Frank Brennan,before he released his report recommending a federal human rights act for Australia,gave the impression that he would be even handed in his approach. The report and everything he has said since proves otherwise.
Janet Albrechtsen does a good job in demolishing his case for a judicial tyranny (The Australian,14.10.09,p.14) drawing attention to the 35,014 submissions 27,112 were what Brennan calls campaign submissions (special interest groups) more than 25,000 came from Get Up and Amnesty International supporting HRA. “That leaves 7,900 other individual submissions of which 4,200 submissions were opposed to an HRA“.
His comment that a referendum on the law would be un-Australian raises my hackles.
I reiterate my belief that this is attempt by lawyers to rule the planet through the U.N. and human rights legislation and England is an example. The British courts using a similar act have made it almost impossible to deport illegal asylum seekers and in fact their Lordships have made it almost impossible to convict a terrorist unless the evidence against him/her is overwhelming.
The U.N. has not been given the authority to rule us. It’s international courts are not recognised by many nations.
International treaties are scraps of paper,as Hitler said,unless you have the guns to enforce them and numbers of voters do not represent power. The third world,supported by Western social democrats,try to control the U.N. so we should not allow the U.N. to rule us through our courts.
Today they demand an open borders policy through our courts and human rights treaties. Tomorrow they will demand to tax us and provide them with an army. In my view the HRA verges on treason in that it would enable a foreign power to rule us,so get in touch with your representative in government and let them know how you feel.
In England the Labour government does not challenge the rulings of the court probably because they agree with them!
We need a referendum of this for sure.
