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...