First thing to understand is that the Australian constitution is more about the formation and rights of the Government and less about personal rights as many Americans come to expect from their own. Australia is very strict about its obligations to its constitution, and issues like the roll-out of a single Goods and Service Tax (the GST) and the Tasmanian Dam Case which both had issues regarding the separation of powers and were heavily debated.

Nothing in the Australian constitution or any foreign treaty Australian is a signature of prevents Australia from passing this law. The Constitution of Australia grants the Federal government power to legislate in this matter. The law was passed with votes in the house from both of the major parties.

To be fair, your mention of Australia's refugee obligations and how it has handles it now and in the past is of no concern to this matter. There is very little reason to discuss that issue (even though it is worthy of being discussed) other than to paint the Australian Government as more villainous than an Australian might fairly say.

I brought the asylum issue up because I find this a much more extreme and urgent example of a human rights issue than to restrict free speech to a very low degree.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protecte...

Here in Australia, we're already restricted from discussing certain aspects of voluntary euthanasia because it upsets the fundies.

I fully agree, that free speech in general is very important, though.

In American, it seems like many of us think modern medicine will cure most disease, or we fall victim to rhetoric like "death squads".

The reality is when that time comes, and modern medicine gives gives up; we are sent home to die. Oh yes, a bureaucratic nonprofit steps in and finally the aganoizing patient is given opioids, and benzodiazepines. The problem is the Palliative Care is hit, or miss. The doctor never seems to come around and read adjust medication levels, and the nurses--well they try.

My father died of liver cancer. He had a tumor the size of a football in his abdomen(by the way, he had a tumor for at least 15 years. I don't know when it turned cancerous, but all professionals overlooked the bulge in his upper right quadrant. Not one professional palpated his abdomen--I guess they don't do that anymore? And he had good insurance?

Well, finally one doctor promised to save his life, but reneged after further review, the hospital then sent him home. He was miserable all summer. The medications never quite took away the pain. It didn't help that the Hospice doctors weren't increasing dosages.(I looked at the dose of morphine, and I was tempted to buy smack off the streets, but he was just too conservative to break the law. My greedy, manipulative sister played around with his medication so she could talk him into giving her more wealth.(She is already extremely wealthy). The nurses, when told, looked the other way. My retched sister told the nurses, 'I want him to spend quality time with his grandkids'. My father couldn't stand kids, and barely put up with his own.

My father gradually went from 190 lbs to 65 lbs, and was beyond miserably for weeks. His last words to me were, "Son when will it end?"

He went into a semi coma and eventually died. He was blue. He would wake up from bad dreams and scream. He was in hell!

Sorry to unload, but we need to know just how terrible death can be. There's nothing sacred, natural, or peaceful about it. We need a passionate way to end life when that day comes.

I don't go a day without thinking about my father's agony. My father was a mean, nasty person, but they pain he went through was so disturbing; I can't get the horrid ordeal out of my life. It's been nine years, and I'm still not over it.

Maybe, this is not the time to talk about this problem? I got sidetracked by a comment before me--sorry.

My wife's father died a similar way, as did my grandfather. It pisses me off to a great degree that, as a society, we aren't willing to discuss the matter of dying with dignity. It's not like it's a new idea - the Roman Stoics did.

In many ways, our society seems infantilised in comparison.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-r...

P.S. Australian politics is dumb.

The US constantly talks about it's constitution, in pretty much every media channel available. It doesn't mean that the US doesn't engage in surveillance or torturing detainees. The US has done some horrific treatment of detainees - and if you include regular prisoners in the term 'detainees' (since they are), then Australia pales in comparison to the US treatment.

It's puzzling as to why people think that constitutional law is somehow magic.

For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial.

No behavior of the United States should dictate what Australia should allow itself to do. A state that treats people in that way will not be called a true democracy by me, though.

The US government has all these things, except perhaps the 'regretting' part.

The US prison system is stupid, no doubt. But even the worst prisons in the US are much better than what Australia is forcing refugees to endure. With the small difference that the US prison system doesn't have a 100% rate of non-convicted detainees, unless Australia's refugee detention.

You... honestly believed that I was suggesting literal magic, rather than just using a colourful word for special?

Anyway, I'm not forgiving Australia's actions on asylum seekers by comparing to US actions. I'm stating that "constitution" law does not prevent abuses. You say that there is a relatively small number of terror suspects? There is also a relatively small number of asylum seekers in offshore detention. However, the three million domestic US prisoners generally have terrible conditions. Where is the constitution protecting them? What about the police armed with military equipment that refer to civilians as 'the enemy' and have a problem with shooting black people? The constitution isn't providing much protection there.

Where did the US constitution protect over a million dead Vietnamese from a US puppet war?

Where did the US constitution protect several hundred thousand dead Iraqis from a war of US military adventurism?

My point is not to make a laundry list of US misdeeds, but to point out that there is nothing special when it comes to human rights and a document called "the constitution", and it seems the US talks about its constitution more than everyone else combined.

Just to reiterate, constitutional law is just law that's harder to change. It can be changed. The US Bill Of Rights is explicitly a list of changes to the constitution. Governments can restrict themselves further without a constitution - the UK has plenty of human rights legislation without a document called "the constitution". Likewise you can be signatories to treaties that restrict your government without making constitutional amendments or making domestic law.

On the other points:

> will not be called a true democracy by me

'True democracies' don't prevent abuses either. Democracies have a history of all sorts of abuse - apart from modern states, we can point to slavery-era US slaughtering its way across the continent, empire-building England, all the way back to the ancient Greek democracies like Athens... who kept slaves. And if it's claimed that these states aren't 'true democracies' as a result, then that's pretty much a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" argument. 'Democracy' is not a synonym for 'egalitarian utopia'.

> detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial.

You are aware that there were untried detainees in Guantanamo, yes? And if they're untried, you can't just claim them guilty-by-default.

> and regretting it after a few years

Give me a break. This is simply flat-out apologism. And just like the Australian people with offshore detention, the US people with suspects in Guantanamo Bay were split amongst those people who were angry, those people who were glad (some openly), and those people who don't care.

Our PM was recently waffling about not wanting to take particular cases (stripping Australian citizenship from dual citizenship holders who fight for IS) to court, because of the risk that the court might not agree with the request to strip citizenship.

Said PM displays a shocking lack of regard for the rule of law, and that approach is pretty much mirrored all the way down to the local Government level.

No, all that applies, it's just the current government thinks it can ignore it.

It's only in the US that "liberal" came to mean "socially progressive" for some reason, and only relatively recently (i.e. at least post-LBJ, I would say, if not later).