![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
crazyjaneThat time again - the weather is getting biblical out there, and, in lieu of Question Time, I'm watching APAC, which is broadcasting the sessions of the Human Rights Consultation Committee.
Bob Carr, former Premier of New South Wales, is currently speaking to the Committee investigating the feasibility or desirability of instituting a Charter of Human Rights. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he is roundly denouncing it. This is the man, after all, who thinks it's a great idea to wholeheartedly embracing parallel importing, and screw authors out of the meager royalties they do get, while putting independent booksellers out of business through inability to compete with K-Mart in getting hold of cheap, crappy books from China.
But - good grief! - the 'logic' he's employing just boggles my mind. Here's a sample:
A Charter would mean you are less safe, because someone might want to carry a ceremonial knife and then use it on someone.
A Charter would mean that you couldn't get equal access to health care, because some rich bastard might claim that the government has no right to redistribute unused funds from a well-to-do-area into an economically depressed area in desperate need of a hospital.
A Charter would diminish national security, because police need to have the power to seize anyone they think might possibly have tenuous connections to alleged terrorists.
A Charter would mean that an alleged rapist could consistently harass his victim through the courts by asserting his right to question them.
A Charter would mean that tobacco advertising would return, under the guise of 'free speech'.
A Charter would lead to 'judicial creep', because courts would start telling governments what to do, and governments wouldn't exercise their oversight powers (presumably because they're afraid). (Mind you, in answering a question, he completely contradicted himself on this one - governments would exercise those powers - so he weakened himself on this one.)
A Charter wouldn't protect 'minorities'. Look at the US - African-American people are still poor!
A Charter would mean you would be worse off socioeconomically. (He didn't even try to explain how this worked.)
I keep reminding myself that this man is a former politician. He lived, breathed and ate spin while he was in power, and clearly, he never got out of the habit. And I'm sure there are potential problems with instituting a Charter of Human Rights, but the sheer, unmitigated hide of Carr trying to argue that a Charter would somehow destroy Civilisation As We Know It takes my breath away.
To take Carr's arguments to the absurd extreme, a Charter of Rights would see people running amok in the streets, assaulting and raping with abandon. A Charter would see terrorists blowing buildings up left, right and centre, poor people without any health care options whatsoever, and everyone destroying themselves (and those nearby) by taking up smoking again, because now they have a right to do that. And police never abuse their powers, so why should they be subject to a Charter of Rights? Without a Charter, we're all moral enough to do the right thing. With it, we will degenerate into vicious psychopaths.
This is completely irresponsible. Carr has crowed that the Disability Discrimination Act has 'proved' that we don't need an overarching Act of Parliament to guarantee our Human Rights. He completely fails to mention that, before the Act existed, there was nothing to make any given building accessible to those in a wheel chair. Before the Act, a job could be denied to a perfectly qualified person who might require a little extra help (perhaps in the form of a handrail on a ramp). He also fails to mention that the Act did not come about without a significant, ongoing lobbying campaign. If all people who sought to have their rights legislated followed the same example, there would need to be an exhaustive, ongoing lobbying campaign by diffuse groups. The sheer amount of legislation needed would be prohibitive, and many Bills would be likely to fail. For example - can you really see a Bill to protect the rights of same-sex couples to marry being passed? A Bill protecting the right of a pagan to own or carry a ceremonial knife? A Bill asserting the right of a Muslim woman to wear a burqa if she so desired? Such small, specific Bills would be likely to fail on prejudicial grounds alone. An overarching Charter of Rights would encompass these things, and results from all those groups acting for a common goal.
And what's particularly ironic is that, under our current laws and Constitution, Carr has no 'right' to say any of that. At any time, Carr could be shut down. He has no right to free speech. If the government didn't like what he was saying, they could stop him. It's not like it's never been done before. Remember how an entry visa was refused to Holocaust-denier David Irving? Remember how a non-violent activist was seized and deported because it was feared he would 'agitate'?
There's not even a right for the Committee to come together and discuss the issue at all. We have no right of association. Anyone who's ever participated in a peaceful demonstration or sit-in and been 'dispersed' (what a lovely euphemism) by police knows that. If the police deem your gathering to be a public nuisance, they don't have to prove it. They can act on it straightaway. It's up to you to seek recourse through the judicial system (as those protesting the closure of Richmond Secondary College could attest).
Carr's whole ability to make his argument depends on the very rights which do not currently exist, and which he would claim should not exist.
See, the difference between those who think like Carr, and those who are advocating for a Charter, is that the advocates have no trouble with the idea that Carr should be able to say these things. And Carr, apparently, has no trouble exploiting an assumed right in his quest to quash the idea that anyone might ever get that explicit right.
Not only irresponsible, but a hypocrite.
Tell you what, Mr Carr. Let's take away every one of your assumed rights. We won't break the law. We'll just stop protecting something that doesn't exist. After all, by your own argument, the mere thought of these rights is dangerous. We'll take away your speech, your right to health care, your right to be served in a shop, your right to a bank account, your right to dress as you please, your right to marry who you please, and your right to travel where and when you please.
And it's no good protesting that this is just being extreme, Mr Carr. This is the logical outcome of a society without those protections. Sooner or later, every assumed right gets abrogated. Let's start with yours, and see if you change your tune.
Bob Carr, former Premier of New South Wales, is currently speaking to the Committee investigating the feasibility or desirability of instituting a Charter of Human Rights. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he is roundly denouncing it. This is the man, after all, who thinks it's a great idea to wholeheartedly embracing parallel importing, and screw authors out of the meager royalties they do get, while putting independent booksellers out of business through inability to compete with K-Mart in getting hold of cheap, crappy books from China.
But - good grief! - the 'logic' he's employing just boggles my mind. Here's a sample:
A Charter would mean you are less safe, because someone might want to carry a ceremonial knife and then use it on someone.
A Charter would mean that you couldn't get equal access to health care, because some rich bastard might claim that the government has no right to redistribute unused funds from a well-to-do-area into an economically depressed area in desperate need of a hospital.
A Charter would diminish national security, because police need to have the power to seize anyone they think might possibly have tenuous connections to alleged terrorists.
A Charter would mean that an alleged rapist could consistently harass his victim through the courts by asserting his right to question them.
A Charter would mean that tobacco advertising would return, under the guise of 'free speech'.
A Charter would lead to 'judicial creep', because courts would start telling governments what to do, and governments wouldn't exercise their oversight powers (presumably because they're afraid). (Mind you, in answering a question, he completely contradicted himself on this one - governments would exercise those powers - so he weakened himself on this one.)
A Charter wouldn't protect 'minorities'. Look at the US - African-American people are still poor!
A Charter would mean you would be worse off socioeconomically. (He didn't even try to explain how this worked.)
I keep reminding myself that this man is a former politician. He lived, breathed and ate spin while he was in power, and clearly, he never got out of the habit. And I'm sure there are potential problems with instituting a Charter of Human Rights, but the sheer, unmitigated hide of Carr trying to argue that a Charter would somehow destroy Civilisation As We Know It takes my breath away.
To take Carr's arguments to the absurd extreme, a Charter of Rights would see people running amok in the streets, assaulting and raping with abandon. A Charter would see terrorists blowing buildings up left, right and centre, poor people without any health care options whatsoever, and everyone destroying themselves (and those nearby) by taking up smoking again, because now they have a right to do that. And police never abuse their powers, so why should they be subject to a Charter of Rights? Without a Charter, we're all moral enough to do the right thing. With it, we will degenerate into vicious psychopaths.
This is completely irresponsible. Carr has crowed that the Disability Discrimination Act has 'proved' that we don't need an overarching Act of Parliament to guarantee our Human Rights. He completely fails to mention that, before the Act existed, there was nothing to make any given building accessible to those in a wheel chair. Before the Act, a job could be denied to a perfectly qualified person who might require a little extra help (perhaps in the form of a handrail on a ramp). He also fails to mention that the Act did not come about without a significant, ongoing lobbying campaign. If all people who sought to have their rights legislated followed the same example, there would need to be an exhaustive, ongoing lobbying campaign by diffuse groups. The sheer amount of legislation needed would be prohibitive, and many Bills would be likely to fail. For example - can you really see a Bill to protect the rights of same-sex couples to marry being passed? A Bill protecting the right of a pagan to own or carry a ceremonial knife? A Bill asserting the right of a Muslim woman to wear a burqa if she so desired? Such small, specific Bills would be likely to fail on prejudicial grounds alone. An overarching Charter of Rights would encompass these things, and results from all those groups acting for a common goal.
And what's particularly ironic is that, under our current laws and Constitution, Carr has no 'right' to say any of that. At any time, Carr could be shut down. He has no right to free speech. If the government didn't like what he was saying, they could stop him. It's not like it's never been done before. Remember how an entry visa was refused to Holocaust-denier David Irving? Remember how a non-violent activist was seized and deported because it was feared he would 'agitate'?
There's not even a right for the Committee to come together and discuss the issue at all. We have no right of association. Anyone who's ever participated in a peaceful demonstration or sit-in and been 'dispersed' (what a lovely euphemism) by police knows that. If the police deem your gathering to be a public nuisance, they don't have to prove it. They can act on it straightaway. It's up to you to seek recourse through the judicial system (as those protesting the closure of Richmond Secondary College could attest).
Carr's whole ability to make his argument depends on the very rights which do not currently exist, and which he would claim should not exist.
See, the difference between those who think like Carr, and those who are advocating for a Charter, is that the advocates have no trouble with the idea that Carr should be able to say these things. And Carr, apparently, has no trouble exploiting an assumed right in his quest to quash the idea that anyone might ever get that explicit right.
Not only irresponsible, but a hypocrite.
Tell you what, Mr Carr. Let's take away every one of your assumed rights. We won't break the law. We'll just stop protecting something that doesn't exist. After all, by your own argument, the mere thought of these rights is dangerous. We'll take away your speech, your right to health care, your right to be served in a shop, your right to a bank account, your right to dress as you please, your right to marry who you please, and your right to travel where and when you please.
And it's no good protesting that this is just being extreme, Mr Carr. This is the logical outcome of a society without those protections. Sooner or later, every assumed right gets abrogated. Let's start with yours, and see if you change your tune.