thought it was run by communist homosexual louts but never mind about that.) In particular s 75 of our constitution:
Specifically a writ of mandamus, the ultimate power of an individual against the state: tried tested and functional.
In the USSR, a private prosecution case like Sankey v Whitlam would not have been possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankey_v_Whitlam
Mary Gaudron on s.75(v)
http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/163.html
8 Peter Kemp Dec 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Yes we all know how the US Bill of Rights (c1789) prevented Bush from violating due process, authorising torture and establishing unaccountable off-shore detention centres.
Also how the USSR’s Bull of Rights (c1936) prevented the Communist Party from purging and liquidating anyone who looked sideways at a portrait of Stalin.
Whilst the UK, which never had a Bill of Rights, has been the fount of despotic governments throughout the world. Thats why Ramsay Macdonald was able to lock up all the Tories during the thirties, effectively ending Churchills career.
Oh wait a minute, that all happened in some bizarro alternative universe where “rights-and-process” liberals live happily ever after.
In our universe, locus Australia, rights to free speech are given formal adequate protection by contractual and constitutional law. The Theophanous case (charming Left-liberal politician) established this decades ago.
Whether the formal translates into substantial is a matter for the alert citizenry’s individual will, rather than institutional rules. In an age where young people are zoned out on a pervasive diet of ipods, web porn and party drugs I am not complacent.
Dearie me, Jack.
Your British and Soviet arguments are silly.
Bills of Rights do prevent pusillanimous tyrants from following through on their daydreams of tyranny. Richard Nixon, for example toyed with the idea of extraconstitutional rule. However, he discoveraed that he had insufficient enablers. (Even J. Edgar Hoover, to his eternal credit, refused to become an accomplice in Nixon’s criminal Plumbers conspiracy.)
Bills of Rights never prevent determined would-be tyrants from acting unconstitutionally, especially when tyrants have willing enablers like the Armed Forces and instrumentalities of the Security State to aid them.
But so long as the constitutional court of the nation remains unsullied by the political appointments of the tyrant, then tyrannous behaviour will be declared illegal and instrumentalities of the Security State will be enjoined to desist from their illegal conspiracies.
If these instrumentalities of the security state refuse to obey the constitutional court’s injunction, then that is the signal for the start of a civil war.
A Bill of Rights serves as a reminder to would-be enablers of criminal conspiracies where their constitutional duty lies. Nothing is foolproof. But the clearer the injunctions in a Bill of Rights, the less likely will be compliance of enablers of tyranny.
Bills of Rights can perform many other nation-saving functions as well.
“Whilst the UK, which never had a Bill of Rights, has been the fount of despotic governments throughout the world. Thats why Ramsay Macdonald was able to lock up all the Tories during the thirties, effectively ending Churchills career.”
If only Gough had done the same thing to Fraser.
Actually Jack (forget contract law BTW) the principles were established earlier:Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. v. Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1.) and Australian Capital Television Pty. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106. A majority of the High Court held that from the “Vibes of the of the Constitution”
namely from the concept of representative government which is enshrined in the Constitution, an implied freedom of political communication exists.
I haven’t read Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times 1994 lately but I seem to recall that it made mention that the implied right of political communication was a “shield, not a sword”.
[It was a case where the defamation law was over-ridden by the implied constitutional right of political communication. The HWT essentially said something that many would think appropriate of many pollies past and present,ie "...he was a &^*%$# bugger, not fit to shovel shit on any coastal lugger."]
(I digress, apologies.) Ideally a Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the constitution. That way it can only be overridden by a legal constitutional amendment, not by the executive and/or legislature.
(And while on that issue, just because the Bushovics have gotten away with various internationally regarded criminal acts, ie torture, does not mean that they have been exonerated, yet.)
(And thanks Katz for that excellent explanation of how it all works but can never be
neoconfoolproof.)I forgot to stress this point Jack: implied right of political communication only, not a general constitutional right of “free speech.”
19 Katz Dec 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am
No, they dont. Examples of rights-laden constitutions allowing tyranny can be multiplied endlessly. eg the RoF in the 1790s, the USSR in the 1930s and to a much lesser extent, USA in the 2000s all had Bills of Rights.
It is more likely that liberals will complacently point to Bills of Rights as a substitute rather than complement to checking abuses of power. Kind of lazy mans format of freedom.
Whereas civil states where rights grow organicly, from the bottom-up through evolutionary means, seem to be much more constitutionally liberal. eg UK and AUS.
Try at least to go through the pretence of argument rather than transparent bluster.
Katz says:
Then the obvious course of action is to concentrate on creating institutional mechanisms to make the coercive executive eg the armed forces, security apparats and judicial officials, more accountable. I certainly dont have a problem with more committee oversight, ombudsmen and even election of legal officers.
But its hard to see how Bills of Rights could achieve this except through long-winded and round-about civil actions. What will happen is that busy body lawyers will invariably champion tendentious cases exemplifying fashionable causes eg the usual suspects of self-selected smuggled people, aboriginal activists, ethnic racketeers, crooks and nutters masquerading as martyrs.
They have lost in the court of public opinion. Now want they are trying a Bill of Rights end-run around democracy to try to get their way through the back-door.
Katz says:
Your example neatly refutes your argument. Constraining Nixon had nought to do with constitutional bill of rights. As you concede it was “an alert citizenry”, or at least its agents, who were responsible for the constraint of the executives alleged tyranny. eg FBI agents, the Third Estate, Congress.
In reality, RMN did have a just cause to curtail some of LBJ’s civil liberties. During the sixties and seventies the US was in the grip of race- and cohort-based culture wars which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in excess of the secular trend.
THis Second American Civil War is still fresh in many peoples memories Thand is the reason why civil rights liberalism is still a swear worded phrase amongst so many Americans on the Right, esp those who were fans of the Dirty Harry series.
Only in the nineties, when politicians like Patrick Buchanan were finally taken seriously, did institutional authority finally bring the street atrocities under control.
And then not through liberal means.
In sleepy old Oz we were somewhat insulated from all this excitement, although we caught up a bit in the wild and woolly eighties. That is why the rhetoric of our clapped out liberals has this naive threadbare quality. Rather like coming accross an old pair of flares carelessly stowed in the back of the closet.
21 Peter Kemp Dec 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
No, this is not an ideal situation. Quite the opposite a constitutionalised Bill of Rights was a desperate measure cobbled together by the Federalists to prevent civil war between contending factions eg British loyalists, Southern slave-owners, established Churchers, religious fundamentalists etc.
God help us if we ever find ourselves in such straits.
The US Bill of Rights has been a source of endless litigation and obstruction of normal democratic political process. Just look at the disaster of its gun laws based on the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.
In fact it is the US’s seperation and federation of political and civil powers which guarantees its liberal democracy. This was certainly partly established by a formal political constitution. But the guts of the thing was fleshed out by its substantial civil constitution.
In short, if you want a free society you would be wise to staff its institutions with a liberal sprinkling of Protestants or people who religiously ape such folk or at least wind up conquered or occupied by them.
FWIW, I am an evolutionary relativist who prefers “empiricism in politics”. Not a revolutionary absolutist addicted to “rationalism in politics”. Rights-based contrivances always struck me as ideological stage props rather than proper forms of government. I much prefer the Machiavellis, Montesquieus, de Tocquevilles, Hamiltons and Oakshottes of this world to their rationalistic opposite numbers.
It is the mark of fools to analyse social and political systems on the basis of their formal constitutions.
K. Marx
That is my argument. (Except I phrased it better.)
Strocchers, God’s stats man.
Jack re the US constitution Burnside says it better than I could:
Rest of the article here: (and reasons for human rights to be enshrined into law, constitutionally or otherwise. eg the cases of Al-Khateb, and Behrooz.)
http://www.julianburnside.com.au/It%27s%20Time.htm
Jack re:
Wanted: Liberal sprinkling of
To be brutally frank: I am no big fan of civil rights liberalism largely on the basis of unfortunate US (and some AUS) experience of mixing extreme liberty with extra-ordinary diversity.
The modernist liberal rights philosophy works fine for a society of British-style gentlemen. (Which includes non-whites who are “more British than the British” through conquest and emulation by the Anglosphere eg Barbadians, Indians, Koreans)
However modernist liberalism rapidly mutates into post-modernist liberalism when mixed with the raw ingredients of diversity. This is what happened to the US during the Civil (War) Rights sixties. It is only now just getting over the trauma of this period. Steve Sailer comments:
AUS is now heading down the US “density and diversity” track, mainly on economic grounds. (No one in power takes the original multicultural ideology seriously any more, esp since Theophanous Bros rackets are self-destructing.) We are sucking in huge amounts of diverse labour to drive down native labour’s share of income and prop up the domestic property market.
We have had a domestic taste of post-modernist liberalism when unrestricted civil rights were granted to Aboriginals in the seventies. Just look at the disaster that befell remote indigenous communities when they had too much rights and entitlements too rapidly. It has taken the re-introduction of martial law into these jurisdictions to restore order to proceedings.
This increased demographic diversity shoe-horned into ever-more compressed geographic density is a political powder keg, esp with a bout of recession coming up. The democratic state will find itself with a great deal of potential conflict situations, ready to go ballistic over long hot summers.
And now assylum-seekers and terrorist susps and perps and GLBTGs or what nots want to get in on the civil rights act.
The last thing the general populace wants is for these conflicts to become legally institutionalised and metastasized by over-lawyered Bills of Rights. Citizens want their democratic state to act effectivley to resolve discord according to popular will. Not be like Gulliver hobbled by endless Lilliputian hamstrings.
Shorter Jack: Oz PoMo wets have implemented parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on Refugees which has wickedly, not only prevented majority dictatorship over uppity “Wogs”, Blacks, Refugees and their Lawyers, but encouraged the bastards.
Because of course the lives of Aborigines, prior to the 1970s, were blissful.
In the Strocchiverse strange things happen.
In this instance, an eighteenth-century list of prohibitions against extension of powers of the state is alleged to be responsible for the increased intrusion of the state in the form of corruptive social welfare payments.
In reality there is absolutely no causative relationship between the US Bill of Rights and Johnson’s Great Society Programs.
But in the Strocchiverse, the sheer visceral pleasure of predicting “rivers of blood” like some demented Old Testament prophet trumps reason and logic every time.
# 30 Helen Dec 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am
In some important ways the lives of Aborigines have gone backwards since emancipation. And this because, not in spite, of the minority rights agenda.
Ive never denied that Aboriginals had plenty of legitimate grievances right up till and well past the 1967 emancipation. That was the final act of Old Left modernist liberalism – implemented by the LN/P!. Since then the New Left post-modernist liberalism, which pushed by Coombs-Fraser, has been a disaster.
Not everything pre-1967 was bad. Most Aborginals Ive met outback readily acknowledged that there were good things about the pre-1967 dispensation. The missionaries taught them the basics of hygiene and education. Tim Costello, no friend of foaming at the mouth fascists, commented recently:
The minority rights based agenda, pushed in the context of a general loosening of private morals and decline in public authority, led to a catastrophic outbreak of anomie amongst remote indigenous communities.
YOu would think that, after the ingnominous end of Geoff Clark and ATSIC, the rights-agenda liberals would have woken up to the fact that their program was on the nose. Not on your nelly. Their next step is to up the ante and demand Apologies, Treaties, Bills of Rights et al.
Post-modern liberalism is not a mind set, its an intellectual disability, most likely borne by some hot-air born virus.
# 31 Katz Dec 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Katz’s last sentence is true, which is why I make the crucial distiction b.w. modernist liberalism (kicked off by the US Bill of Rights) and post-modernist liberalism (unleashed as a by-product of the US Civil Rights Act). Of course the truth of Katz’s last sentence undermines much of the rhetorical appeal of the current push for a Bill of Rights.
The rhetorical ploys of post-modernist liberals is transparent. They want to trade on the generally good public image of the traditional modernist liberal Bill of Rights in order to smuggle in their fashionable post-modernist liberal Bill of Rights agenda. Just as they traded on the good public image of multi-racialism in order to smuggle in multi-culturalism.
The post-modernist liberal will insist that all they are interested in is conserving due process and the Rule of Law (as if these things are seriously under threat in AUS). Then, with faces unerringly straight, they will turn around and demand all manner of things never dreamt up by Franklin et al (you remember, the guys who cooked up the slogan “u pluribus unum”. Helen Irving debunks the hidden agenda of post-modern liberalism:
Post-modern liberals have lost, or at least have suffered massive setbacks, their minority rights political battles in the court of public opinion. Now they want to try and win by shifting the goal posts onto the home ground: Over-lawyeredland.
PS The technical term for the slide from (traditional) modernist liberal rights to (fashionable) post-modern rights is “bait and switch”.
But Jack, the first mention of a Bill of Rights in this thread was made by Peter Kemp.
You, amongst others, pooh-poohed the usefulness of a Bill of Rights.
Nowhere in this thread do the proponents of a Bill of Rights (mainly PK and myself) ever hint that we adhere to any form or function of a Bill of Rights other than that encompassed by the Founding Fathers of the US.
You have read “post-modernist” intentions into the words of your discussants which simply don’t exist.
I happen to agree with Helen Irving’s strictures on the inappropriateness of Charters of Rights that compel positive actions from governments and worse still compel certain modes of behaviour from private individuals in pursuit of allegedly worthy social outcomes.
I guess your argument might be that institution of a US-style Bill of Rights might be the beginning of a slippery slide to a misconceived Charter of Rights of the kind suffered by Victoria.
My argument is the opposite. Genuine bulwarks against government intrusion in a range of areas of public and private life will encourage folks to recognise and enjoy their individuality and autonomy rather than seeking redress by more and more heavy-handed government intrusion into their lives and into the lives of other folks.
If Australia had a US-style Bill of Rights then Howard’s molestation of Aborigines might be challenged successfully by reference to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.
As so often happens in abstract political thinking, the difficulty is caused by imprecision of language — or more acutely, a failure to make our vocabulary reflect our willingness to make relevant distinctions.
Let us make a distinction between “rights” (ostensibly natural and inalienable, and thus largely negative; not given by the State, and indeed prior to the State) and “entitlements” (sometimes alienable, often conditional and dependent upon the agreed structure of a polity, and nearly always subject to availability; largely positive; mostly if not always given by the State; see above, ’subject to availability’).
By keeping in mind that these two things, “rights” and “entitlements,” are different in nature (even though they occasionally intersect), much mischief may be avoided. I blame FDR for misusing the word “freedoms”. Oh, and the UN, naturally.
As you were.
All I Want For Christmas, Herr Zenger, is Freedom From Wanting For Christmas.
Katz and Kemp, you do realise that almost all of the areas potentially covered by a legislative or enacted Bill of Rights would be better served by letting already existing provisions of anti-discrimination Acts have their free rein in industrial relations and industrial law? You know, that area of Australian lawyertude that prevents working life becoming overlawyered?
The workplace is, after all, where most of the meaty questions of rights and freedoms get resolved.
Bien. ¡A sus puestos!
35 Katz Dec 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
THen the child rapists would have won. Way to go to protect the indvidual rights of the defenceless and vulnerable.
Also proving my point that the contemporary bil of rights-agenda has little or nothing with the traditional notion of rule of law, due process or habeas corpus. And everything to do with propping up decrepit and discredited post-cultural revolution minority activism.
Post-modernism to a T.
Nonsense.
The existence in Australia of a US-style Bill of Rights would have made it more advisable for government to establish a proper, uniform rule of law.
A Bill of Rights would not guarantee this outcome, but it would perhaps persuade governments to avoid cheap, ad hoc patch-ups.
The history of Afro Americans’ civil rights in the US is a useful parallel. For almost a century after the end of slavery, AAs were denied many rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. And until the 1950s there were scant efforts to rectify this situation.
Yet, after the conscience of America was stirred, the Bill of Rights served as a template and guide for the extension of full citizenship to AAs.
Jack sets up a false alternative between Howard’s martial law and lawlessness.
The true, sustainable alternative to lawlessness is a proper, civil rule of law.
Hoges, below is a summary of issues in the European Convention on Human Rights, which every EU nation must accede to. In the case of the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 follows the convention, and is in practical effect a Bill of Rights. While I agree to an extent that industrial law/rights is an important part of the mix, what I’m on about (and I believe Katz is likewise) are the big political ticket items: sedition, refugee law and so called anti-terrorism laws which under Howard were potentially steaming dung examples of breaches of human rights.
Al-Kateb was the case for example decided 4:3 by the High Court, against the constitutional “vibes” of only allowing the judiciary to punish people with incarceration, not the executive. With Al-Kateb, it is now lawful for a refugee who is refused refugee status and can’t be sent back to country of origin to be incarcerated here for the rest of his/her life, without seeing the inside of a court room.
That’s a gross breach of that person’s human rights which a Bill of Rights in the constitution would have stopped the HCA from so ruling, (and generally stopped Howard in his tracks in the
redneck vote catcherchildren overboard/anti-terrorist schtick). That the HCA made such a ruling was a disgrace and Kirby has been scathing in his criticism of it ever since. (Another reason for a BOR because the HCA stuffed up the case of Al-Khateb.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
* 1 History and nature
* 2 Convention articles
o 2.1 Art. 1 – respecting rights
o 2.2 Art. 2 – life
o 2.3 Art. 3 – torture
o 2.4 Art. 4 – servitude
o 2.5 Art. 5 – liberty and security
o 2.6 Art. 6 – fair trial
o 2.7 Art. 7 – retrospectivity
o 2.8 Art. 8 – privacy
o 2.9 Art. 9 – conscience and religion
o 2.10 Art. 10 – expression
o 2.11 Art. 11 – association
o 2.12 Art. 12 – marriage
o 2.13 Art. 13 – effective remedy
o 2.14 Art. 14 – discrimination
o 2.15 Art. 15 – derogations
o 2.16 Art. 16 – aliens
o 2.17 Art. 17 – abuse of rights
o 2.18 Art. 18 – permitted restrictions
* 3 Convention protocols
o 3.1 Prot. 1, Art.1 – property
o 3.2 Prot. 1, Art.2 – education
o 3.3 Prot. 1, Art.3 – elections
o 3.4 Prot. 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion
o 3.5 Prot. 6 – restriction of death penalty
o 3.6 Prot. 7 – crime and family
o 3.7 Prot. 12 – discrimination
o 3.8 Prot. 13 – complete abolition of death penalty
o 3.9 Protocols on ECHR machinery
Now Jack, the above table was more for your benefit. That’s the subject material that a Bill of Rights is based on, and I’ve chosen the EU as an alternative to the UN to prevent a diatribe from you on “teh evils” of the UN.
So, please show me where the modern EU foundation stone namely the Convention, from which Bills of Rights are derived from and which in turn are accountable to uphold the Convention, (less lawful derogations); has “nothing with the traditional notion of rule of law, due process or habeas corpus.”
And Jack, using the EU as a template, Articles 1-18 and the Protocols is the agenda of human rights. Your fictitious agenda of what you think is the Machiavellian agenda of a PoMo wet minority , is not a sensible discussion on sedition and human rights.
That anti-PoMo/anti-human rights agenda is most likely to be:
in a parallel universe.
I believe it was Karl Popper who pointed out that if the government is ‘rolled back’ then all that happens is you create a power vacuum which will inevitably be filled by someone (or something) else. So instead of freedom what you get is the power is wielded by someone (or something) else which might be even harder to make accountable.
So would we rather hung at once by a citizen-sanctioned Bill of Rights or die the slow death of thousand EULAs?
“Only in the nineties, when politicians like Patrick Buchanan were finally taken seriously, did institutional authority finally bring the street atrocities under control.”
Only Jack M. Strocchi could think Patrick Buchanan could be taken seriously about anything serious. Like many of Jack’s conclusions from his cites, it’s basically at the level of a baby with a hammer discovering how the world could be made of nails…if only you squinted hard enough.
And Jack…new net de plume. We already know Jack stands for Gino. So what does the ‘M’ stand for? Mumpsimus?
Gino @33 above Nabs, fyi, is actually a link to wwwdotstrocchiversedotcom, which doesn’t exist, (but cannot be ruled out for another universe) so I’m going with Millefiori, coz he’ll just get it wrong again and say: “I will not change my old Sumpsimus for your new Mumpsimus”.
Why governments can never be trusted to consistently protect human rights: why grubby, pumped up, despicable little shits…[censored for sedition...] like Herr Howard make it mandatory for a Bill of Rights:
Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court, re Haneef
Olay!
Peter Kemp
Unfortunately, Al-Kateb v Godwin would not have helped by the ICCPR(9) Protocol. In Al-Kateb, the HC majority basically got it wrong, especially McHugh. Also, ironically, it was international law that created Al-Kateb’s problem due to the Arabs refusing to allow Palestinians to be considered along with all other refugees under the UN Refugee Protocol. The UNRWA is one of the bigger mistakes the Arabs have made over the years.
Now, with a substantially changed HC, hopefully McHugh’s bizarre “reasoning” will be ignored.
McHugh at para 44:
McHugh should have been dragged kicking and screaming into a detention centre and made to explain that “oh so subtle” distinction to the long term detainees, the Ex Bullshit hypothesis:
That kind of logic leads to “the ends justify the means”.
Amnestator, it will be interesting to see how the HCA goes in future on HR issues.
42 Nabakov Dec 29th, 2008 at 1:04 am
ONly posturing fool like Nabakov could advertise his cluelessness about the relationwhip bw political culture and human nature as if it was a badge of honour. He has no idea of what he speaks, poor dear.
Buchanan was a senior advisor to both the Nixon and Reagan administratons. Obviously they took his advice “seriously” enough. But what would twice elected presidents know?
Buchanan was the leading political light in the US polity’s two decade long whole of goverment effort to curb the insane level of violence and self-destruction perpetrated and suffered largely by the African-American community. An interneccine Culture War whose victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
Eventually Clinton (another twice-elected president!) was silly enough to take Buchanan’s law and order advice “seriously”. Beefed up sticks (“zero tolerance”) and pared down carrots (“end welfare as we know it”). Essentially Buchanan (via Clinton) and Hanson (via Howard) did more good for minority groups in one decade than a the hordes of so-called minority activists did in a generation.
The results speak for themselves, a much reduced crime rate and improved work ethic amongst minority groups. ONce upon a time one walked through Harlem on a dare. Nowadays this is an unremarkable event. This good result was not achieved by authorities being overly solicitious of civil rights and entitlements.
As if that wasnt enough, Buchanan was the most prescient critic of the US’s govts current headlong plunge towards influxing, invading and insolving itself into civil suicide. Bush, more fool, decided not to take Buchanan’s advice “seriously”. He now spends his time dodging shoes from outraged victims of his policy.
Of course Buchanan, for his troubles, now finds himself ostracised and condemned as being beyond the pale of polite company. Largely on the basis of a few eccentric and offensive remarks in his otherwise entertaining and informative political histories. In the Liberal Death Wishing morality play no good call goes unheeded.
And now the “liberals” wish to lecture us on the proper protection of rights. Whilst we are treated to the spectacle of ideological infants mucking about in the political sand-pit with their “Republican Models”, “Sorry Days”, “20-20 conferences” and “Rights Charters”. As if these liberal play things were of any actual use to an agency trying to get things done.
Excuse me whilst I split my sides laughing.
[exits stage right, cackling evilly to self]
relationwhip = the connection between Gino Mitty Strocchi and various dead horses.
Greetings Fyodor,
I thought that after your last series of debacles you had crawled into a corner to die. But then some “liberals”, like zombified dead horses, never say die. YOu should know all about that being one of the neo-liberal walking un-dead.
BTW, on the subject of flayed dead horses, hows your vain (in both senses of the word) attempt to persuade the world of the falsness of Anthrpogenic Global Warming going? I got alot of laughs watching you dig yourself in deeper – way out of your depth – with that one.
Keating promised to “do Hewson slowly”. But why bother sticking people like Fyodor and Nabakov onto a fork when these ideological labour saving devices are prepared to “do” it for you.
Another Blogthread rule of thumb.
Anyone insistently announcing they’ve won the debate always sounds like someone trying to convince themself that’s how it should have turned out.
You do realise M Strocchi that Pat Buchanan’s main claim to fame is being an occasional speechwriter for the only US President who got caught red-handed trying to subvert the US Constitution.
“It’s not illegal if the President does it.”
“As if these liberal play things were of any actual use to an agency trying to get things done.
Excuse me whilst I split my sides laughing.”
She must be a lesbian. And I wasn’t interested anyway.
Anyway, just what does the the “M.” stand for?
interneccine= The destructive relationwhip between Gino M. Strocchi’s wet and dry peturbations.
Debacles? Moi? I don’t recall ever stating AGW to be false, Gino-Mitty – I’m a sceptic, not a credulist, of either stripe. Perhaps you can refer me to some notable instances of my vain entreaties to the world about said “falsness”. It shouldn’t be too hard; as ever, you’ve shown yourself to be a devoted (albeit clumsy) follower of my opinions, and prone to remind me of them at moments when it’s least appropriate to the argument, for the obvious reason.
I did like “neo-liberal walking undead”, however. Not so much for the lack of originality or the mangled cliché, naturally, but I do get a kick out of being depicted as monstrous by those I’ve thoroughly cheesed off.
Oh, come now. Don’t be bashful. Everyone knows you do everything slowly – you only have one gear: reverse. Reading your tedious overwrought waffle is the blogging equivalent of watching paint dry, but without the punchline.
perturbanation = the state induced in Gino M. Strocchi by chronic over-relationwhip with the politics of ethnicity.
mas-turban-ation= the “dry” politics of lather induced in Gino M. Strocchi by the over-relationwhip between various dead horses and interneccine occupied people in turbans.
But in the Strocchiverse, the sheer visceral pleasure of predicting “rivers of blood” like some demented Old Testament prophet trumps reason and logic every time.
.
Sorry but I think Jack makes some very good points and ones that are discussed in Law Schools when the Bill of Rights debate comes up.
.
1. They don’t stop governments from disregarding them only a vigilance does
2. They can create unforseeable problems eg the right to bear arms.
.
I’m not sure I agree with Jack but I think that we should consider the issues he put forth.
# 50 Nabakov Dec 31st, 2008 at 1:27 am
Nabakov should consider removing the liberal training wheels from his ideological bike. He might cover some new ground instead of churning up old muck.
Buchanan’s main claim to fame is his coining of the phrase “silent majority”, a staple of right wing populists for evermore. And the famous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican convention. The political equivalent of Dirty Harry’s “make my day”.
I am old enough to have a living memory of Nixon’s constitutional subversion. I remember getting indignant at the time. But its not something that I would bother ostentatiously fretting about these days.
I admire most of the US social system but no political machinery is sacrosanct. I’m not too fussed about the occasional behind the scenes machinations because “nothing is sacred” (machiavelli) and “things change” (Darwin). So long as popular elections are free, fair and frequent. ANd the books are not cooked.
The federal founders made executive over-reach kind of hard what with their seperations of powers and bills of rights. I can see their point given fractious prevailing tendencies – haughty Redcoats, witch burning high-priests, slave-freeing abolitionists. I prefer the British system which puts the executive under the legislative hammer. You dont need to rely on a constitution when the opposition is on the ball and the government on the run.
Subverting the US Constitution is more or less a full time job for any executive branch trying to get useful things done beyond the spin cycle ie grasping for the rewards of office by keeping Americans focused on doing business rather than launching at each others throats.
Roosevelt was a past master at it. The Bushies do it more blatantly than most. Its not even close to being the worst of their sins.
In Tricky Dicky’s case the constitutional hanky-panky was just him trying to get even with the Kennedy’s. You know, the gang who came out of Joe Kennedy, Joe McCarthy and Richard Daley. No constitutional subverters there, no sirree!
At least Nixon et al really did have a good excuse what with a domestic insurgency at home, not to mention the general insanity taking hold of the Americas, Asia and Arabia. I dont see why the Nixon-landers should miss out on all the fun just because their opponents had cooler friends.
It goes on as we speak. The outgoing executive just asked Congress for one trillion dollars to spend on their mates in the banking and auto industry. And the incoming one is going to ask for a trillion more to spend on their mates in the “government infrastructure” industry. At the current rate the US govt will wind up owning half the US economy. Do you think the writers and amenders of the constitution would have approved this blatant subversion of Jefferson’s baby?
Nabakov says:
Thanks for sharing that with us. [said faux politely with much eye rolling] Now who died and elected Nabakov pope of the blogosphere? He must be getting nasty saddle sores riding that shaky high horse.
# 50 Nabakov Dec 31st, 2008 at 1:27 am
Nabakov should consider removing the liberal training wheels from his ideological bike. He might cover some new ground instead of churning up old muck.
Buchanan’s main claim to fame is his coining of the phrase “silent majority”, a staple of right wing populists for evermore. And the famous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican convention. The political equivalent of Dirty Harry’s “make my day”.
I am old enough to have a living memory of Nixon’s constitutional subversion. I remember getting indignant at the time. But its not something that I would bother ostentatiously fretting about these days.
I admire most of the US social system but no political machinery is sacrosanct. I’m not too fussed about the occasional behind the scenes machinations because “nothing is sacred” (machiavelli) and “things change” (Darwin). So long as popular elections are free, fair and frequent. ANd the books are not cooked.
The federal founders made executive over-reach kind of hard what with their seperations of powers and bills of rights. I can see their point given fractious prevailing tendencies – haughty Redcoats, witch burning high-priests, slave-freeing abolitionists. I prefer the British system which puts the executive under the legislative hammer. You dont need to rely on a constitution when the opposition is on the ball and the government on the run.
Subverting the US Constitution is more or less a full time job for any executive branch trying to get useful things done beyond the spin cycle ie grasping for the rewards of office by keeping Americans focused on doing business rather than launching at each others throats.
Roosevelt was a past master at it. The Bushies do it more blatantly than most. Its not even close to being the worst of their sins.
In Tricky Dicky’s case the constitutional hanky-panky was just him trying to get even with the Kennedy’s. You know, the gang who came out of Joe Kennedy, Joe McCarthy and Richard Daley. No constitutional subverters there, no sirree!
At least Nixon et al really did have a good excuse what with a domestic insurgency at home, not to mention the general insanity taking hold of the Americas, Asia and Arabia. I dont see why the Nixon-landers should miss out on all the fun just because their opponents had cooler friends.
It goes on as we speak. The outgoing executive just asked Congress for one trillion dollars to spend on their mates in the banking and auto industry. And the incoming one is going to ask for a trillion more to spend on their mates in the “government infrastructure” industry. At the current rate the US govt will wind up owning half the US economy. Do you think the writers and amenders of the constitution would have approved this blatant subversion of Jefferson’s baby?
Nabakov says:
Thanks for sharing that with us. [said faux politely with much eye rolling] Now who died and elected Nabakov pope of the blogosphere? He must be getting nasty saddle sores riding that shaky high horse.
Oh how easy it would be to sell a lemon to Jack Strocchi.
# 52 Fyodor says Dec 31st, 2008 at 7:34 am
Fyodor is a compulsive distorter and denier of science and a distorter and denier about his moronic distortions and denials. He “does not recall” his self-damning statements. How convenient. Thats the shifty evasiveness of the common-or-garden crook being put on the spot on the dock. (The parallel does not end there.)
Its never “too hard” to show Fyodor perverting “language, truth and logic” on such matters. Just google “Fyodor + [fill in the blank]” and you tap into an endless cesspool of anti-scientific fads, fallacies and falsities. Its not surprising when you consider that New Right and New Left liberals of his ilk came of age with the New Age. That kind of post-modernism is really just intellectual sabotage dressed up in fancy mumbo-jumbo.
In the case of climate change it wasnt so long ago that he tried fairly feebly to cast doubt on AGW. The scientists made great sport of batting his follies back and forth accross cyber-space. But he kept yacking away with some phony skeptic-cum-solipsistic schtick about “uncertainty…incredible complexity…more research needed” etc, quite oblivious to the fool he was making of himself. Rather in the manner of Wile E. Coyote furiously running on the spot as he plunges into the canyon.
For those who’ve got the stomach for this kind of thing heres “notable instances” of Fyodor’s AGW obfuscation:
Of course scientists do not know what is going on. Thats why scientists, the poor deluded fools, keep giving Nobel Prizes to proponents of the AGW theory. Sheer bloody-minded obtuseness. Thank god we have all-round wise guys like Fyodor to set them straight!
Here’s another taste for those who can control their gag reflex:
Okay, enough already, for pity’s sake. Wild eyed crack pots and cranks like Fyodor have been accosting scientists in corridors for god knows how long, breathlessly insisting that the so-called experts have got it all wrong and only they know the invented a perpetual motion machine, know the truth about WTC Building 7, debunked AGW etc. Most scientists long ago developed institutional nut-screens to shield themselves from such nuisances. But the internet has opened up vast new vistas for the cyber serial pest.
AGW is a fact and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fact-denier. The rapid collapse of Larsen B and the West Antartic Ice shelf means we have already wasted way too much time humouring dolts like Fyodor.
Now wait for an endless quibble on the (in this case, distinction-without-a-) difference between casting doubt on standard science and assertions of outright falsehood. Skepticism about the bleeding obvious is on a par with factual denialism. Which amounts to spreading falsehoods, for those who are too busy to go back to source.
Fyodor says:
Fydor should not flatter himself. The clinical description for his type is “low-life scum bag”, of the sort one keeps at arms length – all the better to study dispassionately. He has only one note: false.
But zombie fits his behaviour pattern better. It does not seem to matter how many times one factually bludgeons the heads of the post-seventies liberal living dead, they keep lumbering towards you with arms outstretched. Still chanting the ideological mantras they lapped up like suckers as the post-modernist curse was being laid on them in those light-headed times. The only thing that does not surprise me is that Fyodor thinks zombie-hood is a state to aspire to.
Good grief.
My God a walking talking library.What a know all.
“My God, it’s full of straw!”
And Very Tiny Strocchi.
Nixon was not the only bad president therefore Pat Buchanan has productive contributions to make to the polity. And why isn’t a completely forgettable speech he delivered at a political convention nearly 18 years ago not seared into everyone’s minds, the way it is into mine? Also I don’t understand Jefferson’s role in drafting the operating manual for a bunch of loosely federated 18th century agrarian and trading communities.
“Jefferson’s role…”
Um, *ahem*?! Could I puh-leeze get a little fuckin’ respect here? Or else, the next friggin’ constitution I write is gonna make all’a y’alls gums bleed.
Just give me my propers, which is not too much to ask, and I promise Godzilla will remain in his secure undersea prison at least for the time being. That is all.
You got it Jim. Respect! You da man behind the scenes. The Paul Allen or Steve Wozinak of the US Consitution.
Don’t get up up. Oh, sorry, didn’t realise you were already standing.
My regards to Dolley.
Neither do you, it seems. The fact that I didn’t make them might have put the kybosh on that little enterprise.
Mmh, let me see here…no, no, no and, erm, no. That’s a clean sweep. I hope it didn’t you take you the whole weekend to come up with that stale donut, Gino Mitty. The next time you want to lie about me, save yourself the bother.
You mean “falsness”, right? Actually, I’m not sure you know what that word means – you got it dead wrong above.
[Oh, come on. You knew this was coming.]
Shorter Mezzostrocchinino: Fyodor has thoroughly cheesed me off!
You really should pay more attention to detail, Gino. It’s an habitual failing of yours. I don’t think “zombie-hood is a state to aspire to” and said nothing of the sort. You even quoted me, you silly sausage, so you’re going to have a deuce of a time proving my “falsness” now. Besides, Gino, if I were to become a shambling, rambling, mindless creature, how would people tell us apart?
As against those lower down, smoothed bum riders with nary a red mark save for the blood of spur and whip from a carcass suffering equine anemia.
Jack needs some advice for better performance, and it is available! All is not lost Jack!!!
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13257.htm
1. Buying a stronger whip.[recommended]
2. Changing riders.[Too obvious]
3. Saying things like “This is the way we always have ridden this horse.” [Suffers from repetition]
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.[Difficult to find that committee in the Strocciverse]
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses. [eg Catallaxy]
6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses. [Seek multicultural schools]
7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.[Spanish/Mexican expert, Alberto Gonzales.]
8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability. [Instructors MarkL, Birdy et al]
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in today’s environment.
10. Change the requirements declaring that “This horse is not dead.” [Only useful for the gullible]
11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse. [Expensive]
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed. [Bamboozles the opposition]
13. Declaring that “No horse is too dead to beat.”
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse’s performance. [Electric shock therapy, but necrotic tissue is a longer term problem]