Australian Human Rights Commission - act of sabotage

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.

Why I established this blog

I have for a long time intended to establish a politics blog because I have a great deal to say about the issue. One of the reasons I wanted to write more was to correct a lot of the misunderstandings that arise in political theory. The other reason was to highlight the failure of our political system to protect human rights.
Late in 2008 the ALP (Australian Labor Party)-led national government of Australia fulfilled its promise of running a dialogue on human rights. This was a dialogue I wanted to participate in, though all the time knowing that the result was already determined. Under the Howard government we saw how the government had established a referendum in which the Howard government had established the terms. Australians had already shown that they wanted to change to a Republic, but they did not support the Howard conception of it. The issue being - Australians really have no choice about the type of public administration that governs them. This would not be a problem if governments were restricted to the protection of human rights, but Western society is subjected to significant intrusion by government, and its arbitrary nature makes it a subject of immense concern. It foreshadows a deteriorating trend in human rights that really started under President Bush and PM Howard.

In this blog you can expect to hear arguments highlighting the flaws in the human rights debate. I will analyse the government's argument, as well as quasi-government agencies like the Australian Human Rights Commission, and private interests with an opinion on such matters. I am particularly keen to hear what the private sector has to say on such matters. VERY CURIOUS because I want to assess how far they depart from their rhetoric.