Rights - the USA is often quoted as the case of the benefits of a Bill of Rights. It is just a shame those rights can only be guaranteed to the extent one can afford to go to court, and even there it's a matter of what the court's judgement is. So access to rights is as good as the individual's capacity to go to law to enforce them! Even then rights are cosntrained by other Bills, such as laws on defamation or racial vilification, so rights aren't universal or absolute.

Courts of equity have been determining rights for many centuries through the judgements given. At issue here is the capacity to know what those judgements are.

Rights given politically can be removed politically or by judgement – court’s can determine between competing rights. The issue of competing rights are not resolved through Bills of Rights.

If governments don’t have an active role in enforcing rights then the individuals enjoyments of rights is limited by their capacity to enforce them.

the "Get up" organisation is a joke. Its yet another "organisation" where the people running it are nothing more than Labor Party future candidates.
I mean, Gillard Gov't is going back to off shore processing (SAME AS THE FORMER HOWARD GOVERNMENT ‘S PLAN THAT THEY THEN CRITICISED) and yet all their political ads are pitted against the liberal party, instead of the position that they pretend to advocate.

Glad I never supported this Org.

My advice to anyone wanting to financially support this group or any unions:- cut out the middle men and give it straight to the Labor party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJISBGi9E

Claire Bongiorno

Welcome to the group of writers that post On Line their Opinions.

As your surname is undeniably Italian, on the probability that you still cultivate that language, I delight in quoting what follows: “Io sono L’Aretin, poeta Tosco, di tutti dissi mal fuor che di Cristo, scusandomi col dir ‘Non lo consco’.*

I never met ’Human Rights’. I do not know what it is or what it means. Who can assure me that it exists and if it does what shape it has?

What you mention, ‘The Constitution’, does exist. I know, because I have seen it at the library. It is one booklet about which hells of people talk about, and the very few who have read it continuously quibble on what the heck it means.

But when, further, you say ‘Law’, as in ‘Constitutional Law’, you get me baffled.

In my mind a law was an instrument for imposing on to people a behavioral conduct and that laws were to conform to limitations (Principles) specified in the Constitution.

I have been sure of this for years and now I have lost my ‘surety’. Please help me regain it and I will tell you more Italian tales.



*I am Aretin. A poet of Tuscany. I disparage all but Christ only because I do not know him

Claire says:

"Without a bill of rights, Australians must resort to the High Court to protect constitutional rights."

Okidokie.....AbraCadabra-*VOILA* there.. we now have a bill of rights.

Let's not look more closely.

UN Convention on Civil and Political rights.

PART 1
Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

*GONNNNNNGGGGG* first strike.

"All Peoples" ? err within any nation, such as Australia, we have COMPETING groups of peoples..and competing religions.

When ONE is in conflict with the OTHER... who's rights prevail?

It's a simple question.

EXAMPLE 1.

Sikh Religion.

"Sikh religion requires baptized Sikh's to always carry their Kirpan"

Australian law....Prohibited Weapons List

"Dagger", being a sharp pointed stabbing instrument (other than an oyster knife), ordinarily capable of being concealed on the person.

Who wins? Aussie law or Sikh Religion.

EXAMPLE 2

Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Islamic Religion (Quran)

Quran 4:34
As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them

So much for your 'Bill of Rights'...

Obviously, there is a specific 'philosophical perspective' in the mind of those who speak about such things. (BofR) Sadly it is one which is irrational.

"When ONE is in conflict with the OTHER... who's rights prevail?"

They don't conflict. If you think about this:

"1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Self-determination assumes that people of different cultural backgrounds can live side by side respecting the others' rights (within the law).

Atheists and Christians may disagree on essentials but we have managed to live side by side for some time without incident despite some Christians disdain of secularism which simply ensures those rights of self-determination.

You have a right to choose the way in which you live as others do. It is when people attempt to restrict the rights of others to live their life as they see fit whether it be in regards to sexuality, religion or culture, that is where self-determination is affected.

Are your rights any more valid or precious than another's?

The best test is the "no harm" test.

(Assuming of course we are not talking about criminal acts)

The most obvious defence against the imposition of a Bill of Rights is that in a reasonably free country such as ours, it can only create division and strife.

The author of this piece, as so many before her, believes that the simple existence of a Bill of Rights will be sufficient to settle all disputes. She must believe this, because she points out that:

"However, we can't continue to rely on the whim of High Court judges."

This clearly implies that there will be universal acceptance, and a common understanding, of the "rights" that become protected.

Sadly, this is not going to happen. And the reason is built into the way these documents are drafted.

They are, universally, nothing but a pious wish-list.

If they weren't (think about this for a minute), their content would be enshrined in law. Judges and juries would be given far less wiggle-room, since laws need to be clear, definitive and specific.

So, for an absolute 100% solid-gold fact, we will have to continue to "rely on the whim of High Court judges".

What's left?

"...the fact remains each new Parliament can amend laws as they wish"

This is presented as being somehow undesirable.

But the alternative - that the parliament we elect is forbidden from amending laws that have become irrelevant, anachronistic or downright dangerous - is hardly an improvement.

Certainly it cannot be an improvement on the current situation, if you happen to believe in the "right" to vote for the government of your choice.

This is my favourite:

"The most well-worn [argument against] runs like this: ”If we start making a list of rights then we limit them”. This situation is somehow deemed to be better than not having any rights protection at all."

Rot. The absence of a Bill of Rights does not indicate a lack of protection. That's what the law is for.

"Of course human rights norms do stem from sort of 'natural rights', however, this is no reason not to have a referendum on the topic"

I just love the dangling, unsupported "however".

Case dismissed.

Well said Pericles:

To the author I wanted to focus on this point:

"Another claim argues that human rights are imbued with morality and therefore as a community we could not possibly all agree to a set of rights."

This is a very strong point that I think deserves much more of an explanation, because a good many rights detract directly from another form of right- all we do is attempt, if we can, to mutually agree which is more important to ourselves personally (that is, as far as every person with a say in the matter is concerned).
I'll list a few examples and ask any who read this which they prefer (no, these aren't trick questions, these are issues that are seriously perceived to be valued by different people- and often, put it significantly different legal contexts in different first-world countries).
-Rights of property renters vs rights of tenants to own properties?
-Freedom of movement vs local land title, sovereignty or bush regeneration
-Freedom of information vs, occasionally, privacy issues (especially difficult in criminal cases)
-Free enterprise vs compulsory public regulation and consultation
-Right to own private property vs right to publicly own assets
Just a few to remain brief- but some specific problems which require a very precise balance to (in order to be just) reflect as closely the broad moral leanings of the citizens.