Sadly governments of today don't aspire to high ideals they only look to the polls.

Tieran "Sadly governments of today don't aspire to high ideals they only look to the polls."

YOu must be talking about some foreign government - or maybe, the government we would have had if Labor and Latham came to power -
Certainly you are not talking about the Australian current government, unless, of course, their perspective opposes that of yourself - I suggest, therefore, if you want to change it - get up and stand for election - and let the rest of us express our "democratic" opinion of your views.

As for the current government - they walk a considered path between doing all they need and protecting individual rights - one thing is for sure - were Labor in power - they would surrender us all to a dominant, unelected authority - that is the sort of thing they are used to doing and did - as they were directed by their union masters.

Col Rouge - multi national corporations that lobby our government and win concessions/protective laws; the US that our Government follows into war without the electorates, let alone parliaments approval; 'friends' such as Howard's brother and Manildra who obtain government payouts/subsidies; changes to this country's human rights due to the so called 'war of terror'-I do not recall this Government advising us during the election that our country's laws were to be changed at the behest of such entities. What is the difference between these entities and a Liberal government and the 'unions' and Labour ? It is not always the 'guilty' who get caught up in these draconian changes to human rights - when your friend, neighbour, workmate or tenant is suspected under this laws - you may very well find yourself detained, without charge, without lawyers and without being able to speak out (without being changed for doing so) and no one will know where you are, until and if, you are released. It can happen to you, to me, to your loved ones - and this is such powers should not be allowed to government unless for exceptional and limited reasons. Just think, if a Labour government with its union thugs who are out to destroy you and these country, get elected, they too will inherit this powers. In that case, Col Rouge, be very afraid.

"One Newspoll conducted in April last year found that 68 per cent of adults agreed that terrorists would "strike before too long" and that a terrorist attack in Australia is inevitable. Options open up if people believe an attack is on its way. This is why the unthinkable in terms of law reform has become possible."
With respect George Williams, there is something missing here in an otherwise well thought out piece of work. I thought that terrorists attacked Mosques in Australia soon after the September 11 attack. There is something very ethno-centric in that 68 percent, or the Newspoll, for not recognising the attacks that had already occurred against Australian Muslims.
I suggest to this forum that there is a belief that an attack would come from terrorists from outside Australia or others of different ethnicity - so, because they think that "normal people" won't be the target of imvestigations , there has been passive acceptance. I think that any erosion of our civil liberty is an attack on all our freedoms and yes we desperately need a Bill of Rights or something to protect us. Any government that introduces legislation that takes away peoples rights to fair treatment is dangerous - probably more dangerous than any terrorist cell. History has recorded that more people have died at the hands of their own governments than any outside enemy.

In practice only criminals have human rights. Their victims have none. Keith

Bill of Rights? I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference. Have a look at the European version and tell me whether it is a) a vague expression of warm and fuzzy liberal concepts or b) a legal document with teeth.

http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm

I suppose writing one would keep a bunch of public servants busy for a few years, but would have as much control over governmental decision-making as a piece of wet lettuce.

Yes George Williams, we need a Bill of Rights that is a legal document with teeth. Why is it that the government can whack out legislation with the potential to do great harm and instill fear in those who oppose their policies in no time, but can't find the energy or resources to protect our freedom of speech or gaurantee fair treatment? They can snatch you off the street folks. John Howard and his crew have used the threat of terrorism to give ASIO (public servants) powers that, I think, go way outside those of a true democracy.
Remember only about 10,000 people voted for Howard to represent Bennilong and then only a handful of Liberals voted him in to lead Australia. Maybe as well as a Bill Of Rights we need to revue the process where our virtual "President" claims, I think an improperly so-called, mandate with so few actual citizens' votes.

Come off it George. You know very well that a bill of rights will greatly reduce democracy in this country and place an immense amount of power in the hands of the 7 unelected High Court judges. You must be familiar with James Allan's paper published in the Federal Law Review:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/FedLRev/2002/20.html?query=%22judge+in+the+land%22

With the current composition of the High COurt this is not a problem, but things can change, and we may end up with a bench full of Michael Kirbys. But then that's exactly what you want isn't it George...?

An Australian Bill of rights need only do one thing to be effective .... guarantee public access to forums such as this in all major media outlets. This country has been ruled by media Barons since the Rum Corps left, if indeed they ever left at all.
Believe me, they guard their empires with ferocity and this is the greatest challenge to human rights and even democracy itself in Australia today.

This privilege and right of public access to media forums carries no high court or legal burden. As long as we can voice our opinions in media, we know we have a de facto bill of rights.

To have human rights, we the Australian people only need to be allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder in opinions with all the editors of the day and their master's voices, on all the important and even the not so important issues of the day.

There is an old historical saying: "A man who is not allowed to speak his mind in equal measure to any other and so that all can hear, is just a slave"

What the lawyers don't like about our decisive and courageous reaction to terrorists is that ,it takes the legal disease out of the equation and gives us once again the potence and control over our destinies.

Under our present legal system many criminals are freed to re-offend at will.If society realises that we could evolve a cheaper more effective system ,their ruse of their necessity will be laid bare.

Lawyers constantly create the need for their own existence and are the reason for many of our social and economic ills.
Terrorism may well be the catalyst that frees us from the clutches of money grubbing lawyers.

Neither the government, the judges, the lawyers, the big corporations nor the media are to blame for the problems with our laws and society; it is us. The everyday person too busy with their everyday life to take notice of what is going on around them until it's too late.

Remember if we install a government and then don't tell them to do the job we want; they'll do as they please, same as any other person with any power. If you give someone a job then you have a responsibility to make sure they do it right. Same with corporations we endorse what they do by buying their products and services without scrutiny.

Our system gives us power to affect change, only on masse however. So get out there read, listen, talk to each other and voice your opinion, challenge each other respectfully and listen to each other graciously; especially with people who think the opposite to you. We are all where we are because of the journey we have taken. Each person's journey is valid and must be validated so that they can keep travelling the journey, adding to their experiences and modifying their opinion. That's the best way to find a solution that suits everyone; that's how to find common ground.

Thankyou to all the people who contribute to the forum, keep it up and keep the discussion going. Above all strive against apathy and studied ignorance; express your opinions and welcome the opinions of others.

In fact Arjay, the “decisive and courageous reaction” has diminished our level of control over our own destinies and given the authorities potence and control over us; however, you might take some comfort in the concept, should you be mysteriously detained for investigation, that your interrogators will share your view of lawyers.

Why doesn't George Williams realise that we are at war? The majority of the people do, and that is why we acquiesce in these powers. From what I have been able to find out, they are not as great as those that applied during the second world war. It begs the question as to what terrorist atrocity is needed before those opposing these measures realise the sort of world we now live in?

PERICLES.. "wet lettuce" ? :) awesome. Being the sandwich maker for my 17 yr old, and using the stuff daily, your term is very apt I assure you.

OTHERS
The prolem with the 'Rule of Law' is that its promoted mostly by LAWYERS and might be better phrased "The rule of Lawyers" who, at up to $8000/day do quite well out of that.

When a lawyer asked Jesus "What must I do to be saved" Jesus responded "you know the commandments, etc" (knowing full well what the LAWyer wanted to hear) and he said he had followed them all, so Christ said "fine, now go, sell what you have and give it to the poor"
oooooops ! Now THAT was too close to 'REALLY' loving your neighbour which was the intention of the 'LAW', and the Lawyer went off sorrowful. This tells as much about the motivation of the 'Rule of Law' crowd as anything.

BILL OF RIGHTS ? when we swerve from being a community which is based on 'Love your neighbour as yourself', to one of a 'everything has a rule' we end up like the Pharisees of Christs day (and the orthodox Jews of today) with 634 extra rules on how to interpret the 10 commandments. A rule trying to cover every aspect of life. The Decalogue was just saying 2 things, - Love God, Love your neighbour.

All a bill of rights will do is line the pockets of the Ruling Lawyers, and fund the next Labor extravaganza via Slasher and Morgon. (name changed to protect the guilty)

plerdsus says we are at war. What we are told is tht there are terrorist suspected activities in Australia. We have been lied to a number of times by the Howard Government, interest rates and medicare being two examples at the last election; believe them at your peril. There have been no reported terrorist incidents in Austrlia, we get lots of noise from a discredited government. Its a means to an end ,it allows the Coalition government to subjugate the freedoms and rights of the ordinary Australian citizen. Its a way to keep themselves in power. Malcolm Fraser, a former Liberal Prime Minister, has stated that he is concerned about the excessive legislation passed by the Howard Government in relation to terrorists.

Let's think... off the top of my head:

GST
WMD
Babies overboard
Industrial relations
Telstra

Not to mention the countless other distortions, porkies and disingenuities that this government routinely deploys for political advantage.

Q. How do we know when Howard is lying?
A. His lips are moving.

There has never yet been a Bill of Rights that does anything more than a) keep lawyers in a permanent state of financial bliss and b) become a tool of governments to control their people.

In fact, the whole idea of a "Bill of Rights with teeth" is self-contradicting. If you want teeth, make an explicit law, so that people can see exactly what you are up to. Anything else is deceitful, and open to exploitation.

The phrase is used constantly as some kind of talisman against evil, whereas it is nothing more than empty posturing. Which is of course a favourite pastime of both politicians and lawyers, but gets the rest of us absolutely nowhere.

Get it out of our vocabulary, and start to concentrate on the reality of what we are doing. If we are heading towards a police state, sure as can be a wafty piece of do-goodery verbiage isn't going to stop it happening, now is it?

GST
...in retrospect, it has provided more available money for the government than they ever dreamed. Good thing if used wisely.

WMD
... one of those "We have to get them going, fired up, persuaded about invasion, how else will we achieve the greater strategic purpose of placing available troops in the centre of the worlds hot spot which has the highest probability of being the target of genocidal Bin Ladins and company, to strangle the west by controlling the countries which control the oil. Garra, grow up ! We arn't all as naive as you seem to think, but enough us are I guess that governments are prepared to 'spin' things for the sake of our best ultimate interests.

BABIES OVERBOARD.

A stupid ploy, never needed to swing the election, it was already won without that. Didn't change me one iota except make me wonder how dumb people like Wrieth etc think we are. I don't recall speaking with ANYone (except labor or green phone receptionists)who had sympathy for the Tampa mob who were in the Indonesian rescue area when picked up. They had 'refuge' on the Tampa. It was not 'refuge' they were seeking as much as it was AUSTRALIAN economic and social benefits as opposed to non existent Indonesian.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
If the government does nothing about the brutality and coersion and thuggery rampant in the construction industry, I can't think of anyone who will. Unfair dismissal as it currently stands is just as bad and open to abuse (as it IS) as pernicious and mean spirited employers can be under the a less rigid regime. Welcome to life. If we don't like our boss CHANGE JOBS.
I note with absolute cynycism the pathetic attempts by various political groups to hijack the IR demonstrations, like GREEN's and others.

TELSTRA.

Yes, why sell the golden goose ? Still, they have been shafting me and others with their OVERly expensive and UNDERvalue broadband for some time now, hence I'm now with TPG getting twice as much for half the price + other benefits. So, competition is a good thing.

MEDIA ARE the reason we do not have a bill of rights.
I reiterate ... ALL we require for a bill of rights is a constitutional statement that the citizens of Australia have a RIGHT to unfettered, uncensored access to public media forums in all the major news outlets.

Simple enough?

You watch the fur fly if that proposition is ever put before parliament.

There is only one thing that traditional Oligarchic (rule by the few) governments in Australia fear ... having the Australian people as their masters and not a handful of pliable prima donna media barons. These media barons manipulate us so well that some idiots even think it is our fault that we don't express our opinions.

When Media barons employ Itaesque spin doctors with half a dozen degrees in manipulating populations and psyches, do you really think you are going to have any time for your opinions other than how to keep up with the Joneses? Come on people look at the advertising on TV and radio. Do you really believe that represents the average Australian. In your dreams! We know the enemy, we know what we need and we know how to achieve it. It's time to make us some room, think for ourselves and make a stand.

Further, we cannot expect this forum to last forever. It already has a problem in that the editors choose the topics at a time most suitable to themselves. That in itself is a form of censorship. Also, the Sydney Morning Herald forum vanished the day after September 11, with no explanation and it has not come back since in anything but a tightly controlled and watered down "your say". Doesn't that tell you something? If we do not get a bill that guarantees public media forum access we are, as I have said ... effectively slaves.

This is the only bill of rights we need and it won't cost the government or legal system anything except their freedom to lie to us and serve select minorities at the expense of the population at large.

Correction: re: typo. I said: “Remember only about 10,000 people voted for Howard to represent Bennelong and then only a handful of Liberals voted him in to lead Australia.” Actually, John Howard received about 40,000 votes from about 86,000. More than half the voters in his electorate did not give Mr. Howard the nod.
The swing against Mr. Howard and Liberal policy was about four percent. That is more than Petro Georgiou who some Liberals disown because of a less- than- two- percent swing against him. It is likely that the swing against Petro was because of Liberal policy. The swing against Mr. Howard was despite his one- billion dollar pre-election, public-relations campaign. I think it is wrong of Mr. Howard and his media machine to claim a mandate.

Re: Bill of Rights, Biblical Commandments, or like documents. I think that they are meaningful only with political, community and personal will. However, all action needs some sort of a guideline. Yes – the Golden Rule must be the basis of all action; and the Sanctity of Life, which, I think, a God must encompass, must be the guiding Principle.
Nevertheless, Government agencies (and private agencies) and citizens must be accountable for their actions. Yes that should be enshrined in law.
Citizens also, I think, need to aspire to high ideals and worthy goals. Ideals that are kept prominent in our private thoughts and public discourse; rather than settling for the base, defeatist and negative and that end- justifies- the -means thinking that is so dominant in society. I think, we need to persevere with the Aristotelian (once Christian) idea that only good means can preserve the universal truths and attain an ultimate good end. Every time a lie, a killing, a slight against another (such as ASIO locking up citizens’ at its discretion) to attain an immediate end is justified and that action accepted as valid then the authority of a universal truth or right is undermined .
I think that a Bill of Rights can help achieve the positive end of upholding the value of civil liberties .

Oh Barbara,am I the "studied ignorance"to which you are referring?You seem to be in panic mode with such hyper-idealistic aspirations of the of the individual being too busy to connect politically with your elite.You see the public have good grasp of reality and good crap detectors.

Many politicians are lawyers and they have created a system to suit themselves.Big money law today is about selling people their rights and whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant.

A surgeon recently told me of how litigation lawyers sniff around the hospital wards asking patients if they were satisfied with the outcome of their operations.They inform them of their rights and the fact it will cost them nothing if they lose and have only to share in the bounty.You know what,to insure the validity of their case,they tout for medical practioners of low moral standards to bare witness to the fact that a particular procedure was not done to a particular standard and pay them undislosed cash for their professional opinion.

What a grey area for the legal disease to seize upon.This surgeon has to pay over $100,000.oo pa for medical indemnity insurance just for himself.Do you think this might be adding to the protracted waiting periods for people to get basic medical attention?
Lawyers have blown the cost of medical services public liability way out of proportion.This surgeon wants to leave this evil system that lawyers and Govt have perpetuated.We have diminished medical services and a public consumed with rights without responsibilities.

The legal fraternity is an absolute disgrace and need some serious introspection.They feed off our weaknesses rather than our sence of responsibility or courage to achieve.
If we are going to have "A Bill of Rights" ,we also need a counter balance "Bill of Responsibilities"

So George, you want something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - that noble document that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia etc, etc. If you really believe that Rome is burning, why are you "fiddling around" with a useless Bill of Rights? Seems to me to be something to do when you can't do anything. I'm amazed that our fragile, tenuous democracy has managed to survive this long without a Bill of Rights.

Seems that you're not really concerned about the threat of terrorism George. I wonder what the reaction would be if we were attacked? Seeing that the whole state security issue is being used as a weapon to score points against the Howard government I suspect the event would be met with a certain amount of glee. I would suggest that George should put forward his plan to protect the most basic of human rights - the right to not being blown up by scumbag terrorists.

A “Bill of Responsibilities”. I like that Arjay, a lot. Of all your posts that I have read this is the first of your ideas that I agree with; the second is that lawyers lurking in hospital corridors is unforgivable and perhaps this Bill of Responsibilities of yours can do something to address ethically challenged lawyers and politicians – put their incomes into mandatory indefinite suspension until they can prove themselves worthy as service providers.

You rightly mention balance. Nobody knows when this “war on terror” will cease, if ever. The idea of perceived terrorist threat followed by legislation followed by community acceptance followed by perceived terrorist threat……. Where will we be after five more years of this - unchecked?

A balance between the need to protect ourselves against terrorism and the need to preserve basic liberties – we are just winging it - we have no mechanism.

Anyone interested in freedom of speech: Have a read of how Carmel Travers had her hard drive smashed to bits with a sledgehammer.

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-06-22&headlineid=981

I really can't see how a Bill of Rights would actually (as opposed to theoretically) protect us against draconian anti terrorist legislation. Consider the US and UK, both have Bills of Rights, and they also have far more draconian anti-terror regimes than we do.

Remember also that it is the US Bill of Rights that gives its citizens the right to bear arms, and look what tremendous harm this has done.

That SBS doco is an eye-opener on what governments can get away with if we let them. Taken together with the recent application of the new anti-terrorism laws to certain unnameable Australian citizens of Islamic persuasion, it demonstrates clearly that Sept. 11, 2001 was the most successful "black ops" achievement of the US-controlled global intelligence community so far.

The US "Bill of Rights" was never a one-off enactment, it is a series of hard fought amendments to the American Constitution designed to correct some of its perceived defects. Not all amendments succeeded, e.g. the Equal Rights Amendment which would have given equal rights to women, and some, like the prohibition amendment, had to be repealed. The "right to bear arms" amendment only gave that right to "a properly constituted militia" and was designed to counter lawlessness on the frontier, not to encourage it in urban schools. Post-9/11 legislation like the Patriot Act is specifically designed to evade the consequences for the Bush administration of breaching the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and, as many see it, the reason 9/11 happened. The Australian legislation follows from ASIO taking its orders from Langley, Va. to bring us into line with the US.

My point is that a Bill of Rights is ultimately only a piece of paper, and the actual rights a person has usually comes down to who is interpreting that piece of paper. The US Bill of Rights is a classic example - your and my interpretation of its 2nd ammendment is that it pertains only to militia, but the prevailing interpretation in the US is that it pertains to all individuals. I would say that this part of the US Bill of Rights has cost more innocent people their lives than any other legislation in existence. This doesn't mean that all Bills of Rights are bad, but it shows that a Bill of Rights is not the pancea against erosion of rights that some legal theoreticans claim it to be.

I have just been catching up with this interesting thread (George Williams, “Liberties rest in the hands of the vigilant”, Online Opinion, 30 June 2005). If my fellow-contributor Pierdsus really believes that Australia is “at war”, he suffers from a serious reality cognition problem. With which country or government are we at war ? Where and when was Australia’s declaration of war made in our Parliament ? Where is the mobilisation order to our ADF? Pierdsus may feel Australia is at war with terrorism – as we are at war with drugs, child abuse, poverty and all manner of things - but that is one person’s view, not a fact of state policy.

More seriously, I would like George Williams please to elucidate further the exact meaning of these sentences in his good piece:
“These [new anti-terrorism laws] include the imposition of a five-year jail term for speaking about or reporting the detention of a person by ASIO, including where that person has been mistreated. Another example is that non-suspect Australians can be detained at the behest of ASIO for one week, whereas suspects can only be held for 24 hours before being charged.”

I’ve read a lot about these draconian provisions in the media of late but it has never been spelled out whether this is a mandatory five-year jail term, i.e,. that if a person does speak out after being taken away for up to one week for secret ASIO questioning, he/she must be charged with that offence and if found guilty, that a judge must sentence him/her to a mandatory five years in jail ? Or, under the law as it now stands, could the judge if he/.she were so disposed find the accused guilty but impose a purely symbolic penalty? (to be continued)

(continued) What will actually happen when some angry innocent person, sooner or later, defies this law on conscience grounds? It seems to me that under Murphy’s Law, this is bound to happen. Sooner or later ASIO is going to take in some entirely innocent person for secret questioning, eg a journalist or a human rights lawyer, and that person is going to get very angry indeed, to the point that they will blow the whistle afterwards regardless of consequences. What will happen then, George ? Will it depend on what kind of a judge is listed to hear the case? Or is that five-year sentence truly mandatory?

And a further question. In this postulated situation, if someone were to speak out publicly about their wrongful removal for secret questioning, would the media be subject to the same mandatory five-year charge if they reported the fact of that person’s protest? Would such an aggrieved person thereby have no way of making the fact of their protest publicly known., beyond handing out leaflets in Martin Place or Federation Square ?

Perhaps these are questions our Senators should be considering, when they meet to consider the proposal to make these bizarre laws permanent. We need to explore what are the practical consequences of these laws.

What I would like to know, George, is this. How is it that you so blatantly and frequently advocate a Bill of Rights for Australia, and now Victoria, when you have just been appointed the Chair of the 'Independent' Committee to decide on whether Victoria needs such legislation? Is this evidence of bias or a commitment only to the appearance of justice and consultation?

Australia has no need of a 'Bill of Rights'. One of the major premises of a democracy is that it is based on the notion of ‘consent’. That is, the consent of the majority in the election of the government to establish a rule by the people, for the people. This is, perhaps a romantic notion, but nevertheless, that is the principle of our democracy. To introduce a ‘Bill of Rights’ for Australia is to presume that the rights the current society values and prizes are ones that outlast cultural shifts. One could label this arrogance.

I question also: why would a government want a Bill of Rights? Is it that it does not trust to the future an Opposition that may make decisions different to the ones it would make? Or perhaps it lacks the strength of its own convictions and would rather have the courts do its work. Either way the government that enacts a 'Bill of Rights' is really saying it does not trust the judgement of the electorate, and that it wants to bind the electors of the future to do something that may be against their wishes. Is this the logic we are supposed to accept?

There is absolutely no need for a Bill of Rights. Australia was not built on political posturing- why should we cave in now?

The problem with "rule by the people, for the people" is that the "the people" sometimes become a hysterical mob.

A good chunk of the Australian people have become a bit mob like several times in the last ten years. This was during a prosperous period. Imagine how we would go during a time of hyperinflation, large unemployment, and under threat of attack.

A Bill of Rights gives the individual some protection from the mob.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Sorry, I must have forgotten to take my soma.

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.)

Onya, Aslan. That is exactly what he wants. Having the courts rule the country is far more convenient to the finger waggers, because it gets around the inconvenience of Australia being populated by an irredeemably conservative electorate.

A Bill or Rights would simply be a Trojan Horse for every left wing cause imaginable. It would be a sugar coated cyanide pill to enshrine the rights of anything the intellectual brahmin caste could ever dream up.

The Rights of refugees, the Rights of homosexuals, the Rights of children to divorce their parents, the rights of prisoners to evade DNA testing, the right to walk around nude. The mind boggles.

Naturally, these "rights" would be couched in terms of the highest Idealism. "The Rights of every person to be treated equally to ....."

Fill in the blank.

This is done to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public, because proponents of a Bill of Rights know the public would never accept such things as the "right" of lesbians to IVF treatment, if they ever got to vote on it.

What people advocating a Bill of Rights really want, is to bypass the People's Parliament and to enshrine their "rights" beyond public control, for ever and ever.

Fat chance

Deuc: “A bill of rights can be altered later if changes are needed”. Exactly. Let’s look at the New Zealand situation: “a full decade after the Bill of Rights Act came into force, and with only the flimsiest, most implausible statutory basis for doing so at all (namely, s 5), the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Moonen announced that, henceforth, when some statute is found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, although the courts will be bound by s 4, they may also make a declaration of inconsistency. [James Allen, ‘Oh That I were made Judge in the Land’, Federal Law Review, 2002, At: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/FedLRev/2002/20.html?query=%22judge+in+the+land%22]

“I don't see many people campaigning for…. the right to vote on every single issue.”
I fail to see the point of this statement. In our democracy, we are all aware that the people we vote in will follow certain policy lines. This is, in essence, our vote on every issue. The campaign period for an election is the parties’ time to communicate to the public their stance on issues that will affect the voters. If you choose not to be informed, that is your own problem.

Another quote from James Allen: “I do not doubt that many, perhaps most, lawyers, judges and legal academics think the rights enunciated in a bill of rights are too precious to be left to 'the tyranny of the majority', even if that means such rights are simply transferred over to a different set of overseers who, as it happens, also reach their decisions about them purely procedurally by voting”.

Red Neck says: “Fat chance” to a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, this very issue is being looked at under a Committee CHAIRED BY GEORGE WILLIAMS in Victoria right now. The ACT already has one thanks to Mr. William’s heavy lobbying in that State as well. We don’t need a Bill of Rights. Please let the committee know! Email: <HumanRights@justice.vic.gov.au>

I don't see why a bill of rights should be considered a left wing idea.

For me the classic case for a bill of rights is this one:

An eccentric old lady lives in suburbs and likes to take in stray cats. Eventually she has about 30 cats. This is her whole life, taking care of the cats. Then the local council makes a rule that you can't have more than 4 cats, because cats eat birds. Her neighbours complain and eventually the cats are taken away.

Why should some bleeding heart, greenie local council be able to take away her cats. Its her house.

The type of Bill of Rights that we need is one that help would protect eccentric old cat ladies.

“I do not doubt that many, perhaps most, lawyers, judges and legal academics think the rights enunciated in a bill of rights are too precious to be left to "the tyranny of the majority"

"The tyranny of the majority", Em? In other words, the legal profession is not too keen on democracy, and would prefer a system where this country was governed by decree, by a bunch of legally anointed, enterpreneurial, ambulance chasing lawyers.

I rest my case, M'lud

"I fail to see the point of this statement."
We don't have a pure democracy, and further controls on the Legislative and Executive arms are no less legitimate, if supported by the consent of the governed.

I don't think I need to explain why judges do more than just vote, or why they are necessary to ensure fair enforcement and application of a bill of rights, or any other law.

I do agree with redneck that a bill of rights could be used to support every left wing cause imaginable, although I would use the word liberal. Curious that the same is not said for every right wing cause. I suppose it demonstrates that right wing ideology more or less supports inequality.

Terrorists have just hit London.

Why don't the human rights advocates defend citizens's rights to live without fear of terrorism? How many people need to die at the hands of terrorists before we take action?

Our human rights record is among the best in world. Why doesn't George Williams take aim at Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc and why doesn't he celebrate the fall of Saddam and friends - one of the worst human rights violaters in history...

"Right wing causes", Deuc? Well, I can guarantee you that a "Right to Bear Arms" is most certainly not on the agenda of the people who are advocating a Bill of Rights for Australia.

They are far more conerned with the fact that their fav. "causes" have hit a brick wall with the electorate, so they moan and groan about "The tyranny of the majority". In other words, democracy is a bit of an inconvenience for the implementation of their vision splendid.

But you are correct to claim that the Bill of Rights would be legitimate, if the electors were silly enough to fall for it. But that is unlikely to happen. The public has been confronted in the past by the creation of bodies such as the NSW Anti Discrimination Board who's high sounding job was presented to the public as one to protect vulnerable people like the ahndicapped from serious discrimination.

Unfortunately, this organisation has morphed in the Pro Discrimination Board, which is far more concerned with finding creative ways for minorities to discriminate against the majority.

Examples are the "Fitness For Life" scandal where the ADB found that Muslims may discriminate against Infidels but not the other way around. It has also decreed, that homosexuals may not be discriminated against, but homosexual bars can discriminate against non homosexuals. Jewish dating agencies may discriminate against goyem but non Jews may not discriminate against Jews.

Now we have the Victorian Religious Vilification Act where Christian priests had better be carefaul about what they say about the Devil, or they could be upsetting the Satan Worshippers and causing affront.

The tendency for cultural elitists to demand the implementation of high sounding legislation which then becomes a parody of the very freedoms it claimed to protect, is now in the public consciousness.

"Bill or Rights" Ha. Fat chance.

Funny how the Polls on the riots don't have a tick-the-box for overpopulation or lousy State Government services like trains that don't run to schedule.

Time and again you hear Shire people saying that immigration is out of control. We have a State Government run by Italian descendants, shoehorned into office in safe seats, who are hell bent on populating this city with immigrants for their own power and profit.

For example, we don't need a desal plant or massive Botany Vegas developments for the benefit of a few favoured businessmen. We want social services and we want democratic equality.

The free ride PROCESS of developing infrastructure at public cost, at the expense of democratic values and at the expense of badly needed services, just so a million more Sydney homes can be built by rich Labor supporting developers is abhorrent. NO ONE except Morris Iemma and his goodfellas want these homes or the social unrest they will bring to us all.

There is a cost to this PROCESS. That cost is civil unrest and until the Carr/Iemma government is dealt a crushing blow by the NSW electorate John Howard's senile prediction that this is just a law and order issue will be just as lame as his hope for a win at the next election.

If you want to stop Sydney riots, don't build 1,000,000 new homes. Don't pour petrol on a grass fire!