Hey I am white, heterosexual and male.

I have never heard males being mentioned in the context of human rights or social justice.

I maybe cynical, but I have long come to believe that as a white heterosexual male, I do not have the right to have human rights.

Knowing Julian Burnside's politics, I'm not going to bother reading his article.

George Williams is the regular champion for a Bill of Rights, and he has done the subject to death quite well. We really don't need to be harangued further.

A Bill if Rights is preferred only by anti-democrats who, unable to get their way via the democratic process, long for rule by unelected judges who share their autocratic values.

"Should we have some mechanism which prevents parliaments from making laws which are unjust, or which offend basic values, even if those laws are otherwise within the scope of Parliament’s powers?"

Considering issues raised in the article (no matter who wrote it) and only this morning reading the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on Australia's sedition laws, my answer is YES.

Excellent and timely article from Julian Burnside. If ever Australia needed a Bill of Rights (or some similar instrument), the increasingly draconian legislation enacted by the Howard government over the past decade demands that we need one now.

Indeed, the self-serving and proudly ignorant splutterings that began this thread are good examples of why we need a Bill of Rights - to protect us from the acquiescence of that large proportion of the electorate to the legislative excesses of the government that they, after all, elected.

Under our version of 'democracy', we get the parliaments we collectively deserve. That is precisely why we need an independent instrument such as a Bill of Rights to protect us between elections.

You know julian, as qc who has worked through this legal system to high court, one requirement when writting to public is describe the people and structure of those whom hold power and authority first...

Yes, parliament makes laws, debate on outstanding issues and solutions...which could/should take months to years...to complete natural cycle to producing written law and crown ascent before it becomes applicable...Problem...how did anit-terrrorism bill get passed to law so quickly...some politians said they were given this fat bundle of law the night before deliberation...So a legal mind says some force with lot of power is pushing events to go outside limits of due process...right?

Now the 'Australian government'...the media often makes this to be the same as prime minister...when you know that 'Australian-government=crown'...but the corporate media not once to my knowledge writes this or assesses crown actions...again legal mind thinks the crown as the largest coporation on earth(guessed as little is publically known about crown) stands to benefit by corrutping process...to quick power then to money...as a possible vested interest...right?

And third is of course judiciary whom apply the law within the limits of accepted practice to effect an outcome within limits of 'fair and just'...but they are all employees...crown employees...and their conduct hangs on a thin string called 'morality to duty' which easily cut for benefit...by now a legal mind should be reeling with the power and authority crown weilds and how is it being used...especially as a body managed by the people to oversee crown activities has not been allowed/prevented formed...so nobody outside crown knows exactly what they are doing...

So the point is bill of rights, or any other law, can be passed...but if they are not applied to effect the 'fair and just' outcome...then the duty arises to address the corrupting process that is preventing it in the first place...right?...so is the crown perverting due process and justice while paid by tax payers money for its service to run the government?...to further step of now thinking its power is beyond civil/criminal process...this I think should have been core theme of your article...

Sam

I think a bill of rights could be couched in simple, unambiguous terms. It's not too hard. It doesn't have to be legalistically watertight. It just needs to be a simple creed to focus the national psyche.

Although we would give it a name, The Australian Bill of Rights, it would encompass our aspirations for the whole of humanity. It could not hint at nationality or nationalism. It could be copied by any country.

Should we worry about "stuff"? Let's leave wealth and property to common law. That's pretty hard though, as we are not used to seeing another person apart from his/her stuff. Happiness, aspiration and fulfilment have become so hopelessly entangled with STUFF.

If we try and create something like a Swiss Army knife, we might miss the point.

Maybe we need something which is deliberately vulnerable and fragile, so that the task of upholding it is a never-ending, but joyous and inclusive struggle, the act of which draws us together despite our circumstances. Like a new-born baby makes you feel. Can that be put into words?

Would it be sufficient if it was simply something that we could chain to the bulldozer tracks of a wayward government?