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 > Your right not to have a Bill of Rights > Comments

Your right not to have a Bill of Rights : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 23/12/2005

Mirko Bagaric argues that an Australian Bill of Rights would be a waste of time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All
That would be near 100% pericles, and it would give NGO’s or Judges the power to create and destroy laws, and elected Governments become weaker as the new masters take control of our destiny: so we go back to the bad old day’s by being lead up the garden path by over active Ego’s instead of logic and reason. Bill of Rights is the same as Human rights: they only exist as a privilege, until someone wants to deprive you of it: or even Take over your society?
Posted by All-, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:10:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is time for the anti-Billi o' Rights mob to go to your favourites list and bring up their opinion to support your opinion.

jboywonder, "...the choice the majority makes is always the right one".
For whom? Corporate Australia? Don't forget Hitler had majority support.

jboywonder, "John Howard elected by a massive majority". How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition. I didn't vote for him (or any of his Liberal team). Neither did the majority of his Bennelong electorate - not to mention the rest of us. In other words John Howard and his Liberals are a minority.

Nevertheless, I still think, parliamentary democracy is the best system you can get, however, it does fail to address the rights of the minorities (that is citizens as individuals and small groups).

Recent polls in relation to sale of Telstra and Industrial Relations Bills suggest that we do not have a truly representative government.

The trouble is the Liberals haven't been honest in their relationship with the Australian people. Show me where Howard and his Liberals told the Australian people of their future policies in detail in relation to such matters.

So long as we have spin-doctors managing the media and the peoples' and people's opinions, not to mention the Liberals' clearly using the extreme right to push politics further to the right and keep the focus on other emotive issues involving minorities and harnesss those swinging voters that support racist and culturally supremacist ideas; so long as we have a Government that uses its lack of opposition (indeed, seems to be trying to completely destroy the Opposition), depite clearly displayed electorate outrage; so long as we have this Liberal-style treachery in politics , well we must have a Bill of Rights. (cynosure).
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:40:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No where in this article does the good professor put up arguments that suggest that we should trust (with blinded loyalty) the role of the state to uphold and protect us.

The reliance on common laws will not be enough to protect us against the fragilities that occur in our moral and ethical political culture. No government of any persuasion can or should be given a free hand in deciding what is - or is not - the basic rights of our society and ourselves.

Our modern political culture was founded on principles that limited the power of the State. We have witnessed the abuse of power by the state in other nations. A bill of rights should be seen as a safety net that upholds and enshrines our common humanity and decency no matter who is in power.

In Australia, we rely primarily upon a system of common law that works in tandem with a responsible government to protect us against the removal of our basic rights.

Currently they work hand in hand but with little if any clarity about what these basic rights are – hence they are left to be interpreted by politics and their ideological swings.

History has shown us that this partnership cannot be trusted without overarching principles of law and civil society. This is what a bill of rights can provide.

This is about our shared understanding and commitment to the common good as much as it is about the common laws.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 23 December 2005 4:58:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for rancitas:

[jboywonder, "...the choice the majority makes is always the right one".
For whom? Corporate Australia? Don't forget Hitler had majority support.]
take me very, very literally mate.. it's not that hard a concept to get your head around if you don't selectively quote.. in a democracy if a majority makes a decision, that's the right one.. simple, innit?

[jboywonder, "John Howard elected by a massive majority". How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition. I didn't vote for him (or any of his Liberal team). Neither did the majority of his Bennelong electorate - not to mention the rest of us. In other words John Howard and his Liberals are a minority.]
funny, i could have sworn that they just got the new I.R. laws through despite massive protests because they had such a clear majority and stifled all debate.. or was i on glue? or do i just sound like a johnny supporter so you chose to take issue with me?

actually, don't bother answering, i'm not really interested haha
Posted by jboywonder, Friday, 23 December 2005 6:33:29 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
We need a "Bill of Responsibilities" to protect us from the lunatic left and those lasivious,litigious lawyers.

Beware those who offer us something for free that appeals to our weaker side,we will end up getting a lot more than we wished for.

As for those snivel libertarians.Oh what a tangled web they weave as they do practise to deceive.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 24 December 2005 5:47:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The great thing about not having a bill of rights is that the only thing you have stopping govt agencies from behaving stupidly is administrative law. But to gain their rights, the average punter has to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees.Legal aid schemes often don't cover such disputes.

So as a practising lawyer, all I can say to to those opposed to a bill of rights is - SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Merry Christmas.
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 24 December 2005 1:24:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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