Horse 2327 - A Proposed Bill Of Rights Is Actually Mostly A Redundancy

As the country tears itself to pieces in the $122m brouhaha that is the same sex marriage postal vote, the Shadow Minister for Flying Under The Radar, Andrew Wilkie, has placed at the feet of the parliament, a piece of proposed legislation called the Australian Bill Of Rights Bill 2017. In this bill which could have only contained the word "bill" more often, if Bill Shorten had proposed it, the hope is that the loose ends of human rights legislation is tied up nicely​ in one place.

Regular readers of this blog will take note that I refer to instruments such as the Bill Of Rights Act 1689, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1945, and the Bill Of Rights as attached to the US Constitution and point to the fact that we already have legislation and principles which should define and guide society, with a degree of regularity. I very much like the common law principle that rights are deemed to exist unless hedged in by law and see no benefit in defining rights at all. I my not very well paid opinion, the explicit spelling out of human rights, limits people's imagination to the letter of the law and no more. I think that defining what people's rights are, paradoxically narrows rather than broadens the scope of what they could and should be. I find it disgusting for instance that in the 228 years since the passage of the US Constitution, there have only been 5 rights added to the list and they were only begun to be added after one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, and to correct the mistakes of three score and sixteen years before. No new rights such as the right to adequate health care or housing were added, even though Franklin D Roosevelt wanted to, and those questions are still being argued over today.

My great fear is that Mr Wilkie's bill will pass into law without due diligence and questioning being applied to it. I already have been through it in its entirety and have found for myself that more than 95% of it is just plain redundant, some of it actually removes existing rights and protections and actually causes harm, and the one Article contained in the specific Bill Of Rights which previously wasn't covered by already existing international treaties and conventions, is so vague as to be useless and pointless.

The "Australian Bill of Rights" is found in Section 19 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2017 and I find it curious that it only "Seeks to give effect to certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child by: declaring an Australian Bill of Rights" rather than all of them.

I've been through the text of Mr Wilkie's bill, and have complied some notes which mostly amounts to a series of redundancies; which says to me that the bill is quite rubbish.


19  Australian Bill of Rights
The Australian Bill of Rights is as follows:

Australian Bill of Rights
Division 1—Guarantee of rights and freedoms

Article 1
Entitlement to rights and freedoms without distinction
Every person is entitled to equality before the law and to the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights irrespective of distinctions such as race, colour, sex, intersex status, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, mental or physical disability or other status.

This is basically covered by Article 6 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. Article 6 is more elegant because it is far simpler to read and doesn't need to qualify its scope:
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
- Article 6, UDHR.

Article 2
Effect of Bill of Rights on existing rights and freedoms
A right or freedom existing under, or recognised by, any other law may not be taken to have been diminished or derogated from by reason only that the right or freedom is not set out in this Bill of Rights.

This is an standard interpretation of law as it is already. This Article is therefore redundant.

Article 3
Permissible limitations
(1) The rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights are subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
(2) A right or freedom set out in this Bill of Rights may not be limited by any law to any greater extent than is permitted by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Right here, the Act is limiting the ability and scope of the Bill of Rights Act. That in itself is both dangerous and stupid and should be struck off.

Division 2—Fundamental freedoms

Article 4
Freedom of expression
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication, and the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form, without interference and regardless of frontiers.
(2) A law may not authorise a person or group to express information that advocates national, racial or religious hatred and incites discrimination, hostility or violence.

This is basically covered by Article 19 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
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.
- Article 19, UDHR.

Part 2 though, goes on to extend provisions which are already contained within such acts as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 etc. This Article is therefore redundant.

Article 5
Freedom of thought and conscience
Every person has the right to freedom of thought and conscience, including the right to hold opinions without interference.

This is basically covered by Article 19 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. 
- Article 19, UDHR.

Article 6
Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief
Every person has the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of that person’s choice without coercion of any kind, and to manifest that religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, whether individually or in community with others and whether in public or in private.

This is also covered by Article 19 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. 
- Article 19, UDHR.

Article 7
Right of peaceful assembly
Every person has the right of peaceful assembly.

This is basically covered by Article 20 (1) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 
- Article 20(1), UDHR.

Article 8
Freedom of association
Every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of that person’s interests.

This is also covered by Article 20 (1) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. See above.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 
- Article 20(1), UDHR.

Article 20 (2) goes one step further though:
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
- Article 20(2), UDHR.

On one hand, Articles 7 & 8 of this Bill Of Rights spell out the positive right but they forget about the negative right which accompanies it.

Division 3—Equality rights
Article 9
Equal protection of the law
(1) Every person has the right without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Nothing in this Bill of Rights affects the operation of any earlier or later law by reason only of the fact that the law discriminates in favour of a class of persons for the purpose of redressing any disabilities particularly suffered by that class or arising from discrimination against that class.

How is this different to Article 1 of this same act?

Article 10
Rights of Indigenous peoples
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the following individual and collective rights and responsibilities:
(a) the right to revive, maintain and develop their ethnic and cultural characteristics and identities, including:
(i) their religion and spiritual development; and
(ii) their language and educational institutions;
(b) the right to claim native title for Indigenous lands and natural resources based on the recognition of their prior ownership;
(c) the right to manage their own affairs to the greatest possible extent while enjoying all the rights that other Australian citizens have in the political, economic, social and cultural life of Australia;
(d) the right to obtain reasonable financial and technical assistance from the Government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development in a spirit of co existence with other Australian citizens and in conditions of freedom and dignity;
(e) the responsibility to respect their laws and customs and to promote Indigenous culture.

This is covered by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is therefore redundant.

Article 11
Rights of minority groups
Persons who belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority have the right, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to  profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

Again, this is is covered by DRIPS but is spelled out at greater length by Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of that same United Nations Declaration; so this is also therefore redundant.

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their
cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,
protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of
their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts,
designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts
and literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which
may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous
peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual
property taken without their free, prior and informed consent
or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
- Article 11, DRIPS

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop
and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies;
the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy
to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control
of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their
human remains.
2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial
objects and human remains in their possession through fair,
transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with
indigenous peoples concerned.
- Article 12, DRIPS

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and
transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions,
philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate
and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is
protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand
and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings,
where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other
appropriate means.
- Article 13, DRIPS

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their
educational systems and institutions providing education in their
own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of
teaching and learning.
2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to
all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.
3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective
measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children,
including those living outside their communities, to have
access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided
in their own language.
- Article 14, DRIPS

Division 4—Civil and democratic rights 

Article 12
Right to life
(1) From birth, every human being has the inherent right to life and no person may be arbitrarily deprived of life.
(2) Every person has the right to bodily and psychological integrity.
(3) Every person has the right to end his or her life.

This one is really really sneaky. The preamble to the  Convention On The Rights Of The Child says:
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

So suddenly we go from a place where a child who had an inherent right to life before this Act, now does not. Furthermore, in losing their inherent right to life, they also lose the inherent right to any medical care that they would have otherwise been entitled to. Part 2 goes on to further clarify this by framing a right to bodily integrity, which is the usual cornerstone for claiming a right for a mother to have an abortion.
So although in Part 1, everyone has an inherent right to life, that right will only be conferred once they've been born, and before that point, the ability to be arbitrarily deprived of that life is cancelled and destroyed by Part 2.

Part 3 states that there is a right for someone to end their own life. Think about that for a second. Suicide is now a moral good and insurance companies and children who are looking to inherit from their parents, are by operation of this, tacitly empowered to use deception and duress to get an old person to sign the necessary paperwork to pop their clogs. How is this in any way acceptable?

Article 13
Liberty and security of person
(1) Every person has the right to liberty and security of person.
(2) No law may authorise the arbitrary arrest, detention or imprisonment of any person.
(3) No person may be deprived of liberty except on such grounds, and in accordance with such procedures, as are established by law.
(4) No person may be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Part 1 is covered by Article 3 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
- Article 3, UDHR.

Part 2 is covered by Article 9 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 
- Article 9, UDHR.

Part 3 is covered by Article 11 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 
- Article 11 (1), UDHR.

Part 4 is covered by Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.

Article 14
No torture or inhuman treatment and no experimentation without consent
(1) No person may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(2) No person may be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person’s free consent.
(3) Every person has the right to refuse any medical treatment for themselves.

Part 1 is covered by Article 5 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Part 2 is covered by Article 5 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
- Article 5, UDHR.

Part 3 is an implied right covered by Article 25(1) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 
- Article 25(1), UDHR.

Article 15
Slavery and servitude
No person may be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

This is covered by Article 4 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
- Article 4, UDHR.

What makes this doubly redundant in the framework of Australian law was the passage of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. The right not to be held in slavery was already protected by the abolition of slavery by an Act of Parliament.

Article 16
Right of participation in public life
Every Australian citizen has the right and will have the opportunity:
(a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; and
(b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections, which will be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; and
(c) to have access on general terms of equality to public employment.

Part a is covered by Article 21 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Part b is covered by Article 21(3) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Part c is covered by Article 21(2) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. 
- Article 21, UDHR.

I know that this is splitting hairs but given that this is a piece of proposed legislation, that seems only fair and just to me. Currently, the regulations of the Electoral Act 1918, define voting not as a right but as a duty. If this proposed legislation reduces voting to a mere right rather than an obligation of the citizenry, then this opens the door for those who would wish to narrow the franchise through voluntary inaction.
I think that there are some things which should not be rights but obligations which are enforced by law, because citizens of a nation should be legally bound to one another in that nationhood; these include voting, military service in times of war, jury duty, and the obligation to follow the law and pay taxes.

Article 17
Right to marry and to found a family
Recognising that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the Commonwealth or State Government:
(a) every person of marriageable age has the right to marry and to found a family; and
(b) no marriage may be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Part a is covered by Article 16 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Part b is covered by Article 16 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
The opening part of this is also covered by Article 16 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 
- Article 16, UDHR.

Article 18
Rights of the child
Recognising that every child has the right to such measures of protection as are required by the child’s age:
(a) every child has the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Bill of Rights to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the individual child; and
(b) every child will be registered immediately after birth and will have a name; and
(c) every child has the right to acquire a nationality; and
(d)every child will be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment under set age limits, or in work harmful to their morals or health, dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be prohibited and punishable by law.

Again, the. Convention On The Rights Of The Child already covers this and as before, this article does not confer any of these rights to a child before they have been born, as the international Convention previously did. This sounds good in principle but is destructive in the means by which it falls short of the existing Convention.

Article 19
Rights of movement within Australia
(1) Every person lawfully in Australia has the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence.
(2) A person who is lawfully in Australia but is not an Australian citizen may not be required to leave Australia except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.

Part a is covered by Article 13 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
Part b is covered by Article 13 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
- Article 13, UDHR.

Article 20
Right to enter Australia
(1) Every Australian citizen has the right to enter Australia.
(2) A law may restrict a citizen’s right to enter if that person is under legal investigation or sentence in another country.

Part 1 is covered by Article 13 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. See Above.
Part 2 has the potential to violate the Convention on Refugees and Stateless Persons and Article 13 of the UDHR. This should be eliminated entirely.

Article 21
Right to leave Australia
(1) Every person has the right to leave Australia.
(2) A law may restrict a person’s right to leave if that person is under legal investigation or sentence in Australia.

Part 1 is covered by Article 13 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. See above.
Part 2 is just a statement of common law principles and is therefore redundant.

Division 5—Economic and social rights

Article 22
Property
(1) Every natural or legal person has the right to peacefully enjoy the person’s possessions. No person may be deprived of the person’s possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
(2) This right does not impair the right of the Commonwealth or State Government to enforce laws it considers necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Part 1 is covered by Article 17 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant
Part 2 is covered by Article 17 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 
- Article 17, UDHR.

Article 23
Standard of living
(1) Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including:
(a) sufficient food and water; and
(b) clothing and housing; and
(c) access to health care services; and
(d)access to social security, including if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.
(2) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.
(3) The Commonwealth or State Government will take reasonable legislative and other measures to provide for the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

This entire Article is covered by Article 25 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. 
- Article 25, UDHR.

I'd go so far as to suggest that Part 2 of Article 25 of the UDHR is better expressed and because it specifically upholds motherhood and childhood as being vulnerable and requiring special protection, it is a nobler thing.

Article 24
Right to live in a safe society
Every person has the individual and collective right to live in a safe society and the collective and individual responsibility to act in a peaceful and non violent way.

This entire Article is covered by Article 29 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. This article is also the natural implication of every single piece of legislation and is therefore doubly redundant.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 
- Article 29 (1 and 2), UDHR.

Article 25
Right to adequate child care
A parent or other person responsible for the care of a child has the right of reasonable access to adequate child care facilities and the responsibility to ensure that the child is properly cared for.

This is covered by Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is therefore redundant.
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
- Article 3, CRC

Article 26
Right to education
No person may be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the Commonwealth or State Government will respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

This is covered by Article 26(1) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1)Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education
shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 
- Article 26(1), UDHR.

This also expanded upon by Articles 23, 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is therefore redundant.

Article 27
Work
(1)Every person has the right to work including the right to the opportunity to gain reasonable payment for work the person freely chooses or accepts.
(2) Every person has the right to just and favourable conditions of work including:
(a) fair and reasonable payment for work so as to provide a decent living as a minimum; and
(b) safe and healthy working conditions; and
(c) rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic and public holidays with pay.

This entire Article is covered by Articles 23 and 24 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 
- Article 23, UDHR.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. 
- Article 24, UDHR.

Article 28
Individual and collective development
Every person has the right to participate in and contribute to individual and collective economic, social and cultural development including:
(a) taking part in cultural life; and
(b) enjoying the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; and
(c) benefiting from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which the person is the author.

This entire Article is covered by Article 27 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 
- Article 27, UDHR.

Article 29
Environment
(1) Every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well being.
(2) The Commonwealth or State Government will take appropriate steps to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that:
(a) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; and
(b) promote conservation; and
(c) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Out of 29 Articles, this is the first one which isn't covered by a specific existing international convention or treaty. There are however more than 3,000 international environmental instruments which are enforceable; ranging from the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, Convention to Combat Desertification, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty etc.

I like this.

Division 6—Legal rights
Article 30
Right to protection from arbitrary interference
Every person has the right to:
(a) protection of privacy, family, home and correspondence from arbitrary or unlawful interference; and
(b) protection from unlawful attacks on honour and reputation.

This entire Article is covered by Article 12 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 
- Article 12, UDHR.

Article 31
Right to procedural fairness
(1) Every person has the right to have a decision by a tribunal or other public authority that may affect the person’s rights made in a way that observes the rules of procedural fairness.
(2) The rules of procedural fairness include:
(a) the rule that a person whose interests may be adversely affected by a decision will be given a reasonable opportunity to present a case; and
(b) the rule that the tribunal or authority will be impartial in the matter to be decided.

This Article is covered by Article 11(1) of the UDHR and is therefore redundant.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
- Article 11(1), UDHR.

Article 32
Right to legal assistance
Every person has the right to reasonable access to legal aid and the responsibility to accept assistance from a suitably qualified representative appointed by a court.

This Article is also covered by Article 11 of the UDHR and is therefore redundant. See Above.
This Article is also covered by Article 14(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
- Article 14(d), ICCPR.

Article 14(d) falls within a far more comprehensive framework just within that article; so I don't quite understand why this bill seeks to restrain that framework.

Article 33
Right to be informed of reasons for detention or arrest and of charges
Any person who is detained or arrested will be informed at the time of detention or arrest of the reasons for it, and will be informed promptly and in detail of any charges in a language which that person understands.

This Article is also covered by Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
- Article 3, ICCPR.

Article 34
Right to consult with lawyer and to remain silent
Any person detained in custody has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with a lawyer.

This Article is covered by Article 14(d) & the spirit of the right to remain silent rests with Article 14(g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
- Article 14(d), ICCPR.

(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
- Article 14(g), ICCPR.

Article 35
Hearings, release and trial
(1) Any person detained or arrested on a criminal charge will be brought promptly before a judge, magistrate or justice of the peace.
(2) No person awaiting trial may be unreasonably deprived of the right to release on giving a guarantee to appear for trial.
(3) Any person detained or arrested on a criminal charge has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

This Article is covered by Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.
- Article 9(3), ICCPR.

Article 36
Right to test lawfulness of detention
Any person deprived of liberty has the right to take proceedings before a court for the determination of the lawfulness of the detention and to be released if the court finds that the detention is not lawful.

This Article is also covered by Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
- Article 9(4), ICCPR.

Article 37
Presumption of innocence
Any person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

This Article is covered by Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
- Article 14(2), ICCPR.

Article 38
Right to fair hearing
In the determination of any criminal charge, or of any rights or obligations in a suit at law, every person has the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

This Article is covered by Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
- Article 14(1), ICCPR.

Article 39
Right to reasonable standard of criminal procedure
(1) Every person charged with a criminal offence has the following rights:
(a) the right to have the principles of due process applied to matters arising from the charge;
(b) the right to obtain legal assistance;
(c) the right to communicate with a lawyer;
(d) the right to legal assistance without cost, if the interests of justice so require and the person lacks sufficient means to pay for the assistance;
(e) the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
(f) the right to trial by jury if the person may be imprisoned for 3 or more years for the offence;
(g) the right to be present at any trial relating to the offence and to present a defence;
(h) the right to examine the witnesses against the person;
(i) the right to obtain the attendance of, and to examine, witnesses for the person;
(j) the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the person cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
(k) the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt;
(l) in the case of a child, the right to be dealt with in a manner which takes account of the child’s age.
(2) Every person who is found guilty to an offence has the right to be sentenced within a reasonable time and to be informed in a language that the person understands of the reasons for the sentence.

This Article is covered by Articles 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant. I shan't map this to all the specific provisions.

Article 40
No retrospective criminal offences or penalties
(1) No person may be convicted of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it occurred.
(2) No person convicted of any criminal offence is liable to a heavier penalty than was applicable at the time the offence was committed.

This Article is covered by Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
- Article 15(1), ICCPR.

Article 41
Right of review of conviction and sentence
Every person convicted of a criminal offence has the right to have the conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.

This Article is covered by Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
- Article 14(5), ICCPR.

Article 42
No trial or punishment for same offence
No person finally convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence may be tried or punished again for the same offence or for substantially the same offence arising out of the same facts.

This Article is also covered by Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.
- Article 14(7), ICCPR.

Article 43
Rights when deprived of liberty
(1) Every person deprived of liberty has the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
(2) So far as is practicable:
(a) accused persons will be segregated from convicted persons, and will be treated in a manner appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons; and
(b) accused children will be segregated from accused adults; and
(c) convicted children will be segregated from convicted adults, and will be treated in a manner appropriate to their age and legal status.

This Article is covered by Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is therefore redundant.
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2. (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.
- Article 10, ICCPR.

With the sole exception of Article 29 of Mr Wilkies proposed Bill of rights which concerns the environment, 42 of 43 components of this piece of legislation would be better dealt with with a single piece of legislation that binds existing conventions to Australian law and makes them enforceable.
The only thing that this pathetic bill does, is extend the right to kill babies and old people legally and that in my opinion means that this whole thing should be burned and the ashes hurled out of the window.

In summary, the passage of this bill while perhaps symbolic is either ignorant of existing human rights or is the vehicle by which some vulnerable people in society have their protections trampled upon. If those truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were supposedly self evident, then I'll need convincing that the recognition of a right which destroys all three, is any net benefit to society at all.
Any so called "right" which basically negates the proposal that murder is wrong, may as well be tearing up the whole damned book on human rights as far as I'm concerned because enshrining any rights at law is completely pointless to someone who is dead.

The vast of this Bill of Rights is already covered by existing international declarations and conventions; since Australia is already signed up to these, then simply passing them into law directly and without amendment, is in my opinion the best option. We already know what those documents are, they are already freely available.

Reference List:
Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2017 - http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5938
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 - http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2006 - http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

Horse 2326 - ALWAYS Follow Your Dreams

Always follow your dreams. 

No matter how insane or ridiculous they are; no matter if they are a physical impossibility or if in doing so you must break the law and be thrown in prison, always follow your dreams. Even if they involve driving a 1981 Mazda RX-7 with grenade launchers into the Battle of Salamis, despite that being a sea battle and it being impossible to drive a car on water and you not having access to time travel, you must follow your dreams.
Even if following your dreams means that you have to climb through the ranks of an evil empire, going against everything that you believe in, including murdering millions of people, you must follow your dreams. Especially if it requires you to put on a space helmet and fight space Nazis on the moon while riding a bear and singing the words of the US Constitution to the score of Aida, you must follow your dreams.

Failure to do so will result in your banishment and exclusion from civilised society and you will be forced to live as a hermit amidst the catacombs under the city of Oslo; living on a diet of nothing more than you can scrounge out of the bins out the back of Aldi Supermarkets and not being able to read Norweigan and facing possible death due to your hitherto unknown allergies to shellfish which causes anaphylaxis. It will mean that your hair will grow out long and you will start to wear overcoats to keep you from freezing to death in the sub Arctic Scandinavian winter. You will in due time be given a name which means "The Wizard Of The North" but you will misunderstand it to mean something incredibly rude and degrading; all because you didn't follow your dreams.

Deep down you know that if you do not heed this advice, you will have to settle for something less than your dreams and that means that you will invariably be unhappy. Instead of the gloriously insane and saccharin promises which are fulfilled if you follow your dreams, you will become one of the great unnamed masses who plods along in life and thinks that buying flat packed furniture is a fun day out. If you do have children, you will marvel at their lack of adventure when instead of wanting quinoa and kale, they wish want chips and sauce for dinner. You will buy a pair of track pants and sit in front of the television set, watching shows that follow a set three act format in an hour and wonder why that guy looks exactly the same as that other guy in that other show.

Of course you could just realise that the people who tell you to "follow your dreams" are pedaling a lie which is either designed to be trite or to sell you whatever product is sponsoring them. You could just as easily realise that following your dreams might mean changing your dreams because they are stupid. Even so, it's kind of fun to think about being the commander of an unholy kitten army of the night and conducting raids upon the parliament, before installing yourself as a benevolent dictator because the real world is a scary place which is full of invoices and bills and deadlines and people who want things, and children and parents and partners and pets being sick and eventually dying. What's wrong with running into a world of stupidity when the real world sucks?

So always follow your dreams because that way you will defeat the evil Capitalist Socialist Republican Reptile King from Atlantis by riding your trusty tiger Arnold into battle by storming his castle, armed only with a four foot long bratwurst and a pair of Dunlop Volleys. Always follow your dreams, even if it means that you'll go bankrupt and be thrown into prison for committing welfare fraud. Always follow your dreams, even if it means being arrested for trespassing on government property, because nobody who asks you to follow your dreams has any idea of how impractical, ridiculous or illegal your​ dreams are.
Now excuse me while I ride off into the sunset on a pedalo made of smoke.

Horse 2325 - Don't Wear A Baseball Cap With A Suit

It would have been really creepy of me if I took a photograph of the chap sitting over three seats from me, on the morning train to the city, but there's something that was really really giving me the irrits. This man in a suit and tie was wearing a New York Yankees baseball cap.
I have several problems with this on a number of levels,  but the absolute number one stand out reason is that given that he was wearing a suit and tie, he could have worn a trilby or flat cap instead.

Once upon a time in the land that they called the past, caps were baggy affairs which were made either in panels or rings and generally topped off with piping between the panels. The traditional cricket cap, as exemplified by Albion, was awarded to cricket players, football players and baseball players, alike. In fact, the term winning a cap, or to become a called player, implies that one has been awarded the highest honour possible by being called up to the national side. No doubt, the original sporting caps were of the sort awarded to boys in the great public schools and of the sort which would show up on the battlefields which the great powers frequently sent the disposable classes to fight on.
A baggy green cap is possibly the highest possible honour that can be awarded to a civilian in Australia, a baggy blue cap is an honour which an Englishman​ aspires to own, and a cap with a thistle, a flax plant or a harp, is a symbol of defiance to the English. The practice spread across Europe and South America with the arrival of international football and it still stands as a thing today.

In America though, for reasons of internal nationalism and isolationism, they chose to play sports which the rest of the world didn't. Baseball, basketball, and American Football, have their own traditions which don't map onto anything else in the world. Baseball though, has roughly the same problem as cricket does, when you have players standing out in the field for a long time. The baseball cap, with its larger brim and space at the front where you can put the team's logo, is a perfectly functional piece of kit for a very distinct purpose. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the rampant commercialism of the product either. In fact, curiously, the one place that you are unlikely to see advertising is on the jerseys of baseball, basketball, and American Football teams. That's all fine.
My objection is one of style and the rather jarring juxtaposition of a baseball cap and formal clothing.

A guy wearing a baseball style cap as a labourer, is sensible. Out there in the elements, they who actually do real back breaking work for a living, have exactly the same problem as a baseball player standing in the outfield. A truck driver in a trucker's hat, is arguably one of the most endearing and enduring symbols of a nation on the move and doing work. Two thumbs up.
A man in a suit, who sits in an office all day long, or worse, an executive or someone in management who doesn't really do any of the actual business of the company, looks really really daft in a baseball cap. The CEO of a major corporation in a baseball cap looks disgenuous and fake. The President Of The United States, no matter how often he tries to look like one of the people with a MAGA hat, looks like a manager who has wandered into the staff Christmas Party and wants praise from his employees, when what they really want is a chance to shoot the breeze and complain about management.

This whole thing about not wearing a baseball cap with a suit and tie, doesn't apply to other pieces of clothing. If you wear a pair of 14 hole Doc Martens Boots, nobody even knows. If you wear a pair of Chuck Taylor All Stars, people will think that you are secretly the Tenth Doctor. If you wear an Adidas jacket, or a denim jacket, or a knitted pullover, people will just think that you are cold. These things are functional.
Mixing things up isn't a problem. If you are a kid in a school where uniform is compulsory, then wearing a baseball cap is your only outlet for individualisation. That kind of doesn't apply in this case because this gentleman was obviously rich enough that he could have easily bought a whole range of suits, ties and other hats. This just looked foolish and denied an awareness of a sense of place.

That sense of place was brought home for me recently when I saw the film Lincoln recently. Sure, we might think that Abraham Lincoln looks kind of dated and very much of the time in a stovepipe hat but he was the President Of The United States; he looked as appropriately trimmed as Isambard Kingdom Brunel or Benjamin Disraeli would have. Chairman Mao looks absolutely perfect in that weird hat that he had to accompany the Zhongshan suit if you care to ignore the terrible implications that accompany it, and John F Kennedy in a bowler hat looked like he knew where his place was upon the world's stage.
There is a dude in a high-vis polar fleece who is sitting a little bit further down the train and he has a bucket hat on. I expect that he is probably either a plumber, chippy or sparky; whatever the case, he falls into that same category as a labourer or truck driver. This chap in the suit and tie isn't fooling anyone with his New York Yankees hat. It looks clean and crisp and as though not even a sprinkle of mist has ever fallen upon it.
Being in Sydney at 7:39am, it is 1:39pm in New York City and the chances of him going somewhere to watch a baseball game on television is nil. I can't even imagine the reason why he'd want to wear a baseball cap on the train. If there was a World Series or something and the Yankees had won the pennant, then I will readily rescind this whole thing but if he's just wearing a baseball cap with a suit and tie, I'm prepared to go out on a limb as a Non Commissioned Officer of the Fashion Police and say that he looks madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mister Mad Man competition.

A stovepipe hat though... If he had had one of those, he would have been crowned King Of Town there and then.

Horse 2324 - x²-1 Is Divisible By 8 For All Odd x

WARNING: MATHS AHEAD!*

I was speaking to someone earlier this week and I happened to make the observation on the fly that:

If you take any odd number and square it, then take away 1, then that result will always be divisible by 8.

On the face of it, that seems like some absolutely mind blowing thing; but in reality I just happened to notice something really really quickly because I live in a world where playing with arithmetic is commonplace.
Cast your minds back to high school algebra and consider the rather short expression...

x²-1

If you'll remember from algebra, the full binomial expansion of this is...

(x+1)(x-1)

This is easy enough to prove...

(x+1)(x-1)
x² + 1x - 1x - 1 (First, Inside, Outside, Last)**
x² - 1

The thing is though that for every odd number x, the two numbers either side, that is x-1 and x+1 are both even. That sounds so elementary that even John Watson in Kindergarten who is going to elementary school should realise how elementary it is.
The next leap of logic though is that one of those numbers, either x-1 or x+1 is a multiple of four, because every second even number is a multiple of four.

Without even telling you what say, 105,827 x 105,827 is, I can tell you that it equals whatever (105,826 x 105,828) +1 is; I already know that because the last two digits of 105,828 are divisible by four, then 105,828 is and because the other number is even, whatever the answer is, is going to be divisible by 8.

For the record, 105,827 x 105,827 = 11,199,353,929 and...
11,199,353,929 - 1 = 11,199,353,928. (which is divisible by 8).
11,199,353,928 = 105,826 x 105,828

Sounds stupid?

If you test the smallest odd number (because x²-1 has a lower limit), then you get when x = 1

1² + 1 - 1 - 1
= 0

0 is is divisible by 8.

QED.

Incidentally, that general suggestion that the square of a number minus 1 equals the two numbers either side multiplied together, also holds true for 0.

0²-1
= -1

And:
-1 x +1 = -1

That's probably a trivial case though.

*I don't know what factorial "MATHS AHEAD" would be.
**Also called the "Foil Method" for ease of remembering.

Horse 2323 - The Extinction of Male Primary School Teachers

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/male-primary-school-teachers-extinct-in-australia-in-50-years/8956770
The number of male teachers is dropping so dramatically there will be none left in Australian primary schools within 50 years unless governments take action, researchers say.
Australia's first longitudinal study of teacher numbers has found the number of male primary school and high school teachers has fallen 10 per cent and 14 per cent respectively since 1977.
- Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop, ABC News, 18th Sep 2017.

I have been asked in the past why I never became a teacher. While this is a well meaning question, it misses out on rather obvious facts that teachers are a breed apart, and that it requires storehouses of patience and understanding to deal with a classroom full of other people's children.
Teachers are a special kind of people who need the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, the voice of Churchill, and the authority of Thatcher. Think about it, you are basically the manager, disciplinarian, and entertainer of a score and a bit of children; in addition to having the responsibility of imparting knowledge. To become a teacher is a noble and special calling and demands a noble and special person to do the job. I am simply not that person and even if I was, I still would never do it.
Why?
Because children are awful and their parents are worse. Children are demanding and impetuous but parents can be vengeful and downright nasty.

The demands of the job already act as a pretty powerful filter, to eliminate potential candidates to join the profession. If that wasn't bad enough, the world itself has changed and become less trusting, which quite rightly it should be, and far more litigious; that by itself is more than enough to eliminate each and every male candidate.
Probably the research will want to speak about societal projections of gender upon employment and whether or not a particular job is seen as not being as masculine as something else. To be fair, society has shifted when it comes to some professions such as nursing and aged care but when it comes to teaching, once you add the element of there being children involved, very high profile cases in the media have changed society's perception of what is and isn't acceptable. This article is no different:

Dr McGrath said men were being turned off teaching because of low pay and the perception it is a feminine profession.

However, the teaching profession can eliminate each and every single male candidate who wants to enter the teaching profession with just the mere hint of a single word "rape". It never needs to be uttered, it never needs to be hinted at, it doesn't even have to be true. There is an underlying assumption in society, that every single male between the ages of 18-65 is a potential rapist, and that by itself is more than reason enough to disqualify every single male candidate who wants to become a teacher.
Make a misstep as an accountant and you can fix it quite easily. If you are a tradesperson like a plumber and you commit some serious error, the industry will usually accommodate you and you can find another job. If you are a teacher though, and even if you have a perfectly clear record of service, just the mere suggestion of impropriety and your whole career can be destroyed, even if the claim was absolutely baseless and​ it was brought forth by a parent because little Judy or Johnny was an intolerable little git and you gave them a failing mark. I don't know of many professions where the baseless vengeance of people can destroy someone's career and livelihood, and sully their reputation so quickly and easily. My advice to any owner of mismatched chromosomes who wants to become a teacher is, Don't! 

In principle, the labour market is broadly the same as markets for other goods and services. The big difference with the labour market is that individuals tend to specialise quite early on in their careers and that means that labour itself, isn't exactly all that fungible. The labour market has barriers of entry and the barriers to entry to the supply of labour as a teacher are quite high. It requires a university education, it requires a certain kind of character, and the pay isn't exactly as generous as you would expect for someone who has to deal with sometimes unfriendly and even dangerous children.
Throw in the extra barrier that you may be accused of something hideous, which is unfounded and completely untrue, but which society has already become judge, jury, and executioner,  and what you get is the market for labour responding in the most appropriate way by withdrawing supply. If a perceived barrier to entry to a market is sufficiently high, nobody should be surprised if potential suppliers to that market are unwilling to jump the barrier. The fact that there are less male teachers in the profession, should be seen as nothing more than a logical solution to the conditions of entry to the market.

For all the talk about gender equality in the workplace and what are perceived as female and male oocupations, you can say anything you like but when society screams even louder, you'd best listen. Men, you're not welcome as teachers; get out and stay out; or better yet, don't get into it in the first place.

Horse 2322 - Na-na Na-na Na-na Na-na, Na-na Na-na, 1966 Batman! or Why I Like The Cheesiest Batman Of All

If I may be so bold that I'll just say something: I like 1966 Batman.
Since the death of Adam West, SBS on Viceland and on OnDemand, has been playing 1966 Batman and I have been really enjoying it; the weird thing is that I have been enjoying it unironically.

1966 Batman was pitched to CBS as a comedy series and immediately that poses problems for hard core superhero fans. If the last decade of cinema has been anything to go by, those fans want something darker and edgier and yet 1966 Batman is neither of these things. It is gloriously self aware of how naff it is, from the absolute earnestness of the acting and especially Adam West's, to the fact that everything is unnecessarily labelled, to the fight scenes which are badly choreographed fisticuffs overlayed with "Pow!", "Socko!" and "Splat!" title cards and blasts on the trumpet, to the iconic theme song which by any possible objective measure is rubbish.
In principle you have a superhero comedy show, which actively cheapens the idea of a superhero television show and makes a mockery of the genre. Perhaps that's why I like the idea of 1966 Batman so much. 1966 Batman is from the outset a comedy series, so it has no need to either take itself seriously, nor explain itself, nor maintain a hard sense of internal logic. It is what it is and is better for it.

Comic book fans like any proper fans of anything, are obsessively obsessive. They love their chosen fandom unironically and so there is something noble in that. However, when it comes to superhero comics, I was never one of those people.
I could never be that obsessively obsessive.
The reason, I suspect, is that I was never prepared to put in the effort to be as obsessive as the genre demands. Superhero comics are incredibly dense pieces of media with expansive back stories and internal references. For someone trying to enter that from the outside, it seems almost impregnable and this probably helps to explain why so many of these modern films need to include a back story. The amount of time and effort which it takes as an investment into those references and back stories, was more than I cared to spend. Although having said that, I don't think ill of anyone who has done so because people like what they like and to buy in on something unironically is a fun thing.
On the other hand, the investment required for 1966 Batman is minimal; it makes no attempt to explain any of the back story at all. The reason why millionaire Bruce Wayne has decided to become a vigilante is never given. The reason why Bruce Wayne has adopted Dick Grayson as a ward is never given. The reason why Dick's aunt Harriet Cooper has come to live with them is never given. The show makes no attempt whatsoever to explain anything within the universe and as someone watching it from the outside, who isn't a fan, it makes the series incredibly accessible. I don't need to know a whole bunch of stuff in order to watch this show.

Another element of 1966 Batman which I find especially appealing is that I know that it knows that I know that the show is naff. Critics might rag on the inclusion of labels for a whole bunch of things, but that shows to me that whoever made the series, must have been versed in the visual language of the comic books to begin with. The show is an attempt to bring the style of 1940s, 50s and 60s comic books to the small screen and it does so by riffing on the existing visual language that it was given.
As a fan of radio shows such as The Goon Show, Round The Horne, Dragnet and more modern fare like Doctor Who, Poirot and Undone, I understand the need to throw away the "show, don't tell" rule when the need exists. I also rather like the overacting of The Joker, The Riddler, The Penguin and the rest of the villains. The show has an utterly brilliant internal visual and audio style, which is designed to let you know that the villains are villainous and the heroes are heroic. From Cesar Romario's ham acting, to the camera angles which are always tilted when the villains are coming up with their terrible schemes, 1966 Batman knows what it is.
The premises are often "villian of the week" steals some valuable jewels and while that is a trope as old as the hills, that still plays into the style and language of the genre. It means that every pair of episodes is self contained and even that is kind of like two halves of a 48 page comic, with the staples in the middle.

I couldn't very well write a post about 1966 Batman without mentioning the Batmobile. It doesn't matter which iteration that you're talking about, the Batmobile is surely one of the icons of the mythos and almost nearly deserves to be included as a character in its own right. I have seen at the library, a coffee table book of about 500 pages, which only looks at the history of the Batmobile; that's how important it is.

I have no idea how CBS managed to get Ford Motor Company to give them the Lincoln Futura prototype show car but that was a stroke of genius. Batman's car is obviously Batman's car and yet it is both plausible and ridiculous at the same time. Within the series, where styling cues have moved on from the fins of the 1950s, the Batmobile itself looks dated against the squarer cars which were contemporary. Within the series, the Batmobile looks dated and yet precisely because it is all swoopy and clothed in 1950s futurism, it is perfect. I suspect that at the time, they knew that a golden age of car styling had passed and had the Batmobile been a 1966 Chevrolet Impala, it would have looked stayed and stodgy.

I also like how because of the limited budget, the producers of the show mostly dispensed with high tech gadgetry and the entire of just about everyone's arsenal is a collection of spring loaded devices and smoke bombs. I like that when Batman and Robin need to climb a wall with the Bat-rope, the visual effect is obviously that they tilted the camera sideways. I even like the diabolical laughter, diabolical dialogue and diabolical acting in the show.
Presumably if you were going to make a Batman television show in 2017, you'd want to have a good visual effects team, you'd write the show to be dead serious, and Batman himself would be brooding and sombre. That's fine I suppose but all of that requires a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. 1966 Batman enters through the stupid part of someone's brain and the amount of effort to enjoy the show is minimal.

This is the thing about the superhero genre in general. I don't really relate to the characters because the world is so unreal as to be unenterable for me. I don't care that Superman has super strength, sight, hearing and whatnot because he's as dull as dishwater. I don't care that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider. I understand that the X-Men are all outcasts and I kind of see the motives in that world but again, it's not enough to make me want to care. I can make a pretty good case that although Superman supposedly embodies everything that we are supposed to be, he himself is an insufferable git. Peter Parker comes off as a whiny little swat, except in the animated series where because he had no dialogue, he ventured into the realm of the surreal. The X-Men are an ensemble cast who are designed to tick boxes and the only one of any interest is Wolverine but even then, he's too boring to make a series about.
Batman isn't a superhero. In 1966 Batman, he makes no attempt to be one either. No, Batman is a rich dude who just happens to own a lot of stuff. In every single version of the story, Batman's super power is buying things; Batman after it is all said and done is just a dude. In 1966 Batman, he is a rich dude who happens to own a bunch of really stupid stuff, which also happens to include a nuclear reactor. He also isn't particularly good at being a superhero either. He rather earnest though.

Just like one of those old video games where if you go out one side of the screen you pop back out of the other, 1966 Batman is so twee, the acting is so obvious, the dialogue is so disasterous, that it is a work of brilliance. It is absolutely tied to the date which it was written in but that doesn't matter. 1966 Batman is gloriously dumb and just over fifty years later as the world has tilted towards permanent outrage, darkness, and takes itself way too seriously, I'd go so far as to say that it is the best thing currently on television.

Horse 2321 - The Toyota C-HR: Simon Ella Rides With You

Once upon a time in the land that they call the past, Toyota was known for producing reliable and yet boring motor cars. From the Camry to the Corolla, the Yaris and the Hilux, a Toyota was a car that you bought if you wanted to go from A to B but didn't care about style. On the scale of exciting to bland where the inverse was reliability, Toyota was on one side and Alfa Romeo was on the other. Toyota drivers never ever wanted to see their mechanic and a Toyota was like having a brown bread sandwich where the filling was another slice of bread; Alfa Romeo drivers were on a first name basis with their mechanic and an Alfa Romeo was like a Vindaloo Hot Pot with Bordeaux, Tiramisu and seven shots of espresso - the end result was nasty but boy, was it ever fun.

Recently though, Toyota have gone halves with Subaru to create the GT86/BRZ, made the Camry look a little bit nicer by putting jam on the sandwich, and have made a compact utility vehicle called the C-HR. I personally don't understand the term CUV because it isn't exactly a utility and is more like a big hatchback. The C-HR looks pretty nifty and I imagine is pretty cool in the eyes of Toyota drivers but somehow it manages to be less cool than the Nissan Cube and a little less practical to boot.

One of the inherent problems with jacking up a station wagon or a hatchback is that because you've raised the height of the vehicle above the ground, that also raises the height of the tailgate. Sure, you might get a slightly deeper boot space into which you can stow even more of your stuff, the physical effort of lifting it higher becomes real tiring real quick.
I don't have sprogs but even I can see the logistic ramifications of hauling them around. If they are really wee tackers, then you're going to need a stroller to carry them around in, when you leave the vehicle. Even if you have one of those super space age strollers that I see the impossibly plastic people of Mosman carry their offspring in, the kind of stroller made from titanium and with wheels that belong on a mountain bike, that thing still weighs something and it's simply easier to lift it into a normal station wagon than it is a CUV or SUV.
I had a look inside the boot of the Toyota C-HR and to be honest, it wasn't that much of an improvement over a regular normal Corolla. This is where style has triumphed over form, to the detriment of practicality. Also on this note, when your​ sprogs get a little older and start toddling around under their own power and you get tired after chasing them around, in a normal station wagon you can just lie down and have a kip, whereas​ in a CUV or SUV that's impossible.

I wandered down to the closest Toyota dealership from where I work and decided to sit inside the vehicle. The front seats are perfectly acceptable and the C-HR looks like any other modern car. However, as the photograph shows, that rear window which is one of the styling cues of the car, is utterly terrible if you happen to be a small child.
When I was a wee lad myself, my sister had just moved from being in a booster seat to sitting without one. For a while she became incredibly car sick on many trips and this was partly solved by moving her to the front seat but the ultimate cure was time and her becoming taller. This meant that she had a better view of the world outside and that is incredibly important.
I sat in the back seat of the Toyota C-HR and imagined that I was an eight year old child. As I looked out of the vehicle, the only thing that I could see was sky. That seems to me like a recipe for much puking in the future for the owners of the Toyota C-HR. Congratulations, in chasing style over form, you've invited that tricksy fairy Simon Ella* to wave his magic wand and spin the spell of spew in your car.

I won't pretend that I've driven the C-HR but if is like the rest of Toyota's wares, I imagine that it will be competent but boring. Before I bought the Mazda 2 which I currently have, I drove a Yaris and really didn't like it at all, I drove a Corolla and thought that it was acceptable but I wouldn't have one through choice.
Toyota knows the kind of market that it is selling to. It knows that its customers want a brown bread sandwich where the filling is another slice of bread. It knows that people who want to buy a Toyota want to jump in and forget about everything. Toyota builds cars for people who want their motoring to be the same as buying a toaster; they don't ask much, they simply expect their cars to work.
In this segment of the market, there's the Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Honda HR-V, Renault Captur, and a whole bunch of options for people who want to make the dumb choice of getting a CUV rather than a station wagon or a normal hatchback. All of them make a mockery of the letter U in SUV by being less useful and of less utility than the other sensible options but the Toyota C-HR manages to combine that lack of utility with a lack of visibility for the kids in the back seats.

If you are a single person who still wants to go out and buy this thing, then go ahead and do it: people like what they like and I ain't going to stop you. The instant that you have children though, a whole new gammet of questions and decisions open up. It's just that the Toyota C-HR answers these questions badly.

*Simon Ella is one of the lesser known fairies. Unlike the Sandman who sprinkles his magic sand to help the kids get to sleep, Simon Ella is the man who runs around and dips his butt in salads and shaves carrots in the pile of spew that you've just made. He is the reason why people are afraid of Simon Ella poisoning and why there's always carrots in your spew even though you haven't eaten any carrots.
Simon Ella is the brother of Citröen Ella who uses the power of citrus to keep flies and cats away and who haunts some motor cars; hence the reason why they become lemons. 

Horse 2320 - The Royal "We" Were Not We

In name changing news, this week marks the centenary of King George V changing the family name of the British Royal Family from the very very Gerry name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the not at Krauty name of Windsor. What I find almost utterly incomprehensible about this was that it happened in 1917. The proclamation was issued in July 1917, and then not ratified until September.

In the summer heat of three years' previous, in 1914, the archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which was famous for absolutely nothing whatsoever apart from collapsing faster than a house of cards built on a flan in a cupboard of a Bangladeshi textiles factory, decided that it might be fun to go for a drive in an open topped motor car in the somewhat unhappy city of Sarajevo. He died swiftly of lead poisoning thanks to the delivery of a bullet at high speed, thanks to civil disobediant and all round anarchic champion of 1914, Gavrillo Princip.
Thanks to the "don't shoot an archduke" clause which was buried among hundreds of lines of text in treaty and counter treaty, the Triple Alliance of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany and Italy squared off against the Triple Entente of France, Russia and Britain. Denmark declared war on itself and Switzerland announced that everyone had a few too many screws loose in the cuckoo clock and didn't want to join in the continent wide bloodbath. Before 1914, nobody knew what an Archduke was and that remained the case after 1914 but you knew that if you shot and killed one, the consequences were massive.

The reason for the whole sort of general schamozzle was that practically all the nations of Europe were ruled by the inbred grandchildren of Queen Victoria. Kaiser Bill of Germany was the cousin of King Georgey 5 of England and so naturally, they perhaps weren't as keen on severing all ties with their family as the public might have hoped. George spent roughly three years thinking about changing his name while millions of Britons became worm food across the fields of Belgium and France.

It wasn't have been slaughters which had taken place at Gallipoli, Passchendaele, the Somme, or whatnot, because I doubt whether the count of yet another thousands of men destroyed made any difference at all.
No, the thing which finally forced a change of name was when the Luftstreitkräfte finally laid their hands on a bomber which was called the Gotha G.IV, started crossing the English Channel and bombing the streets of London directly. That sort of thing does little for good feelings when it is plastered all over the newspapers.
In 1917 though and to much aplomb and column inches in the great and powerful Times, George V ended the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and began the house of Windsor. Probably Prince Edward was delighted and Albert stuttered his way back home to the palace; grateful that his last name was shortened from six to two sylables.

It is perhaps fitting in 2017, that the eldest son of William and Kate, who will eventually be King Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is also called George. At the moment, as he begins going to primary school, he will simply be known as George Windsor​ but eventually he will learn in due time that his Great Great Great Grandpa is the one who changed his surname by choice. It wasn't because they were immigrants to a new land but because​ the dance of history with its many turns and flourishes had for a small moment in time, thrown cousins against each other in a game of continental conflict and brinkmanship.
Little blonde Georgey Windsor has a name which is short and simple and more importantly, of the same stock which saw John Bull and his mate Tommy rise out of the earth, rather than a triple barrel Krauty name like Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. What's curious is that as Britain heads for the exit door of the European Union, the value of this name might be somewhat less than it otherwise would have been. I can't say what the future of the supranational conglomerate is, which lies just forty miles on the other side of the channel but if it again thinks about throwing itself into another slaughter fest, then little Georgey​ might want to consider changing his name back again if it gives him any sort of leverage in diffusing a conflict. A future German leader might not be as affable to George Windsor as they might be to George Saxe-Coburg-Gotha even though they are exactly the same person.

Aside:
I have a name which is uncommon enough to be interesting. Even so, if Kim Jong Un starts kicking off and starts chucking about his nuclear nonsense, then I might think it fun to change my name to Anders Rollosson and claim refugee status in Åland.

Horse 2319 - RUOK, RUOK Day?

Later this week is the mental health awareness day called RUOK Day. That doesn't have anything to do with ROUS Day which is the day in which we're made aware of Rodents Of Unusual Size, nor does it have anything to do with RUFC Day which is the day in which we're made aware of Rotherham United Football Club. RUOK Day is the day which people are encouraged to ask other people the question "Are You Okay?" in the name of suicide prevention.

The day sounds reasonable enough in principle because suicide prevention and mental health issues are serious matters but as someone​ who knows several people with mental health issues, I can't help but feel that any useful point that the day might have had has long been completely obliterated.
To be fair, I'd rather be made more aware of rodents of unusual size like capybaras because they're so very very cute, and be made more aware of Rotherham United Football Club because they would steal column inches away from rugby league. Anything that makes the public more aware of lower league English football can only be a good thing.
However​, speaking as a curmudgeon who isn't particularly persuaded by fake made up awareness days, I really really don't want the to be aware of the utter tokensim of RUOK Day which transform mental health from a serious issue to one of faux touchy feely awareness which is shrouding an underlying commercialism.

Let's assume for a second that you're all happy and healthy and everything is going along pretty nicely for you. On RUOK Day, you don't want to be seen as an ignorant person and so you go around the place, such as your work, school or what not, ask the question "Are You Okay?" and then you can go on with your pretty nice life, having ticked the box of societal expectations and going back to ignoring the issue for the rest of the year. This is especially useful for psychopaths and workplace bullies because having ticked the box of societal expectations, they can carry on with their merry course of being horrible to people.
The opposite is also interesting. If everything is not going along nicely at all, then you don't want to be seen as a worry wart or a downer, and besides which, for the rest of the year nobody wants to broach the subject anyway. Your answer to the question "Are You Okay?" will be "yes" because nobody really wants to deal with the ramifications of you answering "no"; even if it is completely true. If everything​ is not okay, then mysteriously that person becomes the subject of counseling and a problem to be fixed, rather than actually addressing an underlying problem that you might have a few rogue psychopaths running about the place.

There are two broad camps on RUOK Day: those that don't care but want to be seen to be doing the right thing; and those who would prefer to be left alone because they live with the unpleasantness of mental health issues on a daily basis.
As for me personally, I have possibly the best of all worlds in that because I work for an exceptionally small firm, I will never be asked the question and secondary to that, the vast majority of people who I come in contact with, wouldn't ask me the question in the first place because it would never occur to them. I could be simultaneously fine and falling to pieces and nobody would ever even find out. If I was suffering from some kind of mental health problem, then thankfully, I could deal with that privately​ and not have it dragged out in front of a large organisation, as the exhibit in a freak show.

If you are genuinely concerned about someone, then do something about it under the cover of monotony. Wait for everyone to forget about RUOK Day and go for nice coffee and cake with them in a quiet place; without the fanfare of an exploitable made up awareness day. If you do truly want to care for someone, then put the effort in and care for them. Of course, if you do happen to be a psychopath then this is probably lost on you anyway, so by all means use RUOK Day as a signal to the world that you ironically have something wrong with you and that people should be fearful of you.
RUOK Day seems to me to be the embodiment of slacktivism, where people who ordinarily don't give a tinker's fart are given a reprieve and have their apathy reset to zero for free. There are 364 other days in the year and if you genuinely want to care about the mental well-being of someone, it's those days when nobody else cares which are more important. It should be an ongoing process rather than an event.

Horse 2318 - Going Postal Is Okay According To The High Court.

The High Court of Australia handed down its verdict yesterday concerning the validity of the Abbott Turnbull Government's plans to hold a plebiscite postal vote on the subject of same-sex marriage. The High Court was answering an appeal which doubted the legality of such a thing and barely spent any time at all in turfing out the appeal on its ear and back into street from whence it came, by giving the appeal a 7-0 thumping.
Before I get to the reason for their decision, this post is a broader sweeping survey of how we got here in the first place.

Once upon a time in the great southern land and before there was an Australia, the six colonies had their own records departments and the subject of marriage was handled under common law. In the brand new shiny Constitution, the things that the brand new shiny Commonwealth of Australia could make laws for, were spelled out in Section 51; specifically Section 51 xxi.

Legislative powers of the Parliament:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxi)  marriage;
- Section 51, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900¹

That's all that the Constitution has to say on the matter - one single, solitary word. It doesn't define the word; it doesn't specify any sort of direction, no, Section 51 xxi merely says that the Commonwealth of Australia has the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to this thing.

And then nothing happened.

The Commonwealth of Australia although it had the power to make law with respect to the subject of marriage, found no reason to do so because the six states who used to be colonies, had their own records departments and were handling the issue under common law.

And then nothing happened.

Until... 1961.
From the end of Ben Chifley's fiery premiership, the Australian Government under Robert Menzies became a slow burner. We bumbled through the 1950s and then in 1961, the Marriage Act was passed. Now bear in mind that this was at the beginning of the decade and well before the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the freaked out flower children and a generation lost in space. The Marriage Act 1961 was passed in an era of brown suits, brown furniture, brown motor cars and brown sauce and chips. So why did the Menzies Government decide to act?

Communism.

This sounds positively ridiculous in 2017 but not quite 60 years ago and in the shadow of World War 2 (book now for World War 3, tickets from Ticketmaster from only $59), the world had organised itself into the glorious free market capitalists who were manipulating foreign governments for political gain, and the evil socialist communists who were on the dismal side of the iron curtain and manipulating foreign governments for political gain.
Australia which has always been a tin pot little country which wants to cosy up to which ever big brother will be nice to it at the time, saw that the glorious free market, capitalism, and freedom, was threatened by a bleeping tin ball in space, and then a bleeping tin ball in space with a man in.
I know that this sounds unhinged but if you read through Hansard for the debate surrounding the Marriage Act 1961, then you find that communism and space are used as the justification for the act. The Menzies Government decided that if it was going to take a stand against everything that the evil socialists stood for, including luxury gay space communism, then it needed to make a symbolic act and the Marriage Act 1961 was the easiest way to say that they were doing something without really doing anything at all.

And then nothing happened.

The twenty-first century kicked off with a couple of planes being slammed into the World Trade Centre in New York, another one slammed into the Pentagon, in retaliation against the glorious free market capitalists who were manipulating foreign governments for political gain. Suddenly the west found itself with a brand new set of enemies, who just happened to be the same people that they'd paid off to fight the evil socialist communists in the decades before. The found itself in two wars for the price of five, against an enemy who they could only classify as being vaguely brown and Islamic.
The Howard Government as part of its continuing war on brown people, was worried about a potential flood of refugees who might escape their countries as a result of the west bombing them. One of the tactics that it decided upon was to change the Marriage Act 1961, to limit the definition of marriage to just a man and a woman, to stop the possibility of Islamic​ refugees from bringing multiple wives and children into Australia.

And then nothing happened.

The current​ debate surrounding the Marriage Act 1961, is mostly the result of an internal conflict within the Liberal Party and a set of attempts to appease the right of the party. The Labor governments under Rudd, Gillard, and Rudd again, attempted to do nothing but found political traction trying to force a subject which they didn't really care for in government.
Under the premiership of Tony Abbott, the opposition Labor Party decided that it would try and force a free vote in parliament which it knew was never ever going to fly, and in reply the Liberal Party decided to tear itself to bits and promised a plebiscite to change the Marriage Act because they knew that the Labor opposition wouldn't let that pass. Having said that, the Turnbull Government was still able to secure funding to the tune of $160m to hold a plebiscite in Appropriation Bill No.1 2017 and this is where we are today.

The High Court challenge to the postal vote on same-sex marriage was doomed before it began because the legality of it was absolutely watertight before the ship was launched. It isn't a referendum because it doesn't change the Constitution. This isn't a plebiscite because that was never going to pass the Senate. What it is, is an exercise in collecting statistics; which is also authorised under Section 51 xi of the Constitution.

Legislative powers of the Parliament:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xi)  census and statistics;
- Section 51, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900¹

The reason why the challenge failed on funding grounds​ was because funding had already been secured and no new Appropriation Bill needs to be passed. The reason why the challenge failed on constitutional grounds is because of Section 51 xi. Since it is the High Court's job to look at the legality of a thing and the legality of this postal vote is technically correct which is the best kind of correct (even if it is the worst kind of politically stupid), then of course the High Court was always going to return a 7-0 result².

¹Section 51: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
²The High Court's decision: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/HCATrans-176-2017-09-07.pdf