Bill of Rights (2 Viewers)

[katie tully]

1) Etc? Because it seems to me that they aren't "trying as hard as possible to crush free speech" and the only significantly controversial move they've made has been Senator Conroy pushing his stupid Internet censorship. The thing about that is a lot of people don't realise how important free speech on the Internet is (take katie tully's initial support of this until we explained the ramifications to her). It's definitely a moronic move, but it's not at all evidence of some authoritarian plot on Labour's behalf.

If there ever actually becomes an 'etc', then I'll worry.

2) There's two kinds of anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination in speech and action, and anti-discrimination under law.

The first is controversial, the second is a basic human right.

lol you didn't change my mind you quack, i didnt even read your responses to it

i stand by my previous statement. i never supported censorship, or whatever else that bullshit was, i just said i didnt give a shit because i down download.

 

[impervious182]

Nah i agree with him.

The bible clearly says i can make rape of a virgin then get off by paying her father 50 pieces of silver. Whats silver worth? Like $10 an ounce? So thats like $500 to get off rape. The bible also says that if a virgin is raped, she must marry the raper, so there, for $500 i can get a virgin wife and all i have to do is make rape on her.

Again, take a look at the New Testament.

 

[withoutaface]

I'll now stand up and point out that I was right about the nature of anti-discrimination provisions to be included.

 

[jb_nc]

i just said i didnt give a shit

They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist;
They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist;
They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Because it doesn't affect you (but will affect others) is the worst reason for apathy ever.

 

[boris]

Again, take a look at the New Testament.

Again, get a fucking real dog faggot.

Also i looked at the new testament, did nothing for me.

 

[impervious182]

Again, get a fucking real dog faggot.

Also i looked at the new testament, did nothing for me.

If you've really read both the Old and New Testaments, then you shouldn't need me to explain the latter's purpose in bringing reform to the Old Testament.

Which gives you no excuse to blatantly misrepresented Christianity or the values and beliefs that it promotes.

 

[katie tully]

They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist;
They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist;
They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Because it doesn't affect you (but will affect others) is the worst reason for apathy ever.

Not really, tbh.

I'm sure there are plenty more human rights violations going on in the world that YOU are apathetic towards because it doesn't affect you.

Just because I said I don't give a shit (and this was in relation to the music companies suing the ISP), doesn't mean I support it. If it came to a situation where people had to speak out, I'd speak out. But otherwise man, there are a million other things happening that I kinda give more of a shit about.

Like squirrels being mailed live. Do you comprehende?

 

[impervious182]

I'll now stand up and point out that I was right about the nature of anti-discrimination provisions to be included.

Firstly, discrimination is not always negative. (E.g. when you are choosing a coat, you discriminate to choose the best one.)

Secondly, to what extent would this discrimination go? Affirmative action; I hope not. Or would it mean, enjoying all cultures etc. as has already been proposed. Or would it instead mean that people's religions should be respected regardless of what they are; from this many cults etc. could arise. Erm... I could go on, but you get my point. It's hard to implement this, because we can't predict how the future will change and what consequences a right would have unless we see the wording.

 

[boris]

If you've really read both the Old and New Testaments, then you shouldn't need me to explain the latter's purpose in bringing reform to the Old Testament.

Which gives you no excuse to blatantly misrepresented Christianity or the values and beliefs that it promotes.

Get a real dog fagle.

 

[Enteebee]

i reckon jesus would be for a bill of rights.

 

[withoutaface]

Firstly, discrimination is not always negative. (E.g. when you are choosing a coat, you discriminate to choose the best one.)

Secondly, to what extent would this discrimination go? Affirmative action; I hope not. Or would it mean, enjoying all cultures etc. as has already been proposed. Or would it instead mean that people's religions should be respected regardless of what they are; from this many cults etc. could arise. Erm... I could go on, but you get my point. It's hard to implement this, because we can't predict how the future will change and what consequences a right would have unless we see the wording.

What? I hate anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation almost as much as I hate cops and maltese terriers.

 

[katie tully]

wwjd?

 

[Iron]

Yeah, morals should be constantly updated, fluid, adaptable to changing circumstance - like the internet. Actually, should be like anti-virus. Download moral updates every morning at 8.30 y/n/cancel

 

[lauren =)]

Hi all, i havent decided whether i believe a Bill of Rights will work.
BUT...
today, Dec 10 is the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not many people know this so spread it round.
Raise awareness about the injustices round the world, about the more than 50000 people worldwide dying each day from poverty, about these numbers being on the RISE !!!
About the fact that we have to Stand Up and Take Action.
lt me remind everyone that ...

"bad things happen when good people sit by and do nothing".

join together and keep the pressure on our leaders to fulfil their promises, to achieve the millennium development goals by 2O15, and to set an international standard of living that meets the Universal Declaratin of Human Rights. and most of all to MAKE POVERTY HISTORY !!

have a really nice day =)

 

[withoutaface]

Just while I'm here posting on my boss' time, here are his views on the subject: http://newmatilda.com/2008/12/08/long-history-right-side-rights

 

[jb_nc]

Lol you base your morals on a 2,000 year old book. That's so web 1.0

You see, morals don't change after 2 000 years however fundamental rights of men change every year SO WE CAN'T HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!!!

 

[katie tully]

Making simulated child porn legal should be in this bill.

 

[ccc123]

They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist;
They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist;
They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Because it doesn't affect you (but will affect others) is the worst reason for apathy ever.

Omg Pastor Martin Niemoller. Lol, how useful was HSC Modern History.

 

[ccc123]

Quite clearly at a serious financial or social detriment being affected against the plaintiff.

Yes but it also encourages a more litigious society and therefore backlogs in the court system.

Wank wank and further wank, the Judiciary are more in touch with the common man than the Legislature.

I disagree. While the legislature may not always be in synch with what you phrase "the common man", they are still more likely than the judiciary to conform to community expectations because they are--albeit for the purpose of political expediency, obligated to reflect the interests of their constituents. The judiciary on the other hand is dominated by people whose jobs arent as dependent on public approval. Having a constitutional Bill of Rights would entrench the attitudes of what even Kirby J concedes are middle-aged conservative men to prevail over parliaments statutes.

 

[Silver Persian]

What? I hate anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation almost as much as I hate cops and maltese terriers.

Really? Why?