The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Liberties rest in the hands of the vigilant > Comments

Liberties rest in the hands of the vigilant : Comments

By George Williams, published 30/6/2005

George Williams argues the fragile protection of human rights in Australia faces a new danger.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Frank

A Bill of Rights offers no protection if things get ugly and the rule of law breaks down. Germany's 1919 constitution contained a very nice Bill of Rights, including the following articles;

Article 11 : The freedom of the person is inviolable.
Article 118 : Every German has the right, within the limits of the general laws, to express his opinions freely in speech, in writing, in print, in picture form or in any other way.
Article 12 : All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without giving notice and without special permission.
Article 135 : All inhabitants of the Reich enjoy full religious and conscientious freedom. The undisturbed exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution and is under state protection.

This continued in force throughout the Nazi period. Despite its high ideals it was as worthless as a hyperinflated banknote.
Posted by AndrewM, Tuesday, 5 July 2005 8:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AndrewM,

The Nazis made use of special emergency powers to suspend the constitution.

However, I take your point that nothing is going to save you when a horde of brownshirts break down your door.
Posted by Frank, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:23:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank

You are correct in that some personal rights were suspended in 1933, but as far as I can tell the Constitution and articles covering things such as the freedom of religion and independence of the courts remained in force (in theory anyway). Some of the terrible things the Nazis did were actually legal.

Sadly it seems the only real protection of our rights comes from the politicians and judges, and if these are subverted all that is left is the US 2nd ammendment.
Posted by AndrewM, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 8:42:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank,
I was sincerely hoping that your comments were satirical, however now I am afraid that you were serious. Do you realise what a snob you sound like? You have one vote, as does every other Australian citizen. To speak of 'the mob' is simply an intellectualist strategy to put down those who perhaps have a different view to you. What makes your voice any more worth hearing? I haven’t heard anything to convince me so far.
When one starts to view a Bill of Rights as something to 'protect' them from the 'mob'... all you can do is laugh...
Posted by Em, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 9:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, I must have forgotten to take my soma.
Posted by Frank, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 3:30:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main benefit of a bill of rights its status as a statement of principle, a barrier of reasonable conduct. Our democracy is based around the notion of responsible and representative government, and this would partly be undermined by implying that governments are free to act within those bounds. That can be alleviated by following Canada's example, where IIRC a Parliament can invoke the "not withstanding" clause thereby allowing it to ignore the charter, but it must reauthorise the action after a certain time.

A bill of rights can be altered later if changes are needed, and acceptance of it in the meantime is hardly undemocratic. Besides, we do not have a total democracy, and it would be unworkable if we did. I don't see many people campaigning for the removal of split elections in the Senate or the right to vote on every single issue. We're human and we can get caught up in our emotions, be confused, short-sighted, selfish, compassionless and cruel. (Especially when things get bad.) Like anarchism, libertarianism etc., total democracy is grounded more in optimism than realism; the need for checks and balances has nothing to do with elitism or intellectualism. (Damn, could only fit 6 -isms)

We accept the current system and that requires submitting to the will of the majority as expressed through the system, but we could also agree to abide under a different system where greater majorities are required for issues of significant importance. The distinction I am making is that we all consent to the system, it is not about the majority's consent. 50.000001% doesn't give you the right to dominate the other 49.999999%, except where that is already agreed upon. (See Locke's Two treatises on government.)
Posted by Deuc, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 5:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy