OZschwitz slave pen: The crap that passes for individual rights

Since the bikie assault at Sydney Airport, governments have been considering whether to introduce laws similar to those in South Australia. These laws would restrict the rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of expression.

Is such restriction justified in a free and democratic society? Who should decide the limits on these rights - Parliament or the courts? What process should the parliamentarians or judges follow before deciding to impose such limits? Would the process and substance of a law vary greatly between Victoria and NSW, given that Victoria has a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, while NSW does not? These are not mere academic questions.

At 50 community roundtables across Australia, the National Human Rights Consultation has heard some say these decisions should be left to members of parliament who face election and who are privy to information that would never be available to unelected judges.

Others prefer that these decisions be made by judges. They argue that there have been too many instances in recent times when the basic human rights of unpopular minorities have been overlooked by governments too quick to respond to alleged threats, supported by public fears that prove ill-founded or less justified than first apprehended.

LNK

OZschwitz slave pen: The crap that passes for individual rights

OZschwitz slave pen: The crap that passes for individual rights

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

AnCaps On Rights, Individualism & Lifestyles