Notes: Saturday-Monday, December 4-6, 2010

1. Messrs. Glover and Kelly on, among other things, so-called gay marriage

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-true-history-of-the-beer-belly-gang-20101203-18jvj.html?skin=text-only
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-faces-crucial-test-on-greens-values/story-e6frg6zo-1225965403165

2. Mr. Muehlenberg with some new figures on euthanasia in the Low Countries

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/06/more-reasons-to-oppose-legalised-euthanasia/

3. More from Russia

From an article entitled "Obama faces Republican resistance over nuclear deal as Russia warns of new arms race" by one Giles Whittell and which appeared on page seventeen in the "WORLD" section of The Weekend Australian last Saturday and which is apparently not available on-line:

AFTER years of negotiations with Russia and months of lobbying congress, the White House has until Monday to persuade a single Republican senator to back a new nuclear arms treaty. Failure could start a new arms race, Moscow has warned.
Mr Obama has made the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) treaty, which would slash the Russian and US long-range nuclear arsenals by a third, his foreign policy priority for this session of congress.
It has the support of the Krem-lin, the Pentagon, seven former commanders of the US's nuclear forces and five secretaries of state to Republican presidents.
[...] Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told CNN on Wednesday that if ratification stalled in Washington, Moscow "will have to react somehow".
"Russia will simply be obligated to ensure its security with different means, including the deployment of new nuclear missiles," he added. [...]
THE TIMES

See also "Obama may give up tax rise to get missiles treaty":
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obama-may-give-up-tax-rise-to-get-missiles-treaty/story-e6frg6so-1225966229966

4. H.H. The Pope on, among other things, marriage, the natural law, and Church-State relations

Excerpts from items from a couple of recent Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletins:

COSTA RICA: CONTINUE TO BE A BEACON FOR PEACE

VATICAN CITY, 3 DEC 2010 (VIS) - Benedict XVI today received the Letters of Credence of Fernando F. Sanchez Campos, the new ambassador of Costa Rica to the Holy See, to whom he expressed his contentment at the Jubilee Year the nation is currently celebrating to mark the 375th anniversary of the discovery of the image of Our Lady of the Angels, the national patroness.

[...] "In this context", the Pope continued, "the public authorities must be the first to seek out what is of benefit to everyone, working principally as a moral force that augments each individual's freedom and sense of responsibility. This must not undermine the fundamental values which support the inviolable dignity of the person, beginning with the unswerving protection of human life. In this context I am pleased to recall that it was in your country that the Pact of San Jose was signed, which expressly recognises the value of human life from conception. Thus it is to be hoped that Costa Rica does not violate the rights of the unborn with laws that legitimise in vitro fertilisation or abortion".

The Holy Father then turned his attention to a new legal agreement which will, he said, "reaffirm the long history of mutual collaboration, healthy independence and mutual respect between the Holy See and Costa Rica", helping to guarantee "their traditional and fruitful understanding - more stably and more in keeping with current historical circumstances - with a view to the greater good of the country's religious and civil life".

[...] "A great contribution in this direction will be made if one of society's fundamental and irreplaceable pillars is strengthened: the stability and union of the family. This institution is suffering, perhaps like no other, the effects of the broad and rapid transformations of society and culture; nonetheless, it must not lose its true identity. ... Thus, no measure will be in vain if it favours, safeguards and supports marriage between a man and a woman". [...] CD/ VIS 20101203 (680)

HUNGARY: MEDIATOR BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

VATICAN CITY, 2 DEC 2010 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, Benedict XVI received the Letters of Credence of Gabor Gyorivanyi, the new Hungarian ambassador to the Holy See.

[...] "Without doubt the Catholic faith is one of the fundamental pillars of Hungarian history", the Holy Father added. "When, long ago in the year 1000, the young Hungarian Prince Stephen received the regal crown sent to him by Pope Sylvester II, this gift included the mandate to give faith in Jesus Christ a space and a home in that land. ... Of course we do not expect the State to impose a particular religion; rather, it should guarantee the freedom to confess and practice the faith. Nonetheless, politics and Christian faith do meet. ... This does nor mean imposing norms or codes of behaviour upon people who do not share the faith. It means, quite simply, purifying reason with the aim of helping to ensure that what is good and just may be recognised and put into practice, here and now".

The Pope then went on to refer to the important role played by Hungary following the fall of the Iron Curtain, to its entry into the European Union six years ago, and to its forthcoming presidency of the Council of Europe. "Hungary", he said, "is particularly called to act as mediator between East and West. The Holy Crown, the legacy of King Stephen, by uniting the circular 'corona graeca' with the arched 'corona latina', ... shows how East and West must support and enrich one another on the basis of their spiritual and cultural heritage, and on the living profession of faith".

Speaking them of the project for a new Hungarian constitution, the Pope expressed the hope "that it will be inspired by Christian values, especially as concerns the position of marriage and the family within society, and the protection of life".

He went on: "Marriage and the family constitute an essential foundation for the healthy development of civil society, of countries and of peoples. ... Europe would not be Europe if this basic social building block disappeared or was substantially transformed. ... The Church cannot approve legislative initiatives which involve the acceptance of alternative models of marriage and family life, as these would contribute to weakening the principles of natural law and thus to relativising legislation and society's understanding of values".

Finally Benedict XVI highlighted how the Catholic Church, "like other religious communities, plays a significant role in Hungarian society ... through her institutions in the field of education, culture, and social assistance, in this way she makes a useful contribution to the moral edification of your country. ... May the collaboration between the State and the Catholic Church in this field grow in the future and bring benefit to everyone".
CD/ VIS 20101202 (560)

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Nicholas, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Mr. Akerman and Mr. Kelly on an Australian Bill of Rights

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24781015-5001031,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24791480-12250,00.html?from=public_rss
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/mandate_for_bill_of_rights_an_improbable_claim/

Mr. Piers Akerman had a good opinion piece in last Thursday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph. Though I did not agree with all of it (particularly, I reject his assertion that “we have a common law system and parliamentary democracy which ultimately derives its power from us, the people”), it offered a timely reminder that

history shows that most Australians are far too sensible to want to remove the power they have entrusted to their elected representatives and pass it to unelected judges.

In September 1988, when proposals which included certain human rights measures were put to a referendum, they were comprehensively defeated in every state. …
(http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24781015-5001031,00.html)

The Australian Electoral Commission’s website has a bit more information on this (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Referendum_Dates_and_Results.htm). There, we read that the defeated 1988 proposal sought

to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government

In no State did a majority of electors vote in favour of it, and the national percentage of electors in favour of it was a mere 30.79. One suspects that, twenty years on, these results would only be reproduced if a similar proposal were put to a referendum. So given that Australians have rejected human rights being enshrined explicitly in the very Constitution of the Commonwealth, whyever would they bother having them recognised in a mere piece of legislation? But I suppose that the human rights mafia would answer that we just don’t know what’s good for us.

The Australian’s Editor-at-Large Mr. Paul Kelly had an even better opinion piece on the latest thrust for a bill of rights at the weekend, offering a comprehensive overview of the case against a rights charter. Again, I did not agree with all of (I don’t share his enthusiasm for democracy as the guarantor of rights, and we probably wouldn’t even agree on what a human right is), but it was particularly welcome for its amplification of the argument that an Australian bill of rights with an advisory role for the High Court would be unconstitutional (Mr. Kelly cited former chief justice Gerard Brennan and even Prof. George Williams, a vociferous advocate for a Federal charter), its reminder of how strongly pro-Charter the Federal Attorney-General is:

McClelland is a passionate believer of long standing who has backed strong change. In his June 2000 speech as shadow attorney-general, he called for a legislated charter of rights, attacked the founding fathers for bigotry over not including such measures in the Constitution, dismissed any notion of common law safeguards, mocked the idea of a democratically elected government being sufficient to safeguard rights, warned that majority law-making had the potential to be "just as hard and oppressive as any totalitarian regime" (yes, this man is now Australia's Attorney-General) and declared that inadequate health, education and employment conditions in country regions were also issues "of fundamental human rights".

Declaring that 'there has never been a greater need" for a legislated charter of rights, McClelland backed a system of "advisory opinions" from courts based on a charter with the onus for correction residing in the parliament. This would be buttressed by new committee arrangements to advise parliament on the extent to which bills comply with the charter of rights.

its pointing out the quandary that Fr. Brennan faces:

The intellectual contradiction on page after page of Brennan's book [Legislating Liberty, 1998] is his conviction that empowering judges is a fundamental mistake while he cannot envisage any other way to advance human rights.

and its demolition of the case for advancing Ahmed al-Kateb as a post-child for the need for a rights charter:

The lawyers enshrine the Ahmed al-Kateb case as proof of their cause. The point should be confronted. Al-Kateb, a stateless Palestinian, was an unauthorised boat arrival. He was not an Australian citizen, not a migrant and found repeatedly not to be a refugee. He was in breach of Australian law and the High Court upheld that law, which meant he was kept in detention. The claims by lawyers that this case of a non-citizen and non-refugee constitutes grounds for Australia to alter its system of governance are, frankly, preposterous. The Australian public would never accept this for a minute and they would be right. Al-Kateb was not going to be held in detention in perpetuity and the idea is ludicrous. The solution was going to come from Australia's democracy: the executive would negotiate a deportation or public opinion would force his release, and this is what happened.

It was also good for its description of

the "charter of rights" culture that almost totally infects Australia's legal system, from university tuition to the High Court. This corrosive culture cannot conceive that representative democracy is the best means of guaranteeing human rights. Distrust of elected government, hostility to executive authority and ignorance about the vast array of measures in Australian governance that safeguard human rights typifies the legal culture.

and of the rise of what Commonwealth Ombudsman Mr. John McMillan called "an entirely new framework for the control and accountability of state power", involving

the growth of auditors-general, ombudsmen, administrative tribunals, crime commissions, privacy commissioners, information commissioners, human rights and anti-discrimination commissioners, security and intelligence oversight bodies. Listed under the executive arm, their purpose is to check the executive.

[Prof. Helen] Irving affirms this argument. "Australia already has a strong record of legislation that protects rights (Sex Discrimination, Race Discriminations Acts)," she says. "We also have a range of common law rights. There are parliamentary committees that have a standing brief to examine legislation for breach of rights, for example, the Senate scrutiny of bills committee. Democracy is the best method of protecting human rights."

It’s a long article, but well worth reading in full. Interestingly, Prof. Williams had a letter published in today’s The Australian, in which he denied that a ‘declaration of compatibility’ was necessary for a charter, but failed to specify exactly what legislation that lacked such a provision would be good for! And, inexplicably, he thinks that despite provision for ‘declarations of incompatibility’ being hard to reconcile with the Consitution,

The best way forward would be to include the mechanism in an Australian law and to see what view the High Court takes. Only it can resolve the matter.

!!!!! So we should just push ahead with it, knowing that it’ll probably fail?! Mrs. Albrechtson’s pessimism is only becoming more and more appealing by the day: follow the power, follow the money, and, judging by Prof. Williams’s opinions, follow the ideological pre-occupations, regardless of whatever Constitutional barriers there might be. I only hope that the Rudd Government has the integrity not to rush whatever charter they concoct through Parliament without bringing it to an election first.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
15.XII.2008 A.D.