Most of you will be aware (thanks to Duncan) that the Federal Government appointed a Committee, chaired by Father Frank Brennan to undertake an Australia-wide community consultation on the protection of human rights.
Although the closing date for written submissions was on Monday 15th June, there is time to participate in the online consultation. The closing date for this is 26th June, 2009. Information can be found at the National Human Rights Consultation Website here
If you oppose a Bill of Rights for Australia, or want more information, you can sign a petition against a Bill of Rights here:
I've been trying to post comments to Frank Brennan but I can't even seem to login yet - I'm still waiting for them to send my password. Perhaps that should be the first right on the list ... all Australian's have the right to submit a comment on the National Human Rights Consultation?
Essentially I think it is all back to front. An emphasis on 'rights' is misplaced because it is inherently selfish. It encourages us to stand up for our own rights and the rights of our 'tribe' but it does nothing to change the human heart.
Instead the Bible talks about justice and compassion. It uses the languages of responsibility rather than rights. The only people who benefit from all this legislation are the lawyers (sorry Catherine :-) ) who make lots of money.
As Christians we should care passionately that all other human beings are treated fairly and with respect - for we are all image bearers of the divine. But that doesn't mean the 'rights' is the way to go. For a start such legislation immediately runs into problems when different rights conflict - so which rights are more important?
A common test case of this in the UK concerns human sexuality. At the moment it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation or on grounds of religion. But what if your religion calls certain sexual behaviour immoral? (as Christians and Muslims do)
Are some human rights more right than others? Are some human rights wrong?
2 comments:
** Update **
I've got my password (it takes several hours so don't leave this to the closing date) and have posted comments on all three questions ... go on you do the same!
I'm with John on this one, notwithstanding the loss of potential income!
Many lawyers and judges are actually opposed to a Bill of Rights as they understand the dangers, particularly as it would place power in the judicial arm of government, rather than the legislative arm (which has to face its electors every few years).
Although maybe it would be OK if we also had a "Bill of Responsibilities" which had to be complied with before obtaning the benefit of a Bill of Rights :-)
Post a Comment