A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

Champas Socialist

Join Date 07/2004

A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

So we should all vote for Bush?

I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.

democrat

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Other people like catcoblasta have already made most of the points I will now make, but I feel I shouldn't leave the defence of my comments entirely to other people.

>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.

Then I suggest you get a sense of humour. I have made fun of my Prime Minister and I don't consider it an attack on my country. I have made fun of my Opposition Leader, who I suppported on this blog quite openly, and I didn't consider it an attack on my country. In fact there is not one leader in the Australian Parliament I haven't made fun of, and yet I am a very proud Australian. Politicians are all fallible and it is the duty of democratic citizens to hold them to account. I personally think Bush is more in need of being held to account than most and I am expressing that opinion.

>Oh, and thanks for insulting me too, by the way

Any time Mythical Mino, but I don't see where I did that. If you are referring to my calling the Republican arguments stupid, I ask what did you expect from a blog called Champagne Socialism? I obviously disagree with the Republican arguments, and I was simply saying it in a slightly more humorous way. Lemme guess: you didn't find it funny. Oh well.

>The hate filled left first accuses him of supreme manipulation, and then extreme stupidity.

Well I'm not sure about the rest of the hate-filled left, but personally I accuse the Republican team of reasonable manipulation (not supreme because it failed to convince many of us) and I accuse Bushy of extreme stupidity.

>That is if you can open your mind to new information.

Well I don't see you providing a whole lot of that here. But please enlighten me with your great wisdom if you can deign to do so. I read a lot of blogs in joeuser, and that includes many of the Right wing blogs that supposedly provide most of this amazing info you speak of and I simply find it unconvincing for reasons that I sometimes tell the author.

>Well I could always chime in and add negative comments about John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin, Koizumi Junichiro, etc

Okay but you'll have to wait a long time to catch up to me on Chirac and Howard. Feel free to add comments about Mark Latham too if you want. He's our Opposition Leader btw. He just lost the election we had on 9 October.

>As if Kerry's the best the Democrats have. I also like how you fail to mention Kerry, almost as if Americans are voting between Bush >and an empty space.

Possibly he's not. But what the Australian media has shown me of Kerry at work has impressed me greatly. He comes across to me as informed, strong and intelligent. I didn't mention Kerry because that's not the topic of this article. Pure and simple. I also didn't mention the leader of the Libertarians or the Greens. Does that mean I think this is a two horse race simply because the Centre-Right media portrays it as such? I would probably support the Greens leader if I knew about him, but I don't so I don't comment. I like what I've seen of Kerry, but I don't have anything new to add to what has already been said about him.

>You need to get a grip. The man is the President of "my" country and obviously not your country. And as such is a representative of "my" >nation. So when he's made fun of in the fashion that was used, in actuallity taking a poke at " my" country. And your attitude sir is why >most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks. And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't >feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.

What about when Bush criticises my Oppositon Leader? The Right can dish it out.... You seem to want all the praise from your actions but none of the criticism when you make mistakes. My Prime Minister's son is currently in America helping the Bush campaign and the PM has exressed his hope that Bush will win. I don't see you complaining about Australia's involvement then.
I am by no means an anti-American. I am what you would call a left winger (I think these labels are silly but let's save that for another time) and I am critical of the Right. I'm friends with Americans and I actually quite often stick up for Americans against some of the racist anti-American generalisations I hear in Australia. But I do not like every American and I do not like every Australian. And I wholeheartedly disagree with Bush. I take the piss out of him just like I take the piss out of everyone.

What about when Bush criticised the President of Iraq? Was that a swipe at the entire nation and all its people? If so, then I am concerned that the USA is involved in Iraq militarily because I had been led to believe you had admirable intentions, if not admirable methods.

What about when Bush took swipes at the UN? Does that mean he hates every person in over 100 countries? He really is more of a worry than I had realised then.

The actions of Bush have far wider implications than just for Americans. Awful as John Howard is, I doubt he would have pushed for a war on Iraq if Bush hadn't sugested it first. And I doubt Howard will suggest war on another country until Bush suggests it during his 2nd term. Because of this I am deeply concerned by the USA election. The Iraq War has led to attacks on and deathly threats to my country, which means that my life is endangered by it. Many Australians have already lost their lives in Iraq or in Indonesia because of this war. I pray that the American voters do not exacerbate these problems. The USA's military actions have become so far-reaching that it is almost at the point where countries like Australia deserve to get a vote on USA elections.

>I'm a little sick and tired of people who don't live here saying that we're a bad country because of what's going on in Iraq.

Me too. America is not a bad country. There are a lot of beautiful people there. Without America, we would have no rock n roll. We would have no jazz. No hippies. Too few multicultural societies. No Martin Luther King. We wouldn't have Broadway musicals. We wouldn't have many of my favourite movies like Casablanca, Notting Hill and Return to Me. Russell Crowe wouldn't have got a job in Beautiful Mind. I have 3 heroes and one of them is the American philosopher Judith Butler. I just think the USA Government has made a complete mess-up of Iraq.

>everyone in the world has the right to criticize, since his decisions have affected the whole world.
>I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's >shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.

Nail on the head, thankyou.

>Draginol: I don't think Champas really has looked deeply about learning anything about Bush. Rather, he just repeats what he's been >told over and over again.

No offence Draginol, but why is it that whenever the Right believe something, they are enlightened thinkers and when the Left believes something we're all just a bunch of sheep? My assessment of Bush is that there is more to it than a simple lack of ability at public speaking.

>I find it unlikely that Kerry is more "intelligent" than Bush. Kerry's thought process shows a distinct lack of logic >and reason based on >his actions during his life. His understanding of global politics and diplomacy seem almost..child like. There is >something infantile >about Kerry that I can't put my finger on.

Well until you do put your finger on it, I am unlikely to be convinced by your assessment of Kerry. I outlined several reasons why I think John Howard is a foreign affairs klutz and I have also outlined several reasons why I think Bush is poor at foreign relations. There are many more reasons I haven't gone into, but I feel Bush, like Howard, suffers from a problem of shooting off his mouth about foreign countries in a way that is detrimental to diplomacy. What I have seen of Kerry has shown him to be a very well-reasoned man, about as intelligent as Bush Senior was.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #26 By: Champas Socialist - 10/30/2004 10:53:29 PM
Other people like catcoblasta have already made most of the points I will now make, but I feel I shouldn't leave the defence of my comments entirely to other people.

>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.

Then I suggest you get a sense of humour. I have made fun of my Prime Minister and I don't consider it an attack on my country. I have made fun of my Opposition Leader, who I suppported on this blog quite openly, and I didn't consider it an attack on my country. In fact there is not one leader in the Australian Parliament I haven't made fun of, and yet I am a very proud Australian. Politicians are all fallible and it is the duty of democratic citizens to hold them to account. I personally think Bush is more in need of being held to account than most and I am expressing that opinion.

I don't need to get a sense of humor. If you allow other people to make fun of your PM that's on you. Your not an American so I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding. Again, I ask you, why are you allowed to criticise us but not vice versa and why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism? I've put this point better above, but it seems it was too long for you to cope with.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #28 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:00:04 AM
How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding. Again, I ask you, why are you allowed to criticise us but not vice versa and why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism? I've put this point better above, but it seems it was too long for you to cope with.

You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours and I'll not only shut-up but I'll apoligize too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How convenient drmiler that my race prevents me from understanding

It has nothing to do with your race yo-yo. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with the way you were brought up and the values you were taught as a child. I'm not saying that you have no values, far from it. But your values will not be the same as mine. That's why you won't understand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism?

I accept no praise from other countries. Obviously you haven't *read* what I post. For the most part I could care less whether or not a particular country likes or hates us!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.

What drmiler said was that he didn't "...like someone ... making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion". That is freedom of speech. You say something I don't like, I say I don't like it. I say something you don't like, you say you don't like it. That's not censorship of any form.

I've heard accusations of censorship many times from the left in response to a negative reaction to their words. Someone disagreeing with you or complaining about what you said or booing you off the stage or not buying your records or movies is not censorship. Calling it so is only a poor attempt to paint those that disagree with you in a negative light.

There are always going to be some people that disagree with anything you say. Rather than trying to demonize them, you could learn to accept free speech and deal with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

>>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion

You know I really don't like someone who preaches free speech out one face and says stuff like this out their other face.

Is the problem you have simply that I used humour to criticise Bush instead of straight criticism? Again, I ask you what did you expect from this blog? My summary of this blog mentions Gideon's assessment of me as having a "wry sense of humour". Now I wouldn't use the word "wry" to describe myself, because I don't think I'm that funny, but I am attempting humour nonetheless and I advertise this fact. I like to engage in the arguments, and others who disagree with me have assessed me as backing my points up with facts, but that doesn't mean I won't also take the piss, because I think doing so is necessary.

It is irrelevant that I am not an American. Bush's actions have had very dramatic implications for Australians and for many other people too. In the words of Morrissey "America I love you but I wish you'd just stay where you are". Until Bush stops instigating wars that he expects my country to get involved in, until Bush stops considering himself the Sheriff of the world, until Bush stops ignoring the UN, this is what you will have to expect. I am frustrated with the policies the USA's Government has adopted because it affects the rest of the world in dramatic ways. Some people take their frustration out by making racist generalisations, others take them out by attacking you. I choose taking the piss. As the American comedian Mel Brooks says, how can your enemy attack you when they are falling over laughing?

>You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours

I didn't say you personally. I don't think you personally have the sense of humour to manage it. But Americans on both sides of politics make fun of foreign leaders all the time. So they should. I hate to break your illusions but politicians aren't Gods. >I accept no praise from other countries.

So are you opposed to Howard's son's involvement? I didn't see you denouncing Howard's comments about Bush. Austraia is involved in the War on Terror and as such we have a right to criticise it and the man who instigated it. Have you never criticised Hitler? Saddam? Yeltsin? Gorbachev? In which case you are in the extreme minority and I think it deplorable that you do not criticise these people.

Pictoratus, I have heard the same from the Right. Our PM claims one of the best things he has done is remove the veil of politically correct censorship that existed under Hawke. Calling someone a racist is stating your disagreement and why (not very intellectually I'll grant you), not censorship. However, drmiler said this of me:

>I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.

I don't have the right? drmiler may not have the access to delete my article but he certainly implies I should be censored.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #33 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:24:22 AM
You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours

I didn't say you personally. I don't think you personally have the sense of humour to manage it. But Americans on both sides of politics make fun of foreign leaders all the time. So they should. I hate to break your illusions but politicians aren't Gods. >I accept no praise from other countries. So are you opposed to Howard's son's involvement? I didn't see you denouncing Howard's comments about Bush. Austraia is involved in the War on Terror and as such we have a right to criticise it and the man who instigated it. Have you never criticised Hitler? Saddam? Yeltsin? Gorbachev? In which case you are in the extreme minority and I think it deplorable that you do not criticise these people.

It's not that I don't have a sense of humor. I do however screwy it may be. It's that my values will not allow me to do something like that!

It is irrelevant that I am not an American. Bush's actions have had very dramatic implications for Australians and for many other people too. In the words of Morrissey "America I love you but I wish you'd just stay where you are". Until Bush stops instigating wars that he expects my country to get involved in, until Bush stops considering himself the Sheriff of the world, until Bush stops ignoring the UN, this is what you will have to expect

Nobody twisted your countries arm to "make" them join us in the war!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I didn't say they twisted our arm, although comments like "you're either with us or against us" are hardly moderate attempts at persuasion. I think this is however irrelevant. As I said, America does not affect only America. My country is part of the Coalition of the Killing and I am critical of all members of the Coalition. Sorry, but it affects me. As a member of the human race I am critical of anyone who I perceive as committing offences against the human race. To restrict this to Australia argubaly would make me racist.

>It's not that I don't have a sense of humor.

I disagree. Prove it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

but he certainly implies I should be censored.

Again, that is not censorship.

While I don't believe that demonizing your oponent is exclusively left wing, the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election. On the whole, the left is the PC crowd; crying wolf quite often when their beliefs are questioned. It's both intellectually weak and dishonest, no matter who takes this easy way out, rather than stand firm in the face of criticism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #35 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:49:41 AM
I didn't say they twisted our arm, although comments like "you're either with us or against us" are hardly moderate attempts at persuasion. I think this is however irrelevant. As I said, America does not affect only America. My country is part of the Coalition of the Killing and I am critical of all members of the Coalition. Sorry, but it affects me. As a member of the human race I am critical of anyone who I perceive as committing offences against the human race. To restrict this to Australia argubaly would make me racist.

>It's not that I don't have a sense of humor.

I disagree. Prove it.

I don't have to. I'm an american. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove that I don't. (innocent until proven guilty is the phrase I'm looking for I do believe.) Ask myrrander , or texas wahine, or Grim X, etc... You have fallen back on a untenable position. You can't prove that I don't have a sense of humor so you expect me to prove I do. I didn't make the accusation. You did.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship. He may not have the account access to do it, but he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.

>the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election

It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it.

drmiler, I think you just proved my point for me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just a couple of things cuz I don't think Champ should have to battle alone. So very briefly:

I like Kerry. The man is not without his problems, but I like him.

Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both. Let's go back to his baseball days...Sammy Sosa for George Bell?!? He either didnt know what he was doing, or there was colossal "misleading intelligence." Let's look at Iraq. I have no problem going to Iraq to depose a leader such as Saddam Hussein was. However, according to Mr. Bush (see how hard I try to be civil), we went because they had WMDs. Remind me again where we found those...it appears to have slipped my mind. Iraq is clearly better off without Hussein, but would it kill Bush to say we went because of the oil. I certainly wouldn't respect him for it, but hey at least it would be honest.

On a closing note, the election is in two days, so could everyone just kindly shut up please. We'll all find out what happens, and then we can start arguing about why the world is better off and/or why it will go to hell.

That is all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.

I don't consider it anywhere close to censorship. Assuming what you say were to happen, what he said is still not censorship. It is an idea, a proposal, a suggestion. It is not an overt action that has denied you anything. No one has taken anyone's right away to criticize a public official.

It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it

My point was that rather than stick to the topic, in this case the suitability of the standing president, I have seen the left quite often resort to the censorship argument when faced with a negative reaction to their views. Reading the blogs here at JU, the claims of censorship have come largely, if not solely, from the left.

We have seen numerous instances of this, especially from people in the entertainment industry, who claimed that they were being censored after receiving a negative reaction to their publicly spoken views. They are equating repercussions to censorship.

Sure, there are zealots on both sides, but the Democrats are rapidly becoming the leading party in labeling and categorizing people with whom they disagree, even among their leaders.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #39 By: Philomedy - 10/31/2004 1:47:41 AM
Just a couple of things cuz I don't think Champ should have to battle alone. So very briefly:

I like Kerry. The man is not without his problems, but I like him.

Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both

And this is worse than being a traitor?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #38 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 1:05:11 AM
Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship. He may not have the account access to do it, but he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.<BR>
>the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election

It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it.

I don't see how MY saying ANYTHING will deprive you of anythingby any government. You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both.

Case in point. Rather than argue why Bush's political philosophy or methods are not the best course, it is much easier to attempt to discredit him by labeling him as deficient.

I'm not even going to get into the lack of decency that accepts publicy calling someone stupid, which also appears to be so prominent these days.

Successfully updated karma reason!

drmiler said:

You don't vote, you don't get to complain. He doesn't vote, ergo he doesn't get to complain.

You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!

Flip.

Flop.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #44 By: Joey Joe Joe (Anonymous) - 10/31/2004 7:34:59 PM
drmiler said:
You don't vote, you don't get to complain. He doesn't vote, ergo he doesn't get to complain.

You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!

Flip.

Flop.

Hey *my* name ain't *Kerry*!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship.

I don't see how MY saying ANYTHING will deprive you of anythingby any government. You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!

Its not what you said but the implications of what you said that is the point. If he didn't have the RIGHT to make fun of your president that would censorship.

As for what you said about "values" before. It seems your values are: if your president does something wrong we shouldn't speak against him, because he's your president. Wow, so much reason and logic there...I don't even know where to begin!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pictoratus, if we want to get as nit picky as you have, you might note that BlueDev's accusation was not actually an accusation of censorship, but an accusation of attempts at censorship. I have noticed many of the Right forgetting these sorts of little details when attempting to characterise the "Left". Just as the Australian Government rabbited on about Latham trying to get the troops home by Christmas ON THE CONDITION THE JOB WAS DONE.
Arguing in favour of my not having the right to criticise the President is an attempt at censorship in the same way that my blog is an attempt to get Kerry elected or in the same way that someone participating in any public debate is trying to convince others that their point of view should be the one taken on by Government and the majority.
Drmiler, your name might not be Kerry, but you flip flop as much as Bush, which is as much as Kerry. I just love how the Right never notice when they flip flop or when they throw names at other people or cry "censorship". Why? Because it's the Right's right. They are born to rule, Right? The Democrats and Republicans are very much equal on these fronts and you both should have the decency to admit it rather than being blinded by your own allegiances. There is more to the world than joeuser.
Pictoratus, it is relevant to call the President stupid if the shoe fits because this is a highly important job that takes intelligence to do well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #47 By: Champas Socialist - 11/1/2004 2:46:38 AM
Pictoratus, if we want to get as nit picky as you have, you might note that BlueDev's accusation was not actually an accusation of censorship, but an accusation of attempts at censorship. I have noticed many of the Right forgetting these sorts of little details when attempting to characterise the "Left". Just as the Australian Government rabbited on about Latham trying to get the troops home by Christmas ON THE CONDITION THE JOB WAS DONE.
Arguing in favour of my not having the right to criticise the President is an attempt at censorship in the same way that my blog is an attempt to get Kerry elected or in the same way that someone participating in any public debate is trying to convince others that their point of view should be the one taken on by Government and the majority.
Drmiler, your name might not be Kerry, but you flip flop as much as Bush, which is as much as Kerry. I just love how the Right never notice when they flip flop or when they throw names at other people or cry "censorship". Why? Because it's the Right's right. They are born to rule, Right? The Democrats and Republicans are very much equal on these fronts and you both should have the decency to admit it rather than being blinded by your own allegiances. There is more to the world than joeuser.
Pictoratus, it is relevant to call the President stupid if the shoe fits because this is a highly important job that takes intelligence to do well.

Could this all be because Austrailia does not have freedom of speech?

Research Note Index 2001-02

Research Note no. 42 2001-02
Free Speech and the Constitution
Roy Jordan
Law and Bills Digest Group
4 June 2002

International Background
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech:

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1)

Members of the Commonwealth Parliament reaffirmed the principles of the Declaration during a sitting on 10 December 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of the UDHR and pledged to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the Declaration.(2)

Article 19 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ... (3)

Australia is a signatory to this treaty(4) and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981,(5) no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.

Freedom of Speech and the Constitution
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns.(7) This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'. Issues arising from these decisions include defining when communication is 'political' and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.(8)

In 1942 a Constitutional Convention held in Canberra recommended that the Constitution be amended to include a new section 116A preventing the Commonwealth or a State passing laws which curtailed freedom of speech or of the press.(9) The government did not accept this proposal and it was not included in the referendum on 19 August 1944, when other constitutional amendments were proposed.

The advantage of having such rights written into the Constitution is that they are 'entrenched' and cannot be amended or removed by any government without the overwhelming approval of the people voting at a referendum to amend the Constitution.(10) Rights contained in other legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, are not entrenched. They may be amended or repealed by any government with the consent of Parliament.

Freedom of Speech and a Bill of Rights
Proposals for legislating for freedom of speech have been made mainly in the context of legislating for a Bill of Rights. Since 1973 at the Commonwealth level there have been attempts to legislate for a Bill of Rights which would incorporate provisions of the ICCPR, including Article 19, into Australian law. Various governments, parliamentary parties and individual members of parliament have introduced legislation to establish a statutory Bill of Rights, which would include the right to freedom of speech.(11) While lacking constitutional force, such an Act of Parliament would list various rights which could be enforced in the courts in many situations. The less complicated option of legislation, rather than amending the Constitution, has been preferred by proponents of a Bill of Rights.

More recently at the State level Parliamentary Committees in Queensland(12) and New South Wales(13) have considered a Bill of Rights but neither has recommended such a proposal. In 2002 the Australian Capital Territory government established a non-parliamentary committee to inquire into a Bill of Rights for the ACT.(14) Professor George Williams has summarised the arguments for and against the introduction of a Bill of Rights:(15)

FOR

Australian law does not protect fundamental freedoms

A Bill of Rights would give power of action to Australians who are otherwise powerless

A Bill of Rights would bring Australia into line with the rest of the world

A Bill of Rights would enhance Australian democracy by protecting the rights of minorities

A Bill of Rights would put rights above politics and arbitrary governmental action

A Bill of Rights would improve government policy making and administrative decision making

A Bill of Rights would serve an important educative function

A Bill of Rights would promote tolerance and understanding in the community

AGAINST

Rights are already well protected in Australia

The High Court is already protecting rights through its interpretation of the Constitution and the common law

Rights listed in the Constitution or Acts actually make little or no difference in protecting rights

The political system itself is the best protection of rights in Australia

A Bill of Rights would actually restrict rights, that is, to define a right is to limit it

A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic by giving unelected judges the power to override the judgment of Parliament

A Bill of Rights would politicise the judiciary

A Bill of Rights would be very expensive given the amount of litigation it would generate

A Bill of Rights would be alien to our tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty

A Bill of Rights would protect rights (e.g. the right to bear arms) which might not be so important to future generations

It is interesting to note that not only is there no legislation providing for freedom of speech either in the Constitution or in other legislation, but Governments have passed legislation to prevent free speech in certain circumstances. Examples include the various State and Territory defamation laws,(16) and racial vilification laws. Censorship laws may also be used to prevent freedom of speech by restricting distribution of certain films and publications, although these laws now serve mainly to classify publications according to the age groups which can see them, rather than preventing their publication.

Overseas Comparisons
The United States incorporated a Bill of Rights into its Constitution in 1789.(17) Other countries have legislated more recently for freedom of speech, mainly in legislation which is separate from their constitutions: Ireland in 1937, Canada in 1982, New Zealand in 1990, South Africa in 1996, and the United Kingdom in 1998.(18) The European Union has included freedom of expression and information in its Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for possible adoption by member states. This makes Australia alone among like-minded countries not to provide for freedom of speech in legislation or the national constitution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well boy thanks for informing me about my own country drmiler. I was unaware that we have had a debate about whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights or not to officially enshrine free speech.

It is generally acknowledged that other laws in Australia give us a fairly good chance of keeping some level of free speech (not even the US has full free speech) and all Governments who have opposed a Bill of Rights have simply said that it is unnecessary because Australians would not allow any Government to impinge these rights. I personally disagree, but your accusations against Australia show a clear lack of being informed about our local issuescurrently we have free speech, as acknowledged by member of the Coalition of the Killing, John Howard. Pictoratus, the Right seems to simply like to resort to calling us traitors or people who shouldn't have the right to free speech. This article has received the most comments of any I have written, and barely any have bothered to engage with my comments about Bush. Instead we have wound up with a silly debate about whether or not I have the right to make this assessment of Bush. I would be much more interested in people expanding upon why they think my assessment of Bush is so pompous and misguided, but the Right is too arrogant to explain for the most part.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Perhaps you should have actually read everything rather than jumping on a few lines here and there that fit your agenda.

drmiler said:

And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.

So, no, it wasn't an attempt to censor him, you are correct there and I was wrong. It was only a desire to do so. That sits nearly as bad with me.

I've heard accusations of censorship many times from the left in response to a negative reaction to their words.

If this is just a general comment and not directed at me, then I apologize. However, since it is in the post quoting me and appears to be directed, at least in part, to me, let me just say what a ridiculous statement this is. Not only am I not a liberal (have been a registered Republican ever since I was old enough too register and in many ways am more conservative than many here) but I also mentioned I voted for Bush 4 years ago. I don't regret that vote, but also don't agree with many of the things he has done in the past few years, and so am now registered as Unaffiliated, and am still weighing my choices for when I go to vote tomorrow as I am striving to determine who I believe is the lesser of the two evils presented us. Oh, but that's right, you don't know the first thing about me, and just decided to use my comments to fit some type of stereotype you have constructed. Good show.

Successfully updated karma reason!