An air of foreboding....

Before reading this post, first click you need some accompanying music. Open this link in a new window or new tab and then click on the video. Read the article while listening to music.

A little bit overly dramatic I know, but still it's all very Orwellian.









After all can you think of any other time when there has been much discussion about the "rights" of the "people", with said rights laid down in law and statute and protected by special branches of Government?




Anyone? Can you think of an example?

What about a system which insisted that it was for "the people" but that it needed to temporarily dissolve democracy in order for the "rights" they were seeking to be achieved.

Or maybe someone can tell me of a system where the elected legislature continued to exist and theoretically have control, while at the same time handing over absolute power to unelected officials who used the organs of the state to achieve their own ends while continuously talking about "the people"?



I'm scractching my head but I can't come up with any. Oh well, I guess this new idea is alright then, after all, what could go wrong? It's worked so well in Canada, why shouldn't it work here?

All sarcasm aside, I think this is a very dangerous idea and moreover an extremely insidious one, that creeps up on you in the night, nibbling at a corner here, scratching out a spot there, and if challenged retreating ever so slightly while screaming "perfidy" and trying to make you feel ashamed for doing what is right.

Now I don't normally rate Paul Kelly, whenever he comes on Insiders I always switch over to see some sport or go and make some toast, but this is a very good article.

Personally, I think this is "the thin edge of the wedge" to use a much abused term. It starts here, but where does it finish? Do all fatties have a right to a second free seat no matter where they go? Do junkies get an entitlement to free smack? Do kiddy fiddlers get the run of the playground (maybe only if they're "artists", afterall they're a better class of people)? Do illegal immigrants get an automatic launch onto welfare and government housing, just for doing the wrong thing?

The EU constitution is full of various rights and is the size of a book. Not a small book, but rather the complete Lord of the Rings. In hardcover. Complete with maps. And appendices. And notes from the author. And notes from the author's children. Plus a complete annotated list of all sources he used. Including the complete reading notes for those reading the book for uni.

By comparison, the Australian constitution is published in a small booklet the size of a christmas card and not much thicker. A small christmas card. Where would you rather live? France with double digit unemployment, high taxes, "youth" rioting in the streets burning cars and a nuclear power plant down the road, or Australia?

You don't have a "right" to a house, or a job or a needle exchange program or a free sex change or a marriage to your underage houseboy. You should have the right to try your best to achieve those things (within reason). You should have the right to an unfettered media that gives you all the information you need to help you in your quest. You should have the right to live a life free of danger, or at a minimum, the right to defend yourself with force without worrying about being banged up for it.

If the rights that you're seeking are not popular enough to be supported by a majority of voters in a majority of states (the basic requirement for amending the constitution), than maybe there's a reason why we don't have them.

If you want the right to eat two barbecue chickens with a lard based dipping sauce for your lunch and then sit in your double seat at the cinema drinking a bucket of coke and smelling vaguely like bacon grease while complaining about discrimination against people with "glandular problems", then I should have the "right" to date Christina Aguilera, on an ongoing basis.




In fact both "rights" are remarkably similar, as they impinge on someone else and their freedoms.

So I say NO to a bill of rights or any such document that takes away power from our elected representatives. Chimpanzees they might be, but they're OUR chimpanzees and we'll vote them out if they eat too many bananas. I'd much rather a chimpanzee than having my fate decided by Justice Michael Kirby or any of his ilk.

And furthermore, while they're at it, I suggest repealling as much of the legislation that is in existence as possible. It was only created to give politicians an opportunity to create more power and authority for themselves, most of it we don't need. At least that stuff we can get rid of, a Bill of Rights is a far more insidious cancer which is much harder to treat.

cheers

Harry