[LINK] UN declares that the right to privacy, including online privacy, is a human right

[Jan Whitaker]

At 09:33 AM 18/12/2013, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>The bottom line is that certain inalienable rights are awarded under 
>a Bill of Rights, and in the case of the US these are also backed up 
>by the Constitution and its amendments. In Australia we have 
>nothing. Of course, given the number of times the Bill of Rights in 
>the UK and US, and the Constitution in the US, have been ignored in 
>the past when put under ANY stress, it's probably a fair comment to 
>say that both pieces of legislation are more an expression of good 
>intent rather than hard-and-fast rules that will be followed in all 
>instances .... but broadly speaking a country's citizenry is better 
>off with a Bill of Rights than without one.
>
>In Australia the question has been put to our 'leaders' (and I use 
>the term sarcastically) on many occasions and without fail, both 
>left and right, have universally agreed that it would be much too 
>good for us. As ignorant Australian bogans who only have a use to 
>them once every three or four years, we don't deserve or need rights.

Agree with all that, Frank. It is extremely important for rights to 
be established in the operating rules of the society, e.g. the 
constitution. Otherwise, everything is up for grabs on the whim of 
the current crop of rulers because a new Parliament can change the 
rules as they see fit (and yes, they see themselves as 'rulers', a la 
'kings' and not 'governors', a la the representatives of the 
citizenry, otherwise we would have same-sex marriage, humane refugee 
programs, reductions in welfare for the wealthy, and respect for all 
people, not just those with money to influence/buy the outcomes they want).

The lack of any meaningful Constitution here, other than the 
mechanics of how the rulers get to rule, a technical document rather 
than a values document with a curb on the excesses of those 
politicians, does a few bad things. It allows for continual 
uncertainty and disruption. It allows for lying and deception from 
the political class. It allows for little separation of powers 
between the three branches (at least our form of government as it's 
being implemented), particularly when those making the laws are also 
those carrying out their implementation (fox/hen house), setting up 
the illogical position of a court having to return a determination 
based on shifting laws instead of a common basis of values. If there 
is a bad law passed by the Parliament, then the courts can't disallow 
(as far as I'm aware). It allows for retrospective legislation, which 
is beyond bizarre. Oversight agencies are stripped of their powers at 
a whim of whoever sits in the chair and controls the budgets (PPL 
versus NDIS anyone?).

We are fortunate (for now) that Australians are a pretty nice bunch. 
But if push ever came to shove, we're stuffed if a really bad bunch 
gets hold of the reins. We have zero recourse.

Sorry for the OT rant. I'm happy to hear where I've got the wrong end 
of the stick above. This probably needs a George Williams for clarity.

Jan





Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
~Margaret Atwood, writer

_ __________________ _