tcpip | Islamophobia, A Bill of Rights, Climate Riots, Stripping Minors, and a Hobbit fest

Sunday consisted of two great presentations at the local Unitarian Church. Bilal Cleland, the Human Rights Coordinator of the Islamic Council spoke on religious bigotry and particularly on bigotry against Muslims. Cleland was a great speaker - particularly noting how Muslims have become the marginalised 'other' in Australian society, a position previously held by SE Asian people, and how there is a populist assumption that does not differentiate between Muslim fundamentalists and Muslim secularists. Cleland also drew attention to the long history of Unitarian support for religious freedom.

Following that the Church conducted a public forum on the need for an Australian Bill of Rights, with Jess Healy, the Democrats youth spokesperson, Brian Walters, the legal spokesperson for the Greens, and Greg Connellan, President of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. I toned down the great sense of optimism at the forum by reminding those present that there are many people who do not support universal human rights and such people have resources which they will use against any campaign to introduce such rights.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

More at the UK's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

Record this moment. I agree with Kennet and Doyle. A bailout to dodgy transport companies is not the solution.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/19/1077072779093.html
Tram, train subsidy doubles

And I reckon Martin Ferguson has it right too. You don't lie to the electorate if you want to be re-elected.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072891949.html
Key seats at risk and toll debacle to blame: ALP

I'm so glad I don't work for the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party anymore.

Sometimes when you operate from principles rather than feelings you have to support things that you may not be entirely comfortable with. Argue against this - from first principles.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072892905.html
Loophole allows stripteasing minors

Erudito has alerted me to those who just can't get enough Hobbits. All three LOTR films in the same session. The Sun Cinema Yarraville is doing it every day until March 3. Which would seem to make Saturday 28 (or Sunday 29) The Day to do it. Fellowship starts at 10am.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am against a bill of rights in the Oz context because I am not in favour of increasing judicial power.

That's possibly the best argument I've heard so far. Although as one of the speakers said on Sunday if you want to end complaints about "judicial activism" the best solution is to state, unambigiously, what the rights of individuals are.

That is before you get into arguments about which rights.

The general discussion was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be the one embodied in law.

The Greens have the following, which seems fairly close:

http://www.michaelorgan.org.au/300_issues_sub.php?deptItemID=16

Ditto for the Democrats:

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/billrights/

Glad you think that the judicial power argument has some bite.

Although as one of the speakers said on Sunday if you want to end complaints about "judicial activism" the best solution is to state, unambigiously, what the rights of individuals are.

They're dreaming. Any Bill of Rights increases judicial power because there will always be boundary issues.

The Greens' draft includes 'welfare rights'. Having judges decided how much education children should have (for example) is judicial activism run rampant.

The Democrats' draft fails to include property, without which most of the rest is emptied.

Then there is the 'if it was left out, that means it is not an important right' line of judicial intepretation. Which is why the US Constitution has an explicit clause to the counter effect.

I remember Gary Johns explaining to me he defeated a Bill of Rights proposal in the Qld ALP by lining up would-be politicians against the lawyers on the judicial power argument. Strangely enough, the former turned out to be a majority. In a political party, who'd have thought it?

The US Bill of Rights makes sense in a very particular institutional, historical and cultural context. And their judicial appointment processes are designed to cope with the implications.

They're dreaming. Any Bill of Rights increases judicial power because there will always be boundary issues.

*nods* I agree with you on this - I was just presenting the counter argument.

Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that there needs to be some "isocratic" mechanism to ensure that "democracy" does not become a "tyranny of the majority". I do consider the US Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc, real milestones in institutional history.

If you have an alternative, or at the least ways to limit the possibility of judicial activism, I would welcome it.

There is not perfect response, all these things are trade-offs and depend on particular contexts.

In Australia, at the Commonwealth level we have federalism, bicameralism with the second House elected by a quite different method, independent judiciary, rights against confiscation without compensation, establishment of religion, pluralistic institutions, long democratic traditions. These are quite effective barriers against majoritarian tyranny. Indeed, on some issues, efforts have been quite effective at blocking majority wishes (capital punishment in past times and immigration policy and indigenous policy come to mind: Howard may have broken the anti-majoritarian barrier on illegal entry but he still runs a larger immigration policy than has majority support and continues differentiated indigenous welfare).

One of the reasons I am sceptical about the Bill of Rights push is that it seems to be an attempt to extend majority-blocking for dubious reasons, manifesting intelligentsia dissatisfaction with an electorate who doesn't 'cooperate', an intelligentsia whose politics seem to be increasingly dominated by ways of circumventing electoral vetoes (e.g. global governance, attempted de-legitimation of dissent). More power to judges just seems part of the same agenda.

Islamophobia, A Bill of Rights, Climate Riots, Stripping Minors, and a Hobbit fest

Re: Judicial power

Re: Judicial power

Re: Judicial power

Tyranny of the majority