It would be easy to assume that the Government of a country founded on democratic principles and the rule of law would have a semblance of respect for basic rights. That assumption would be incorrect. Rights are simple things. But often conflicting. One person’s right to hold a booze-fuelled orgy in their garden might well offend the neighbour’s right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their own property. As a result, laws have been introduced over the centuries to achieve a balance between personal freedoms and a generally cohesive and functioning society.

What are rights?

A basic definition is this: “a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.”

Rights are almost always balanced by responsibilities and obligations. People have a right to use the road, but they also have the responsibility to not injure themselves and an obligation to not endanger other road users. People have a right not to be punched in the face, but have a corresponding obligation to not punch other people. Of course, as people fail to recognise responsibilities and obligations, while still demanding their own rights be respected, law-makers increasingly introduce laws to attempt to protect the public from its own stupidity and mitigate basic human nature.

Over the past few decades in all areas of governance, the balance between freedoms and obligations has skewed towards increased government control of the population for the alleged ‘greater public good’, and at the expense of personal liberties.

This has led to a society full of people who expect, nay demand, the government protect them. In return for this protection, and in so protecting, the government has removed more and more fundamental freedoms through harsher, stricter and fear-inspired laws. All promoted to keep the public safe. And this in turn has made the public more dependent on the Government to protect them, thus accepting whatever law is proposed no matter the consequences to basic rights.

There have been anti-bikie laws, anti-association laws, anti-terror laws, anti-protest laws, anti-hoon laws, anti-party laws, mandatory data retention laws, border protection laws, ‘one-punch’ laws. Laws (and further laws proposed) to banish people from Australia where they don’t comply with the ideological or political views of the rulers, or conform to standard norms. These laws almost certainly come with arbitrary detention and mandatory minimum sentences. They undermine the basic protections for the innocent; the right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence until proven guilty and equality before the law.

Successive state and federal governments have enacted more and more repressive legislation under the guise of saving people from over-amplified threats; be it to themselves, their family or the entire nation. And in doing so, it has completely undermined the very freedom it is attempting to protect.

In each case, as more oppressive and fascist legislation is introduced, the government states that the laws are necessary to fight crime, deter the baddies or the catch-all of ‘in the interests of national security’ or ‘public safety’. It assure the public that the laws provide a balance between personal liberties and public protection, and reminds the public that sometimes, just sometimes, people need to give a little bit of their personal freedom away to secure their safety.

And people believe it.

Australians willingly hand over their hard earned money in atonement for ‘speeding’ because they have been convinced that exceeding an arbitrarily declared limit on a remote country road will cause instant death. They beg for speed limits to be dropped because they have lost the capacity to manage risks. They lack the understanding that they have always had a duty not to crash, and kill or injure their passengers or other road users in exchange for their right to use the road.

The federal government has so far convinced the vast majority of Australians that it is for their collective benefit that the government can now access metadata from electronic communications and therefore track any persons move on a whim, spy on their connections and analyse their online networks. Criminal or not. The NSW police now want warrantless access to bank accounts.

Security agencies have stronger and more intrusive powers to deal with the so-called terror threat. The government can effectively disappear a person. And no one can talk about it. Transparency has been replaced with secrecy, with laws in place to jail certain ‘whistle-blowers’. All in the name of ‘national security’.

Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland all have anti-association and ‘criminal organisation’ laws with varying degrees of harshness. In Queensland, so-called ‘participants’ in arbitrarily declared ‘criminal organisations’ are banned from associating together in three or more in public and can be searched without warrant merely on suspicion of participation. Any person committing a declared offence in a group of three or more may face a minimum of 15 years in jail unless they ‘help’ the police with enquiries. South Australia is opting for similarly repressive and almost identical laws.

In New South Wales, age-old consorting laws have been revived and can be applied without any proof whatsoever that the people concerned are engaging in or intending to commit any criminal activity. Additionally, the right to silence for people accused of indictable offences has been all but abolished, meaning that those who say nothing at interview run the risk of having that silence used as evidence against them at trial. Clearly a violation of the basic human right against self-incrimination.

The federal Government appears to be succeeding in convincing the general public that it should be allowed to banish citizens who are classed as socially undesirable on the say-so of the reigning Minister. The same Minister who is already actively expelling non-citizens for failing an ever changing, government-defined ‘character test’.

The Declaration of Human Rights, which Australia is a party to, states that “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.”

There are many examples in both state and federal legislation of basic rights and freedoms going far beyond what is necessary to secure the due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others. Many laws enacted over the past decade signify a complete departure from morality and are detrimental to the general welfare of the community and toxic to democracy.

And the government seems to be proud of this.

In almost every case, the laws do not just apply to alleged socially undesirable people, or criminals or other people in the community who attract no sympathy. Legislation rarely refers specifically to the targeted demographic or cultural or social group or class of offender. Because it cannot. The one basic principle the government will always uphold is that every person is subject to the same laws. And while the laws may not be applied equally, the potential is there – just as soon as a person, or class of person is out of favour.

All of these restrictive laws are sold to the public on the basis that if they’ve done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear; if they have nothing to hide, they need not fear gross intrusions into their privacy and greater powers of the government.

But people are people. They are human. And they do and say stupid things. They act without thinking, they don’t pay attention, and they fail to consider those around them. They act with emotion, irrationally and without logic. They taunt and retaliate. They fear what they don’t know. They fear those who are not like them. And sometimes people are just deliberately nasty.

But rather than take personal responsibility, or accept that sometimes bad things just happen, when something horrible occurs; something preventable, avoidable, caused by human error, poor judgement or in some cases, pure maliciousness, the loudest voices, spurned on by the media, demand the government do something about it. And this is almost always in the form of more laws and police power. Even where sufficient laws exist. And the laws almost always have a retributive element, punishing offenders, dissenters or social outcasts.

The basic principles of society are clear. All people have a duty of care to others. Every person has the right to not have their person or property interfered with, and the corresponding obligation to not interfere with another person or their property. Yet somehow, this balance of personal rights and responsibility has been all but lost as individuals, and collectively Australians, call for the government to protect them from themselves.

So what about your rights? Well, what about them. As a society, Australians have pretty much demanded they be taken away.

It’s hard to believe anything Prime Minister Tony Abbott says. But there is one thing that seems to frighten him more than the threat of ISIS.

The return of the boats.

Abbott says he has no intention of tightening national security despite declaring that the Death Cult is coming after us. Apparently the real, albeit overplayed threat of ISIS warrants no additional measures. However the prospect of desperate men, women and children landing on Australia’s shores is so grim, Abbott has legislated a whole new security regime. And a paramilitary force to ward off people fleeing persecution, war and genocide. By ‘hook or by crook’ Abbott will protect Australia’s sovereign borders from asylum seekers.

Abbott has never hidden his tough asylum seeker policies. It formed part of his election platform. Described as harsh by Liberal frontbencher, Malcolm Turnbull, Abbott has gone to extreme lengths to ensure people smugglers are deterred. The latest abomination to become law simply builds on this.

It is the Border Force Act. And nothing is more sinister than the secrecy provisions contained within. The best friend the child abuser ever had.

It is unlikely the Government intended to protect child abusers.

It is unlikely the Government even gave it a second thought.

But it is there. The mechanism to silence those who report the abuse of asylum seekers in detention.

And silence is the biggest enabler of child abuse.

There is no doubt asylum seeker children are being abused. There have been ample reports, dismissed almost instantly by the Coalition as baseless.

And now, thanks to Abbott’s fears of an invasion by desperate people in leaky boats, it is unlawful for professionals working on Manus Island and Nauru to make public the squalid living conditions, cruel and inhumane treatment, and abuse of men, women and children.

The Border Force Act does not specifically apply to secrecy around asylum seekers. It applies to ‘entrusted persons’ making records of or disclosure of ‘protected information’. There are limited exceptions, which may be difficult to rely on in practicality if abuse is disclosed. The whistle-blower protections do not apply outside Australia.

Each State, Territory and the Commonwealth has legislated mandatory reporting of child abuse for certain people and professions. Foreign aid workers are required to comply with strict child protection policies. Yet mandatory reporting of abuse for children in off-shore detention was voted down by the Government.

The Border Force Act means that professionals who are mandated to report abuse in Australia, may be jailed for reporting the same abuse if it occurs on Nauru or Manus Island.

Not content with enabling child abuse through silence, Abbott, former Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison and current Minister, Peter Dutton’s reactions to specific reports and events conform with typical patterns of behaviour of the abuser.

In the same way child abusers seek to detract from the authenticity of allegations by questioning the reliability and honesty of the claimant, the Government has attempted to deflect criticism of the appalling treatment of children in detention by discrediting those who disclosed it. Abbott and Morrison’s savage attack on Human Rights Commission President, Gillian Triggs ensured the children were not only forgotten, but condemned to indefinite abuse.

Bureaucratic self-protectionism is often present where there is institutionalised abuse. When asylum seekers resorted to harming themselves and engaged in suicide pacts, it was classed as an ‘operational matter’, and the Government refused to comment. Workers who disclosed self-harm were accused of encouraging the behaviour, fabricating allegations, and orchestrating protests. Ten Save the Children workers were sacked, despite no evidence to back up the claims.

When asylum seeker Reza Berati was murdered on Manus Island, Morrison immediately apportioned blame on the murdered man and fellow ‘transferees’. Victim-blaming: a tactic employed by many an abuser. And used lavishly by the Government to ensure those perpetrating abuse are not held accountable.

When challenged on reports of five-month-old baby Asha living in squalor and struggling to feed, the Department denied it and issued a statement saying everything was fine. Typical of the abuser, those in Government hoped that the authority would be believed instead of the abused, attempting to stop the abuse being exposed.

And in much the same way that religious organisations closed ranks to protect paedophiles – but without the inherent loyalty found in such organisations, the Government has resorted to harsh legislation to attempt to deter disclosure of the cruel and inhumane treatment of people in detention, including the abuse of children.

For now, the Government is enabling the abuse of only asylum seeker children.

But hypothetically, what if children, who lose their Australian citizenship because of the actions of their parents, are detained by Federal authorities outside Australia? Will these Australian children, perhaps born of Australian parents, suddenly lose all protection from abuse simply because of where they are detained? Not beyond the realms of possibility if Abbott has his way. And if the Allegiance to Australia Bill is passed, and in the unlikely event found to be constitutional, certain.

No doubt the children of suspected terrorists will receive even less public sympathy than the children of asylum seekers.

But are we really a nation of people who believe it is acceptable to punish children because of the actions of their parents?

Are we really a nation that supports the imprisonment of professionals for complying with their ethical obligations to report abuse?

The Government is already enabling child abusers. Today the children are asylum seekers. Tomorrow it may be the children of dual citizens. And perhaps after that, in a year or two, the children of sole nationals, who have nowhere to be deported to, held indefinitely in detention on Nauru.

Abbott will not listen to the Human Rights Commission. He is doing little to act on the Moss Review, sanctioned by his own Government. He has expressly stated that he will not be lectured to by the United Nations.

At what point will the minority, speaking out against the actions of the Government, become the majority?

The secrecy provisions in the Border Force Act have one aim – to ensure information about asylum seeker welfare does not reach the public. The success of Abbott’s policies depends on the dehumanisation of asylum seekers and the absence of sympathy from the public.

The Australian public voted to stop the boats. But did that vote mandate torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, and child abuse?

Until Australians demand accountability, transparency and a humane solution to the refugee crisis, we will be governed by child abuse enablers.

A disturbing trend is emerging in the same-sex marriage debate. Reminiscent of a child throwing a tantrum, individuals and representatives of organisations opposed to equality are stamping their feet and resorting to more desperate threats. While it may be easy to write these people off as educationally challenged, for the most part they are not. So what on earth makes grown men and women resort to infantile tactics to fight the prospect of gay marriage being legalised in Australia?

Marriage is presently only legal between a consenting adult man and woman. If marriage equality were achieved, the only part to change would be the man and woman part. It would be replaced with something gender inclusive and non-specific, like ‘two people’ or ‘two persons’. This automatically removes any of the absurd arguments that a change would lead to legalising polygamy or the marriage between a man and his dog.

The Marriage Act also sensibly requires adult partners, who cannot be a direct blood relation or legal guardian, to voluntarily enter into marriage, quashing the ridiculous notion that if marriage is about ‘love’, parents will suddenly be able to marry their children.

After clearing up these points on definition, the remaining arguments against marriage equality are somewhat illogical and ever-increasingly desperate.

People who are not personally impacted by same-sex marriage (assuming they are not secretly gay and commitment-phobic), are resorting to bizarre threats to attempt to stop what they perceive as legitimising the ‘homosexual lifestyle’.

But what is this ‘homosexual lifestyle’ and why is it such a threat to the vocal minority?

Are they afraid that gay love and gay sex and gay household distribution of chores and gay financial support and gay parental responsibilities and gay picnics at the park or gay walks along the beach will become the norm?

Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, is one of the conservative white men standing in the way of same-sex marriage. He famously stated in 2010 that he felt ‘threatened’ by homosexuals and that homosexuality challenged the ‘right order of things’. Abbott preferred a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to gay relationships.

However traditionally stereotyped gender roles are the only things threatened by same-sex marriage. For someone like Tony Abbott, who believed the biggest achievement for women was the repeal of the carbon tax, it is conceivable he would be confused about which of two women in a same-sex marriage would do the ironing.

Same-sex marriage is about equality. It is about social acceptable and approval. It is about removing institutionalised discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is about removing different laws for people based on who they are. It’s about taking the ‘gay’ out of the debate and making it irrelevant to the right to marry the person of choice.

In the latest petulant threat, the Presbyterian Church of NSW has discussed withdrawing from performing legal marriage ceremonies if equality is achieved.

Seriously.

It’s not clear what the Church hopes to gain from this, other than to make a statement of its support of discrimination and outdated beliefs based on selected text from a religious book.

But in reality, boycotting legal marriage will only impact on heterosexual couples of that religious denomination who actually desire a legal marriage. It will have no impact at all on same-sex couples. Much like opposite sex couples threatening to divorce.

A random woman, angry that committed, adult couples might be given the right to celebrate their love with marriage, is calling for the boycotting of businesses who publicly support equality. No Australian has yet threatened to self-immolate.

The childish threats amount to pouty foot-stomping in reaction to the rest of the country moving forward and desiring to update the rulebook in line with a modern, progressive nation.

But these threats, while hardly effective, disclose a nastiness that cannot be ignored. Attempting to force personal (religious or not) ideology and bigoted beliefs on other people in the community reinforces discriminative and dangerous views. Those who identify as LGBTI already suffer more violence, bullying and harassment than other groups in society.

The concept of moving forward with equality seems lost on senior Government Ministers, in particular, Nationals Leader, Barnaby Joyce, who alleges that Asian countries will see Australia as ‘decadent’ if it achieves marriage equality. He is afraid legalising same-sex marriage will threaten the livestock trade with Asia, despite New Zealand having seen no adverse consequences. It’s surprising he hasn’t called for the reintroduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for gays to win favour with Australia’s trading partners.

Not content with seeking validation from Asia on domestic equality policy, Senator Eric Abetz unhelpfully suggested frontbenchers should resign for representing the majority view of Australians.

However the most harmful of arguments comes from those who believe same-sex marriage will damage children. This is a favoured argument from the Australian Christian Lobby, who is demonising every parent who has raised non-biological children. The Catholics are also weighing in, ensuring children are further stigmatised by distributing an anti-same-sex marriage booklet to its private schools.

Outspoken opponents, relying on religious arguments while ignoring that the majority of Christians support same-sex marriage, argue for the ‘rights of the child’. They discard studies which show children of gay parents turn out just fine. They point out that children of gay couples might be subject to bullying, without acknowledging that it is their own bigoted views and institutionalised discrimination that supports this. They fail to accept that if they demonstrated Christian values, like empathy, compassion and unconditional love, perhaps children of gay couples would cease to be targeted.

Australia is one of the last western democracies to legalise marriage equality after the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favour of same-sex marriage. But Abbott is unperturbed. He states there is little chance of a marriage equality bill being debated or put to the vote on his watch.

Same-sex marriage isn’t the threat.

The threat is turning to outdated religious codes to justify inequality, intolerance and discrimination. The threat is people who live by those same religious codes, persecuting and vilifying people because of sexual orientation. The threat is allowing fundamentalists and extremists to push their own views on the rest of the Australian public, fuelling more hate and discrimination.

And then there is Abbott, ensuring his personal beliefs remain entrenched in legislation to lessen the discomfort he feels about same-sex relationships. Abbott proclaims that he stands for ‘all of us’, that his party has always been the one to ‘turn on the lights’ and he ‘seeks hope, reward and opportunity for everyone’.

Unless that hope and opportunity threatens his personal ideology. Then he will stand in the way of equality and attempt to turn out that light.

Paid parental leave is contentious. Parents get fiercely protective over their right to reproduce. Non-parents get angry about subsidising ‘personal choices’. Politicians turn it into a populist game which divides the community.

First it was the baby bonus. Then Labor copped flack in 2011 with its paid parental leave scheme. People were outraged at Prime Minister Abbott’s lavish 6-months-at-full-pay policy. Now the Government’s Mothers Day backflip on Paid Parental Leave has again thrown into the spotlight, the right of a woman to have access to tax dollars on the birth of her child.

All the while, men and women are busy horizontally dancing and more babies are born.

This is reality. This is fact. It is not going to change.

No amount of protestations over whether having children is a personal choice, an essential need, a basic instinct, or a duty to society will stop men and women producing babies.

Like it or not, society as a whole pays the price for the emerging generation.

Just like every other ‘personal choice’ or ‘basic right’ or ‘duty,’ all taxpayers provide a subsidy. Federal funds are spent on road infrastructure, used by people choosing to live and travel in that area. Federal funds go to businesses, boosting the profits of the individual business owner. Federal funds buy war planes and submarines, whether the community approves or not. In each case, every tax payer funds it, whether or not they personally benefit.

But when women are attacked for accessing federal funds to help provide financial support in the first crucial months of a baby’s life, it has a nasty vibe.

Because parenthood is not just about women. It is about families. And communities.

Society depends on reproduction to survive. This is reality. It is unavoidable.

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison’s recent accusation that new mothers have been ‘double-dipping’ on paid parental leave is simply outrageous. Supporting families, supporting parenthood, and supporting new mothers and fathers makes economic sense.

The benefits of a paid parental leave scheme far outweigh the costs.

The former Government’s scheme intended for women to access both employer and federally funded schemes, if available, for very good reasons.

Money.

Poor health costs Australians billions of dollars every year. Mental health, in particular, is a massive problem for Australians. It costs over $28.6 billion a year to support people with mental illnesses.

Provision of paid parental leave is not just about women.

Studies conducted in 2012 show that 1 in 20 fathers are diagnosed with depression either before or just after their baby is born in Australia each year.

This is huge and it is a real problem.

You may not have children, but you will almost certainly work with someone who does. If that person is depressed, it will affect you. Depression results in reduced productivity, increased absenteeism and increased costs for the business. Lost productivity alone costs Australian businesses more than $310 million a year.

This in turn places enormous pressure on other employees. Workplace stress costs Australian businesses over $10 billion a year.

1 in 7 women suffer from postnatal depression and 1 in 10 suffer from anti-natal depression. Poor parental mental health affects the health and wellbeing of infants and children. Severe stress during pregnancy has the same affect a foetus as alcohol or drug use.

Yet many in society expect families to either save up a huge amount of money (at least $15,000 to cover 6 months at the minimum wage), or return to work (in some cases before a baby has had its first vital immunisations) rather than be provided with financial support.

Either option puts enormous pressure on parents and prospective parents, with negative health effects on the whole family. Which costs the taxpayer.

‘Having babies’ does not ‘cause’ depression.

But financial hardship is a well-recognised and established factor.

The World Health Organisation recommends women spend the first 6 months at home with a new baby. This is important for the mother’s health and the baby’s health. Babies should be exclusively breastfeed or bottle fed until 6 months of age. Babies form crucial bonds during this time with their primary care-giver. Their future security, good attachment to people and self-worth is dependent on a positive, caring and nurturing start. A babies’ capacity to be a well-functioning and useful member of society as an adult is dependent on a good beginning.

The former Liberal Party’s paid parental leave policy acknowledged this with its proposed 6 months of full pay for working mothers. Labor’s scheme accounted for employee paid leave by offering mothers 18 weeks on the minimal wage. In combination with the average 9.7 weeks of maternity leave provided by employers, this afforded them a possible 6 months at home caring for their child.

Independent reports show that since the introduction of Labor’s Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011, health outcomes for mothers and babies improved and workforce participation for women increased.

This should be celebrated.

Instead, mothers have been labelled as ‘double-dippers’ and accused of rorting the system.

Today’s economy is based on two incomes. For many families, with rising costs of living, it is simply not possible to save up enough money to completely cover a whole lost income while a parent is at home looking after a newborn (and while it’s predominantly women, some men are primary carers too).

Arguing that men and women should not have children until they can afford it ignores basic biological reality.

Having a child is not like starting up a business. A woman has limited choice about when she can ‘have a go’ and start a family.

There is a small window to establish a career, buy a house and build up a wad of savings, before a woman reaches the grand young age of 35, when the risks and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth increase. By the time a woman reaches 44, she has only a 1-2% chance of falling pregnant naturally.

The average age of a female business owner is between 35 and 44. It’s not realistic to expect women to wait so long to start a family.

Times have changed. The one income family is not feasible for most couples. People who had children a generation ago and say they ‘managed to have babies without paid parental leave’ are ignoring reality. Communities have changed. Grandparents, relatives and neighbours are no longer available to help – they are too busy working themselves.

Today’s society gives rise to the perfect conditions for increased postnatal and antenatal depression in both men and women. This comes at a huge cost to the taxpayer and businesses.

It makes economic sense to support parents. It makes economic sense to take steps to improve health outcomes from infancy. It makes economic sense to provide new mothers with financial support to assist them to spend the first 6 months at home with their children.

It does not make economic sense to divide society with outlandish, inflammatory and incorrect claims that women are ‘double-dipping’ by accessing work and government paid parental leave schemes.

The reality remains that men and women will continue to have babies. Personal choice or not.

Eva Cripps is a freelance writer with a keen interest in legal, social justice and community matters. She has a Bachelor of Laws degree with First Class Honours, and is currently in the final year of studying for the Bachelor of Social Science, majoring in Social Justice and Behavioural Science. She’s also a mother to two young children and lives in Tasmania.