The Human Rights Commission is positing as a defender of human rights in Australia. I would however suggest that this organisation is nothing more than a political tool for government to pretend to act in accordance with some ethical principles. In fact it is truly worrisome that the framework canvassed by the Australian Human Rights Commission will:
1. Uphold the notion that the courts have no capacity to challenge existing laws; to rule based on interpreted breaches in legislation
2. Not provide an objectively (rationally) defensible concept of human rights
3. Adopt a human rights concept which is collectivist in scope. Every document I read from this organisation fails to provide a definition.
People - this political development is scary because it actually heralds an 'in principle' protection of rights which are not protections at all - but rather claims to your hard efforts as taxpayers. Based on their conception of rights, you cannot have rights without corresponding obligations. The implication is collectivism - whether its socialism or fascism, or some new interpretation, all objectivity is being eroded. Life will cease to have meaning - at least to the extent that government is directing your sorry butt. Sorry because every time you allow government to kick your butt, it entrenches its political objectives. More concerning is the efforts to limit the power of the judiciary.
Please read my corrections to just two of the documents produced by the Human Rights Commission. The corrected versions are available at:
1. DOC 1: Human rights and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
2. DOC 2: A Human Rights Act for Australia: commonly asked questions
The other problem is that this organisation was appointed by the government. This organisation was established to provide legitimacy to the government rather than to offer Australians any meaningful protection of rights. In fact its more dangerous because its actually entrenching the same unprincipled 'rule of law' interpretations of rights. The implication is that you will end up with a Human Rights legislation as thick and worthless as the tax code.
1. Uphold the notion that the courts have no capacity to challenge existing laws; to rule based on interpreted breaches in legislation
2. Not provide an objectively (rationally) defensible concept of human rights
3. Adopt a human rights concept which is collectivist in scope. Every document I read from this organisation fails to provide a definition.
People - this political development is scary because it actually heralds an 'in principle' protection of rights which are not protections at all - but rather claims to your hard efforts as taxpayers. Based on their conception of rights, you cannot have rights without corresponding obligations. The implication is collectivism - whether its socialism or fascism, or some new interpretation, all objectivity is being eroded. Life will cease to have meaning - at least to the extent that government is directing your sorry butt. Sorry because every time you allow government to kick your butt, it entrenches its political objectives. More concerning is the efforts to limit the power of the judiciary.
Please read my corrections to just two of the documents produced by the Human Rights Commission. The corrected versions are available at:
1. DOC 1: Human rights and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
2. DOC 2: A Human Rights Act for Australia: commonly asked questions
The other problem is that this organisation was appointed by the government. This organisation was established to provide legitimacy to the government rather than to offer Australians any meaningful protection of rights. In fact its more dangerous because its actually entrenching the same unprincipled 'rule of law' interpretations of rights. The implication is that you will end up with a Human Rights legislation as thick and worthless as the tax code.
