And, as you’ve already said, some Human Rights commentary enshrined in our sad little Constitution would be the place to start. Thanks for the effort weez.

No worries, hip. Yes indeedy-do, we desperately need a constitutional bill of rights or human rights declaration, as I’ve discussed through the murky mists of time.

For more recently joining readers, a statutory bill of rights, one enacted as regular legislation (such as the ACT and Victorian examples), doesn’t afford citizens the protections they obviously need from an abusive government because it can be repealed or invalidated by a simple vote of Parliament.

A constitutional bill of rights would require the vote of a large majority of citizens to either enact or repeal it, which is why all opponents of a bill of rights, who usually are presently serving or former politicians, don’t want a constitutional instrument.

A bill of rights does one thing and one thing only- it devolves power from parliamentarians and gives it to the people. Thus, there should be no great shock when politicians are terrified of constitutional rights protections.

Opponents of a rights instrument commonly offer the specious objection that such would create a more litigious society in Australia. Crap. If anything, litigation is reduced because legislation which would breach the rights doctrine simply would not be introduced, let alone enacted. At this point in time, every case of human rights abrogation must be tested in the courts- you can enjoy all the rights you can sue for, but even minor variations between a current case and past case precedent invariably require retesting in the courts.

Free speech nothing but trouble: Bainimarama

Nothing but trouble- and that’s a muthafuckin’ fact! Ask the Chinese, the KGB, Stasi, Singapore, etc etc.

Conroy could do nothing more than agree with Bananarama.

END FREE SPEECH NOW! 😆