A bill of rights and responsibilities maybe.

Before we can listen to Susan Ryan on this Human Rights Bill, she will need to spell it out to us on a whiteboard.

The wacko lefties seem to be the only ones interested in a Bill of Rights. Like a republic, a Bill of Rights is an uneeded wast of time, money and effort.

Thank you for your contribution to the debate. I welcome the work of New Matilda - anything that advances the debate on the need for human rights in Australia is worthwhile.

However we must not accept the proposition that statutory protection is adequate: it is not.

Constitutional protection of human rights is necessary to ensure that the rights of all people - majorities and minorities - are adequately protected. This can only be done properly when the judiciary is entrusted with the power to make final decisions on rights. As the only genuinely independent branch of government they are the only branch equipped to make unpopular decisions.

I wonder if those who oppose the introduction of constitutionally-protected human rights would feel the same if their own rights were challenged or removed? Sadly it seems that many people lack the moral imagination to see themselves in a position of genuine powerlessness.

Could Australia still have a flourishing economy AND constitutional protection of human rights?

Can we walk and chew gum at the same time?

I just don't buy the "this is not realistic" argument. That argument is never accompanied by compelling or persuasive evidence. There are plenty of countries that have constitutionally-entrenched and judicially-enforceable human rights. It is not relevant to point to those countries and isolate the human rights abuses: these events show need for improvement but don't detract from the fundamental argument that we should have such rights here.

Obviously there are many who insist that a Bill or Rights be accompanied by "Responsibilities". This is just semantics. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which Australia signed years ago - contemplates rights and the need to respect those rights (ie. "responsibilities").

Having said that, we should be very careful to ensure that any attempts to impose "responsibilities" on us do not deviate from the international human rights that are ours because we are human, not because we are Australian (or Canadian, or British, or whatever).

Just to reinforce that point: I deserve protection of my human rights because I am human, not because I am Australian.

All nations that value freedom, have a Bill of Rights. Israel have a Bill of Rights that excludes Arabs, Leigh is right, abouts rights, we dont want to have legislation passed. making us all equal before the law, if Zimbabwi can get along without a bill of rights so can we, mangotree,

>>We are now the only democracy that does not have one and our human rights record has been disappointing <<

Is this absolutely disappointing, as in we are at the bottom of the league of human rights abusers? Or are we talking about relatively disappointing? As in, we have a history of human rights abuse without a Bill of Rights, that compares unfavourably with countries who have a Bill of Rights?

If the author thinks we are in the former category, well... all I can say is, she doesn't get out much.

If we fall into the latter category, could she please provide some detail on how badly we compare with those other countries? A simple checklist should do it.

We have a functioning democracy and a citizenry that by and large agree to be bound by the rule of law. A Bill of Rights will not change this, as it demonstrably fails to in countries who adopt one. It is simply a means by which yet another bunch of lawyers can make a ton of money, while at the same time feeling righteous about doing so. An unsavoury combination.

>>Susan Ryan points out that if Australia had had a Bill of Rights, those anti-terrorism laws would not have made it through Parliament <<

Pure speculation. Patriot Act, anyone?

It is also disingenuous to remark that those who heard how “Muslims had been insulted by calls of 'bag head', 'terrorist', 'rapist' and 'human cargo', spat on, punched and children bullied, could well understand his passion and support for a Bill of Rights.”

Exactly how would a Bill of Rights help in this regard? Surely such situations are adequately covered under existing assault legislation? If it is not, then it is certain that a Bill of Rights that “would not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of any Commonwealth law” will be of absolutely no assistance.

The problem is the way they provide for “freedoms” that are individually totally impossible to codify. The wording allows a broad range of interpretations, that inevitably morph over time. Grist to the lawyers mill.