A bill or rights does seem a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky to me also. But I think that considering it and discussing it in public forums does have value. It serves to get us thinking about what we consider to be rights that we should have so we can come to some explicit agreement about them. Enshrining them in law is probably unnecessary, but the discourse is important and proposing something to be legislated seems to be a good way to kick off active public discussion and debate.

If we had a bill of rights focused on natural law principles like that of the Americans then I would have no problem with it. However, instead we'd probably get one plasted togeather by every minority group with a friendly back bencher which would result in a horrid bloated and ugly document like that produced by the iraqis.

DLC, even the "natural law principles" enshrined in the US Bill of Rights have been the subject of dispute.

Here's the "First", in all its glory:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And here's a list of prominent cases involving the First Amendment:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/directory/400/401/

The point here is whether a "human right" is enhanced or confused by the existence of a Bill of Rights. Experience in the USA might suggest that it is simply there to provide expensive schooling for the offspring of constitutional lawyers.

i do agree, after hearing the talk from the last few days, that a Bill of Rights would just put power into the hands of intellectual activists who 'know better' than the rest of us .. essentially it would allow them to bypass democracy completely, when they feel the democratic choice that the majority of australians make isn't the right one..

the thing about democracy is, the choice the majority makes is always the right one.. it seems the intellectual set is not happy with the way most australians have accepted the new, very few restrictions on our freedom to ensure our security.. they can't stand that we don't seem to be up in arms about it, just like they can't stand we voted in johnny with a massive majority, just like they can't stand modern australia.. let's not just hand our future over to a bunch of activists with too much time , funding and contempt for our culture.. our destiny is our own, to be decided by us..

a Bill of Rights sounds nice.. then again so does the Nationalist Socialist Democratic Party!

Is the author the same person who called for torture to be introduced into Australia's law enforcement agencies? If so, please bring on a bill of rights ASAP!!

Get the message, folks? Those freedom-loving countries Rawanda, China, South Africa and Sudan all have Bills of Rights! So, I believe does Russia.

As the author points out, we already have the necessities for all of the freedoms known to man. And we are free to practise those freedoms now.

Let’s hope that this latest Bracksism doesn’t spread any further.

Democracy means having elected governments to make the rules – not having unelected judges, who have no better perceptions of right and wrong than the rest of us, meddling in our lives.

The proponents of a Bill tell us that governments will have the last say. Not very comforting when we consider that it is governments who most want to foist these things on us without asking our opinion

That would be near 100% pericles, and it would give NGO’s or Judges the power to create and destroy laws, and elected Governments become weaker as the new masters take control of our destiny: so we go back to the bad old day’s by being lead up the garden path by over active Ego’s instead of logic and reason. Bill of Rights is the same as Human rights: they only exist as a privilege, until someone wants to deprive you of it: or even Take over your society?

It is time for the anti-Billi o' Rights mob to go to your favourites list and bring up their opinion to support your opinion.

jboywonder, "...the choice the majority makes is always the right one".
For whom? Corporate Australia? Don't forget Hitler had majority support.

jboywonder, "John Howard elected by a massive majority". How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition. I didn't vote for him (or any of his Liberal team). Neither did the majority of his Bennelong electorate - not to mention the rest of us. In other words John Howard and his Liberals are a minority.

Nevertheless, I still think, parliamentary democracy is the best system you can get, however, it does fail to address the rights of the minorities (that is citizens as individuals and small groups).

Recent polls in relation to sale of Telstra and Industrial Relations Bills suggest that we do not have a truly representative government.

The trouble is the Liberals haven't been honest in their relationship with the Australian people. Show me where Howard and his Liberals told the Australian people of their future policies in detail in relation to such matters.

So long as we have spin-doctors managing the media and the peoples' and people's opinions, not to mention the Liberals' clearly using the extreme right to push politics further to the right and keep the focus on other emotive issues involving minorities and harnesss those swinging voters that support racist and culturally supremacist ideas; so long as we have a Government that uses its lack of opposition (indeed, seems to be trying to completely destroy the Opposition), depite clearly displayed electorate outrage; so long as we have this Liberal-style treachery in politics , well we must have a Bill of Rights. (cynosure).

No where in this article does the good professor put up arguments that suggest that we should trust (with blinded loyalty) the role of the state to uphold and protect us.

The reliance on common laws will not be enough to protect us against the fragilities that occur in our moral and ethical political culture. No government of any persuasion can or should be given a free hand in deciding what is - or is not - the basic rights of our society and ourselves.

Our modern political culture was founded on principles that limited the power of the State. We have witnessed the abuse of power by the state in other nations. A bill of rights should be seen as a safety net that upholds and enshrines our common humanity and decency no matter who is in power.

In Australia, we rely primarily upon a system of common law that works in tandem with a responsible government to protect us against the removal of our basic rights.

Currently they work hand in hand but with little if any clarity about what these basic rights are – hence they are left to be interpreted by politics and their ideological swings.

History has shown us that this partnership cannot be trusted without overarching principles of law and civil society. This is what a bill of rights can provide.

This is about our shared understanding and commitment to the common good as much as it is about the common laws.

for rancitas:

[jboywonder, "...the choice the majority makes is always the right one".
For whom? Corporate Australia? Don't forget Hitler had majority support.]
take me very, very literally mate.. it's not that hard a concept to get your head around if you don't selectively quote.. in a democracy if a majority makes a decision, that's the right one.. simple, innit?

[jboywonder, "John Howard elected by a massive majority". How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition. I didn't vote for him (or any of his Liberal team). Neither did the majority of his Bennelong electorate - not to mention the rest of us. In other words John Howard and his Liberals are a minority.]
funny, i could have sworn that they just got the new I.R. laws through despite massive protests because they had such a clear majority and stifled all debate.. or was i on glue? or do i just sound like a johnny supporter so you chose to take issue with me?

actually, don't bother answering, i'm not really interested haha

We need a "Bill of Responsibilities" to protect us from the lunatic left and those lasivious,litigious lawyers.

Beware those who offer us something for free that appeals to our weaker side,we will end up getting a lot more than we wished for.

As for those snivel libertarians.Oh what a tangled web they weave as they do practise to deceive.

The great thing about not having a bill of rights is that the only thing you have stopping govt agencies from behaving stupidly is administrative law. But to gain their rights, the average punter has to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees.Legal aid schemes often don't cover such disputes.

So as a practising lawyer, all I can say to to those opposed to a bill of rights is - SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Merry Christmas.

Arjay,
It was libertarians who fought and gave you the freedoms you enjoy today. But as usual, you have no use for history and its deeper investigations into the origins of ideas and their correlating events. The off the cuff parroting of a conservative ideological perspective you are trying to now emulate and craft as something you've had for years -- is pathetic -- and so blatantly obvious - its simply embarrassing.
Do yourself a favour and start thinking for yourself mate. We libertarians admire people who understand education to be something that comes from the University of Life, not from a life in a university.

I believe with what the Govt/s are doing nowdays we should cement some BASIC RIGHTS in Legislation, but more importantly seeing how we are having big problems with our health system/hospitals, water supply/dams, electriciaty supply etc etc, we should be looking at a more accountable system of Government which actually does what it is suppossed to be doing and actually listens to the majority of people and most of all does not hide the truth from us taxpayers (or IE: the politicians Bosses). Rather than the current not our/my fault buck passing that Politicians and Governments seem to engage in so frequently nowdays and then tell the taxpayers they will have to pay more for the Politicians/Governments neglect/mistakes.

After all what is so bad about having basic human rights enshrined in Legislation, and most of all open and accountable government!

Mirko’s argument that there is no empirical need for a rights charter is based on survey material which is likely to precisely exclude people who are disadvantaged and marginalised rather than “flourishing”. The enjoyment of rights is easy with privilege, and the establishment of rights standards and mechanisms to give them effect is not directed towards their benefit. It is for the people who need to claim them, often when the right is being denied by an instrument of the state – hence the large number of matters that go to appeal, and with success in both administrative matters such as centrelink payment decisions, child support determinations, or the denial of a service to a veteran.

Conceptually more misleading about Mirko’s argument is that rights in charter/bill have no foundations and will introduce silly so-called rights. The source of local rights charter content typically draws on the standards of principle contained in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm . They have a rather significant foundation as they are the product of a global consensus (which in other ways is problematic because they are the products of integovernmental and diplomatic compromise, and as such not as sharply or precisely worded as they should/could be).

By signing up and ratifying the treaties and those standards, governments state their support for them, promise to implement them in their own country and report on how they are going, and be subject to critical evaluation. Australia has done so and thus local legislation that reflects that convention and local context (e.g. Indigenous inequality issues) would be a consistent step. Victoria’s proposed charter will be one State example of doing so – the A.C.T already has a comparable law in place.

A country can also withdraw from endorsing the ICCPR and a call for Australia to do so would be logical consequence of Mirko’s stance if the rights for the proposed charter/bill are so unpalatable for him.

Mirko, I’d be interested to know whether you would support such a step.

Well put Danny 2 cents worth,

The state's fidicuary duty to citizens cannot simply rely on the political interpretations and their adhoc interpretations of social justice.

Fiduciary is a legal term used to describe a relationship between a person who occupies a particular position of trust, power or responsibility with respect to the rights, property or interests of another". But it can also refer to government and governance.

A right to an education, a right to a good health system are without doubt relative to the degree of access individuals may enjoy in the market place but we need to clearly state what the threshold of these rights are for the most vulnerable in our society. A bill of rights would succeed in giving some clarity to this. Having no clarity at all is simply unworkable.

David Hicks and others are prime examples of how unclear their rights as domestic Australians citizens are both here and afar.

A bill of rights would go some way toward amending a loose hanging thread in our contemporary understandings and answers to a question that should continually be asked and that is this *'how can we claim to be a civil society'?*

No Irfan ,we don't need the empower the lawyers more.Just strengthen the independance and authority fo the various Ombudsman and we will have a more cost effective solution.

People in Zimbabwe,China or Iran could do with some rights,but we in Australia have many avenues of recourse including a free media that often takes up a perceived injustice and in turn, puts pressure on an elected Govt.

A Bill of Rights will see more criminals on the street because of some legal technicality and make arrests even more complex for police who have now been already turned into a wet lettuce of a police service by leftist legal system.

The rights of the individual should not surpass the rights of the majority since the situation we have in NSW will only get worse,whereby a total breakdown of law and order will prevail and not even Irfan will be safe in our streets.

a bill of rights would be a disaster for australia and would create a lawyer's picnic and would subject us to an unaccountable dictatorial rule by elitist judges.

we would just be inviting those parasitic vultures to take over australia and once that regeime is in place we can never get rid of it.

the problem with formulating a bill of rights is that you then encourage 'interpretation' from the legal fraternity because that's what lawyers do with legal documents.

you would end up with an all powerful high court that can make policy from the bench......as happens in the usa. it would become actively involved with politics instead of being an impartial observer from the sidelines.

any system that gives increased power to those obnoxious lawyers cant be good.

Vinni, that is the most important recognition of The Greater Parasites writing laws to suit them selves; A greater display of Dislocated ideology exists within The frame work of N G O’s ; i.e. U N, and now European Union, these are the best available e.g. available of the parasite’s wielding a stick - and Do as they Command - Or else.
Read what was reported in The Quadrant magazine: “Judicial Adventurism and social debate” or worded differently “Bill of Rights” is actually what is meant.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=580

And this article Criticising Judicial Adventurism; - same magazine:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=821

The thought of being lead by The Supreme Parasites, is something only a Doctor in psychology should diagnose, and not be left as a weapon against one’s own Civilization. Dr Richardson has a great deal to answer for; For his contribution of such a degradation, and nil attention to the psychiatric needs of those afflicted.
What should be on people minds it the caliber of Intellect of people that continually try and find ways to control – WHO and what you are, and Control your thoughts and What You do.
In the real world of Freedom, these laws are not needed, so Question why some would implement new laws, they are not Laws that protect us- they are laws to protect themselves from us- When the Population wakes up to what it is the greater Parasites are doing.

They are meant to be working for the Public- Protecting and preserving our life- not the public working for them protecting and preserving what they can steal from you- That is what we have now- Looters as visionaries-

I know that Vinny’s and All-‘s approach to lawyers and judges is stronly held by a segment of the community. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the law in general and importantly for everyday life, administrators in child protection departments, tax offices, local governments, licence registration units, and even Heads of University Departments like Mirko, also perform interpretations based on their reading of rules: dealing with applications, complaints, staff-customer/client disputes etc.

They make judgments (based on rules/guidelines/internal dictionaries etc.) that affect your rights and where the organisation will not budge, that’s often when a review by an umpire – sometimes a judge, sometimes not – with no attachment to the disputants gets to make a call that stands unless it gets taken further which does involve a court.

It’s also useful to remember that the more consistent understanding of key concepts is a disincentive to unreasonable judgments and the litigation costs that cause writers like Vinny and All- concern. And not just consistent actually adaptive too in order to deal with new developments – for example, like new meanings of privacy intrusion (an important human right for protection given science and information technology).

I like the way Simon Evans described the link between stating rules and interpreting them in discussuing charters/bills of rights - www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=16512

“Parliaments have democratic legitimacy and policy making expertise. But they can’t predict the future and every possible ramification of the laws they enact. Courts look backwards and see how laws have affected the human rights of particular individuals. This dynamic relationship between parliaments and courts … draws on the strengths of both institutions to protect human rights, enhancing and not undermining democracy.”

On a different note, are we not in trouble if as Mirko suggests, free press is essential for human rights given monopolisation of it and the sedition provisions of the new (popular!?) anti-terrorism laws?

If the argument is that we need a Bill of Rights because we don't trust parliament, then it is time to abandon parliamentary democracy... so lets call it what it is, the people advocating a Bill of Rights want to turn back time over 2 thousand years and install a group of people with whom they agree politically to tell everyone what to and those people never have to face the people who they oppress.

In respect of the argument that a majority of Australians (which is entirely wrong on a preferential basis) did not vote for Howard, how many people voted for Bob Brown or any of his left wing mates? A damn sight less than voted for Howard, and at the end of the day, this is what lies at the heart of the arguments for a Bill of Rights. Bills of Rights are used by vocal minorities and activist judges to reshape society in their image, regardless of wishes of the majority of society. Their real agenda is to rule society, without the legitimacy of being elected.

If you wish to see the mess that Bills of Rights create, have a look at Roe v Wade. Despite the angry left, the reason that abortion remains controversial is that a group of unelected judges made the decision, denying the people the right to govern themselves (oh and before you say that the majority doesn't always agree with government policy, you can hardly say that Telstra compares as an issue).

Further Bills of Rights merely enshrine the thoughts of the writers as to basic freedoms. For exmaple 200 years ago, it was a basic freedom to have a gun, thats gone really well for the ability of governments to restrict things like gun ownership. And before you say, we'll just amend the Bill of Rights, have a look at how many referenda have passed in 100 years, I think about 4, how likely do you think people are to give up ANY rights.

This is nothing but another demonstration of the arrogance of the "rights lobby".

"How many citizens voted for John Howard?, about ten thousand, plus a handful of his mates in the Coalition."

10,000? Good try. It's a lot more than that, especially when you take into account the distribution of preferences.

A Bill of Rights will clearly do nothing, but at least we will see that it has accomplished such a result in Victoria, before we have to see what a waste of time, resources, and assorted mucking around, it will be at a federal level.

Mirko,

You have based the entire article on false premises. You say _

"The best protector of important human interests is not signing up to abstract ideals, but a robust democracy with a free press."

Here are some definitions from an online dictionary for the word democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Which of those fits what government we have here?

Here's a definition of the word oligarchy from the same source:

Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

Those making up such a government.

A state governed by a few persons.

Which one sounds closest to what we have? Keep in mind your choice at elections is between two parties as the government, Coalition or Labor. Also keep in mind that preselection is done behind closed doors by people you never hear of. Also keep in mind those that win preselection have to obey what they are told to do or else no preselection. Is that the democracy that you refer to?

Hicks, Rau, Alvarez and no doubt many more demonstrate exactly why we do need stated rights.

We do not have a democracy in Australia and the media is not free and open and you know it.

We do need a bill of rights, to protect us from politicians, beaurucrats, religion, PC's, multinationals economic rationalism and ourselves. Realistically we can't have one until we adopt a system that accounts for the changes we require. To do that we first have to instil legislative responsibility on politicians, beaurucrats and business leaders. We also have to change our legal system so that it reflects community expectations and start supporting victims instead of perpetrators. Then we have to make the judiciary more responsilbe for their actions and decisions.

As is pointed out by other posters, a bill of rights doesn't nessecarily mean that they will be upheld in the way they were designed. For this country to survive, we have to change our system, as this one has certainly fallen of the cliff and could crash and splatter at the bottom any time.

http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-105.htm

rancitas - please have a look at this page, and tell me what the figure was that voted for john howard in the local bennelong elections.. if the result is over ten thousand, then i'm sorry, my friend, but you are an agitator, a liar, and you live in an 'ideal world', detached from reality, of your own making..

wake up. and please, stop having a go at people just because they say something positive about john howard.. he is, after all, a fellow australian, and worthy of your respect.... or, are you everything you claim to hate? prejudiced, biased, and ignorant..?

Everyone mentions Rwanda and Zimbabwe, but has anyone here thought of the United States of America? I guess not.

Someone mentioned giving the Ombudsman further powers. Well, if you do this, the Ombudsman will no longer be an Ombudsman but a de facto administrative judge. Which means we are back where we started - more lawyers and more money to people like me!

The great thing about pseudo-conservative racially-motivated neo-Nazi nutcases that congregate these forums is that their solutions always end up making the average punter poorer and me richer. Once again all I can say is SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

I love it how many here including the author have no information on the proposed "Bill of Rights", yet dismiss the idea. While laws in Australia may exist that cover all perceived strengths of a Bill of Rights, they are subject to easy change at a political whim.

Bill of Rights are supposed to contain inalienable protections. That is where the strength resides.

the usual suspects from the left are in the vanguard calling for a bill of rights......well going on their record with other legislation over the past 30 years, anything they support i instinctively reject.

what exactly are these 'rights' that those deranged lefties want to protect?? would it be freedom of expression perhaps??

perhaps they could have a word with bracks down in victoria and mention his anti villification legislation which persecutes innocent people simply for making comments about some religion which may offend some politically motivated mischief maker.

consider the case of those 2 christian ministers who were hauled thru the bracks inquisition simply for quoting from the koran at some small religious meeting. apparently this caused some members of the congregation to larf out loud and in brackislavia this constitutes religious villification.

so far those ministers have been forced to pay $200,000 trying to defend themselves and may yet find themselves in the grey bar hotel.

so to all those bleating heart lefties calling for a bill of rights, where are the rights of these christian ministers to make religious comments in good faith and be protected against political persecution from power crazed left wing goverments and their obnoxious agents.

So Irfan is lost for words and is reduced to name calling.Neo Nazis eh?
GABMUCS LAWYERS
Hello, this is Gabmucs Lawyers,we are deeply offended by this scuttlebutt that has tarnished the reputation of a pristine profession which has the economic and social welfare of this great country uppermost in every case of litigation.We are the intellectual cream of society and as a consequence,you should be greatful of the opportunity to owe us a living.

We have a long history of having to tolerate innuendo,abuse and satire.Over 100 yrs ago,a cartoon depicted a lawyer milking a dead cow.Well it simply isn't true,because I tried it;got sick from the rancid milk and had to sue the farmer from whom the cow was stolen for negligence;ie allowing his cow to be stolen and then run over by a train and not warning of the danger of rancid milk.The million hardly made up for the trauma and loss of income for that week.

Imagine if we didn't have the path of litigation to sell people their rights.We would have to resort to conveyencing and making wills.This would entail secretaries,organising and taking responsibilities for a mere Doctor's salary.We are the ostracised fringe dwellers of society and only have money to comfort us.We suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder,amassing vast sums of money because no one trusts us.It is just not our fault.My psychologist verified this saying that plaintiff lawyers had a common malady of missing the gene for empathy,ethics and morality;and it was inherited.Well didn't my litigation antennae stand erect;I could sue mum and exclude the rest of her siblings from the will.Then I remembered than gran was loaded.I had a financial orgasm.ALL WOULD BE MINE!

So if you are really wondering who we really are,just reflect upon our name.
Yours satirically
GABMUCS LAWYERS

Do we want more of the above Irfan?

Steel, at some point, theory needs to meet practice.

>>While laws in Australia may exist that cover all perceived strengths of a Bill of Rights, they are subject to easy change at a political whim. Bill of Rights are supposed to contain inalienable protections. That is where the strength resides.<<

Who is going to uphold a citizen's rights under the bill? Not the government, if it doesn't suit them, so it would have to be the courts.

What would be different?

"We do not have a democracy in Australia and the media is not free and open and you know it."

What a load of leftist crap!

The only reason you- and your kind- are rejecting the clear fact that Australia is a democracy, is because you are not getting the ‘result’ you want. Those far-left feral socialists the Greens take something like 12% of the vote in state elections, after preferences. The reason they take so little- still too much by my standards- isn’t because we are ‘undemocratic’, but for numerous reasons- most importantly, their freakin’ policies!

Your average Australian wants either the coalition, or labour- because they don’t want those PC beasts throwing a 70% tax rate on them, to fund absolutely stupid gender and animal organisations/boards/studies etc., and potentially destroy our security with their anti-Americanism, inter alia.

As for your attack on the media- this is a matter of consumer choice. You are clearly not restricted in what information you see, as shown by the numerous online media available (including horrible sites such as stormfront, and Antony Loewenstein), as well as that available in print.

If your still not happy, start you own online newspaper and rant about our lack of democracy.

Given that I couldn’t keep my response to less than 350 words, I’ve posted it to my Your Democracy blog http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/?q=node/2048
for anyone interested.

As we are now regarded as part of Asia, Australia could adopt the Chinese Bill of Rights, and then we all would have as much right as our Communist Chinese brothers

Professor Bagaric makes reference to 2 recent opinion polls claiming that Australians are the happiest people in the world.

He also claims that opinion polls identified that the majority of Australians supported the government's anti-terrorism legislation.

Could we please have proper attributions for these assertions?

I will put it simply: we have no rights that exist independently of the authority of the state which endowers us with them as priveledges for our good behaviour and abidance by the laws and customs of our society. Thus, "self-evident" rights are as fanciful as creationism, a geocentric solar system, or healthy margarine.

"As we are now regarded as part of Asia, Australia could adopt the Chinese Bill of Rights, and then we all would have as much right as our Communist Chinese brothers"

Heh.. heh.. Good point Glen.

Should we have a bill of rights?

What is a Bill of Rights? It is in fact a document that supercedes all other acts and because of its nature must only be amended in a manner that requires more support than a simple majority of our legislature, otherwise it is simply just another act of parliament.

If we accept this proposition we must adopt a position that we can create a framework of rights which are ultimately based on the social values of the ideal society. This assumes that the society has become static and will not be changing its values. otherwise it is unbridled arrogance to assume we can set the values for future generations.

If a Bill of Rights was created in the 18th century women would not have the vote because they were seen as second class citizens.

The United States Bill of Rights enabled slavery to continue unchecked.

Constitutions are similar in respect to Bill of Rights because they require another process to amend them other than simple majority of the legislator voting to amend.

Look at our own constitution, section 92 was to allow free trade between the states, that is no tariffs. Yet it was used as the basis to prevent nationalisation of Industry.

Future generations will need to deal with issues of therapuetic cloning, reproductive cloning, genetically engineered organisms (not genetically modified but totally engineered) and many other countless technological advances. I think it is dangerous to establish rights set in stone which may hamper future societal developments.

If a Bill of Rights was established even in the early parts of the 20th century would consenting homosexual acts be allowed or would it be outlawed based on the values of the society at the time.

Imagine if a Bill of Rights was established in the 1st century would we not be punishing adulterers with death (by stoning).

These examples may seem outlandish but I am sure that our values will be considered out of place in a couple of centuries time.

Stewie,

I hear ranting, but it is coming from you. I am not a "leftie" a "rightie" or any other label you wish to cling to. I detest the hold Labor has on many States, similar to how I detest the Coaliton stranglehold at Federal level. Doesn't stop the Stewie's of this world from generalising and categorising in an attempt to cloud the real problems does it Stew?

The point you miss is that at Federal level and in most States/Territories there are no valid Oppositions.

Sure there are MP's with other brands but the reality is that Labor will not beat Howard with their current crop of space fillers and the same applies to the State Oppositions. Just look at QLD. Beattie has completely botched the running of this State and yet the polls show his vote increasing. Why? Fear of a return to what Bjelke Peteren had.

You just don't get it do you Stew? Many of us don't really care who is in Government as long as they do not run roughshod over the whole population for the benefit of their mates.

Try arguing against the definitions I provided, or is that too difficult? Rather just resort to name calling and ranting I guess. You must be in a real stew Stew as you don't seem able to comprehend the reality of Australia's politics.

As to a free press. You know fully well there are 2 points of view in the media, Murdoch and Packer. If that's a free press then you are welcome to that as well.

Hi RobbyH

I really like your two posts.

Just puzzles me why Mirko would write such a unprofessional piece. No discourse on what the Bill is about, nor why it is no good for us. Just that we are on top of the world, we don't need such a Bill. Has not worked in third world countries. Anyway the pollies are more reliable than judges and no less intelligent(based on nothing, and certainly nonsense in my experience), and the people agree with the government on some issue. No mention on whether the issue is related to the proposed Bill. He has not responded to the request for the surveys he alluded to. When he does he might consider if the designs were skewed and who commissioned the surveys. Hope he has got good students who would 'succeed' despite him.

Perhaps he is a hired gun, like Kevin Donnelly. He looks too young to be modelling himself on David Flint. Maybe he is hoping to get to their lofty positions. Or may be he is like that Andrew Fraser, who seemed to be trying to reinvent himself at the end of his contract, by becoming an expect on something he had little training or practice in - hypotheses on race (as distinct from theories) rather than his academic pursuits in public law?

chek

Read your piece in yourdemocracy.net.au, JR, and found it pretty empty as well. While Mirko might be a little light on persuasive material, your refutation suffered from the same disease.

Perhaps this is because the concept of a Bill of Rights is no longer considered a beacon of light and hope to oppressed masses, but is instead viewed by the populace of a well-off and "comfortable" nation as being entirely superfluous. The product of idle lawyers' hands, perhaps, creating another avenue of lucrative work for themselves.

And while such a document might make fine reading, what would it actually do in real life?

I have asked this before without success, and I will ask it again: can somebody please provide details of a situation where the presence of a Bill of Rights actually helped right a wrong, or prevented a wrong from occurring?

The Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms is a good source of examples for your request, Pericles.

Jane Doe v. Toronto (Metropolitan) Commissioners of Police shows how a Charter case can be a trigger for public pressure for a change in the way a “service” or a system works/doesn’t work and not just the personal benefit of the litigant.

A 33-year-old woman in Toronto was raped in her own bed at knife point in the middle of the night. The perpetrator was later identified by the police as a serial rapist who had already raped four other women with a similar modus operandi. In each case, he entered their apartment from a second or third floor balcony. The police had established a “stakeout” but failed to warn persons like this woman litigant in this case who matched the description of the “balcony rapist’s” previous victims of the danger so that she had a chance to take precautions for her own safety. They were used unknowingly as “bait”.

The case came to court on not just personal damages claims for negligence but also a claim under the Charter of:
- systematic discrmination on the basis of gender (s 15 of the Charter) that “was motivated and informed by the adherence to rape myths as well as sexist stereotypical reasoning about rape, about women and about women who are raped”; and
- violation of s7 of the Charter: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

The court found that the police “chose or at least adopted a policy which favoured the apprehension of the criminal over her protection as a targeted rape victim.” The evidence showed that as long ago as 1975 and continuing to 1986, when this litigant was raped, a systemic problem existed in the Toronto Police Force in respect of sexual crimes against women and that it knew of and had publicly conceded that such a problem existed but failed to take steps to correct it.

A Bill of Rights would be like having a spare pair of gonads under your armpits.Totally useless and very painful when you try to do anything.

Good try, Danny, but not entirely convincing.

The Jane Doe concerned was awarded damages for a breach of duty of care/act of negligence by the Toronto Police.

The fact that it was also deemed to be in contravention of gender rights described in the Charter was considered by some Canadians to be "groundbreaking", but interestingly this finding did not carry with it a separate penalty, or award to the plaintiff.

So the Charter was used as a sort of background bit of finger-wagging by Her Honour Janet McFarlane, rather than as a means to bring a perpetrator to justice, or right the wrong of a victim. This had already been achieved through non-Charter legal processes.

I don’t agree with the “finger-wagging” attribution Pericles, as my point is that invocation of a rights norm as an element of claim in a social millieu that takes the charter principles/standards seriously and expects action to follow to meet them where breached/ignored/not met, leads to structural/system change in a way that plaintiff success alone does not (and it depends on the available remedies of course). The perp capture is for the purpose of my point not relevant nor is her individual damages – irrespective how constituted. It was how the charter claim affected policing policy and practice to the community.

Another one I like is Re K & B which illustrates how a Charter challenge can lead to reconsideration of a discriminatory law, found to be without rational foundation, which prevented children the opportunity of a legal benefit.

In essence, this case involved two partners living in Ontario in an unmarried relationship. One had a child. They wanted both to be legal parents for the child’s economic and legal security so they wanted the non-biological partner to have the legal status of adoptive parent. A provincial law made even investigation of whether this would be in the best interests of the child pointless solely because they were both women.

Using the legislative editing power it has under the Charter, Prov Judge Nevins modified the Act's definition of spouse to include same sex couples. Again, to press my focus on the broader rather than individual case parties implications of invoking the charter, not only id the outcome change the situation in Ontario but, on a wider scale, parliaments made similar amendments in other provinces, some without waiting for litigation.

Are there any Canadian cases that have risked persuading you, Pericles?
cheers

danni 2 cents worth,

nice try however you have picked cases where judicial view is just catching up with societal mainstream, therefore nothing spectacular there.

Would your Bill of Rights enable a person to create an offspring via reproductive cloning, if not how will you ensure that it can be changed when society's attitudes towards it change.

At the moment it is shock horror and immoral, will society have the same view in a decade or two decades time?

We do not know and any institution created by previous generations that hamstrings future societies to govern themselves is sub optimal.

Actually slasher, the comments you make about Re K & B is an argument for a local charter.

The case was decided in 1995. Over 10 years later, under Victorian law, K & B would still be in their original situation because unmarried families with children in Victoria - and opposite sex as well as same sex - are, in fact, precisely in that barred position today under state adoption laws. Some would find that lag spectacular.

The reason for that is not the pace or content of judicial view. It is because there is no mechanism such as a charter on which to launch a challenge to the existing statute and, through the case, call for a judicial opinion with subsequent consequences flowing the opinion such as seen in K & B etc. cheers,

I remain unconvinced.

As I see it, in the rape case there was a specific "wrong", in that the police decided not to warn all the women in the rapists "target" area, in order to have a better chance of catching their felon.

The Charter was invoked in two ways - gender discrimination, and "right to life" - neither of which has any direct bearing on the failure of the police to meet the provisions of their mission statement.

To the distant observer, it would appear that there would be a dozen other ways to achieve the same outcome, and the Charter was merely a blunt instrument, employed simply because it was there.

My question, if you recall, was not for instances where a Bill of Rights was invoked, but for examples where it actually made a difference to a particular outcome.

As for K&B, you might have noticed that New South Wales happily enacted legislation to achieve the same outcome back in 1999, without the "benefit" of a Bill of Rights, or a Charter of any kind.

I'm still waiting for an illustration of a situation where the presence of a Bill of Rights made a specific difference to a specific outcome to a specific individual or class of persons. Canadian, Rwandan, Sudanese, I don't really mind.

There are many problems with a Victorian BoR.
1) The process hasn’t been transparent, with George Williams hiding his impressive bibliography of pro-BoR materials. (ie. The Case for an Australian BoR” and articles such as “The ACT BoR is just the first step in the right direction”, “The ACT's BoR: a new era in rights protection for all Australians” and “A federal or state-based BoR for Australia?”).
2) There is a problem when a Government pushes for a BoR- either it does not trust the future Opposition that may make different decisions, or it lacks the strength of its own convictions and would rather have the courts do its work. Either way the implication is that the electorate can't be trusted and and should be forever bound to the current ideology.
3) The NZ situation is very similar to the proposed situation here. Despite the assurances that Victoria’s Bill won’t be like the US/Canadian model, one can see that in “less than a decade the judges have transformed the Act into an instrument that allows them to do not that much less than their Canadian judicial brethren who operate an overriding, fully justiciable model.”
4) The Act will encourage frivolous claims, which, (and I would have thought this was a no-brainer, Irfan) will obviously benefit lawyers. I am only a fourth year law student, and can see this plainly. Here are some brief examples of some of the claims that have been taken under the NZ Act: a) a claim made that the NZ Bill protected the right of the plaintiff to walk naked down his street, and b) a claim that a rise in rent for public housing breached one’s “right to life”.
5) The impact on the Criminal law will be regrettable. The history of use in this area has been as a ground for attempting to overturn the admissibility of evidence, evidence obtained under search warrants and breath testing of drunk drivers. It also gives lawyers a new source of technicalities to allow the guilty (including those who have confessed) to go free.

Thanks for the positive feedback Pericles.

At the risk of further disappointing you, I’d cite Magna Carta as the penultimate “Bill of Rights”.

Many “rights” were recognized under MC & subsequently found their way into the common law justice systems of most commonwealth countries, whilst the MC was also a catalyst for the US Bill of Rights & ultimately the Universal Bill of Rights.

At an individual level, such “rights” include the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, the right to silence & the right to legal representation whilst, at a societal level, the MC ultimately forced the monarchy to support the rule of law over divine fiat & to also accept that it too was subordinate to the law.

The very roots of our parliamentary democracy, along with our democratic rights & freedoms, including our common law system of justice, can be traced back to MC.

But, because our fundamental rights & freedoms are not enshrined in our constitution, they are inevitably susceptible to government curtailment, as evidenced by the recent increase in arbitrary police & intelligence agency powers; the power to detain & interrogate without charge; the power to restrict movement; the power to deny due process; denial of the right to confront one’s accusers & denial of the right to trial by jury.

When politicians move to curtail our democratic rights & freedoms, they tell us it’s necessary to protect us when, in reality, it’s more about weakening our democratic institutions, including the judiciary, & enhancing their power at our expense.

You might also care to take a look at the US ‘Flint River Steamboat Case’, http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/jury/bin/Flint%20Steamboat.pdf , where denial of a right to trial by jury was overturned on appeal, where Chief Justice Douglas Thomas makes an indirect reference to MC.

Cheers.

Unless I missing something Pericles, K & B fits the criterion in your last para in that it “made a specific difference to a specific outcome to a specific individual or class of persons” and was determined solely as a charter case. Neither the parties nor the class of persons they belong to had any other avenues/remedies.

Also, the fact that a legislature enacts statute that matches the content of a right is not the argument for showing the bill containing the right in issue is unnecessary. It is where such a legislating context isn’t present that the charter/bill comes into play as a mechanism to try to precipitate the specific outcome (as was the case in K & B).

And as for being the charter/bill being the sole basis for a claim, it will depend on the powers/remedies that are available and needed. With real people wanting something practical to come out of it, a number of different claim –remedy links may be needed depending on the desired result(s). Cheers,

JR, believe me that I will not be disappointed to see some solid and meaningful justification for a Bill of Rights, only surprised.

Magna Carta is an excellent example. The first Magna Carta was a device to reduce the power of the King, who was encouraged to sign it at the point of a (not-so-metaphorical) sword. The fourth (1297) version, has been pretty comprehensively codified into specific laws.

This is I guess the point that you and Danny are making. In the absence of an efficient and transparent lawmaking process, some form of guidance (e.g. Bill of Rights) is useful.

Danny believes that the use of the Charter in the K&B issue is what changed the law; I believe that laws change when it is expedient for the governing class to effect them, given or absent a Charter.

And from a practical point of view, both trail by jury and habeas corpus are both currently under significant threat from the UK Parliament, Magna Carta or no. In the end it will be the power of the elected representatives that determines the outcome, not the pleadings of some thirteenth century barons.

We also know that the US President takes a very relaxed view of the provisions of his own constitution, where phone taps are concerned. The legislature will always confer upon itself the right to suspend or avoid components of a Bill of Rights that it finds inconvenient - always, of course, with the interests of the country at heart.

The simple facts are that such a declaration of "rights" can never be comprehensive or foolproof, and will always be subject to the whim and will of the country's elected representatives. To make the argument completely circular, pro-Bill folks use precisely this as proof of the need to enact one.

Emotion versus reality. Neither side will give, and neither side will ever be totally right.

But from a practical viewpoint, our lawyers do not need any extra encouragement to make a dollar from our insecurities, so we shouldn't give them the opportunity.

In respect of K & B Pericles, expediency was certainly not a factor; the legislature actually resisted the direction of the ruling strongly.

I don’t disagree about your comment re the capacity of charters/rights to be circumvented either, especially in a model that is not constitutionally entrenched and able to be amended by subsequent parliaments – (and even if entrenched I agree that’s no guarantee against disobedience/subversion/suspension by state (mis)conduct.

As for lawyers and money, remember too that much (I'd venture to say nearly all not brought by corporations claiming rights) is done via pro-bono work – not lucrative at all - or through funded NGO legal advocacy agencies.

Finally, and to add an argument that favours your reluctance re charter/bill litigation, the time-lag of litigation does not make it the most expedient process usually. Balance of power and resources issues when litigating against the state usually entails delay, stalling, procedural games etc from the defendent (unless the court takes a firm hand) and predictably further delay due to the state accessing appeal mechanisms if unsuccessful at trial.

My position is that charter/bill claims are an additional tool, along with mechanisms such as law reform processes, media campaigns, public awareness raising, forcing sharpened policy positions at election time etc.
Cheers,

Thank you danny.

Well argued. And no point scoring.

Cheers

chek

Hi Pericles.

As we all know, Bush, Blair & Howard have made much of their determination to protect ‘our democratic freedoms & values’ & yet blind freddy can see that they have acted to do just the opposite: the Patriot Act in the US & the excessive ‘anti-terror’ regulation in Gt Britain & Australia – all allegedly ‘to keep us safe’.

Unlike Mirko, I’m entirely suspicious of any politician who claims to be doing anything to protect my democratic freedoms: I was trying to highlight the natural antagonism that exists between the interests of the political class & their sponsors & we the ‘sheeple’ by encouraging people to read Rothbard’s treatise.

None of the above trio of war criminals is willing to concede that it is the foreign policy settings of their respective governments that have given rise to the very threats that they now purport to want to protect us from.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Usama is still wandering free, whilst the very essence of the western liberal democracies that he targeted is being undermined by our own political leaders?

Mirko contends that a Bill of Rights would serve no useful purpose, as our politicians will find ways to subvert it. On that basis, why do we have any laws?

But I would argue that if our fundamental rights were enshrined in our constitution (stress fundamental, as already substantially recognized in common law ie: the right to public trial by jury; the right to timely due process; the right to legal representation; the right not to self-incriminate; the right to liberty – free of bureaucratic fiat; freedom of speech; the right to peaceful assembly & no sedition laws would form the core of my list), in much the same way that the US Bill of Rights is an integral part of the US Constitution, then it would be just that much harder for our rights to be eroded.

It would seem that we are in reasonably close agreement on this after all, we just read the detail differently.

Danny, you say that "In ... K & B ... expediency was certainly not a factor; the legislature actually resisted the direction of the ruling strongly."

A different parliament - say, the one that followed, or the one after that - might however have found it politically expedient. The colour of the political party in power at any given point makes a significant difference to what is expedient and what is not.

Without some form of parallel justice system to hear Rights-based complaints, we remain at the mercy of the existing legal process, which is (pace your point on pro bono work) conducted by a profession that pays itself extremely well.

One of the more prominent human-rights oriented chambers in the UK is Matrix, co-founded by that well-known liberal philanthropist Cherie Blair, a firm notorious for charging like wounded bulls. In 2001 they chose to fight on the side of the interim regime that overthrew the democratically-elected Fijian Government, for a substantial fee.

The Fijian example is salutary. Their Bill of Rights is enshrined within the Constitution (Chapter 4, sections 21 to 43), and has been used on many occasions to sway courts in favour of natural justice. However, the interpretation of those sections has spawned an industry in itself - the EU-sponsored "International Legal Analysis" alone runs to 246 pages, and involved countless international lawyers on full (EU-sponsored, remember) fees.

Not only, but also. Currently under discussion in Fiji is the Promotion of Reconciliation Tolerance and Unity Bill. Clearly, the provisions of the Constitution are either insufficient or inappropriate to handle the delicate political tiptoeing needed to give amnesty to supporters of an anti-democratic coup - which begs the question, what is it in fact good for, apart from keeping lawyers gainfully employed? If a Bill of Rights is to have value, surely this is exactly the test it should pass with flying colours?

Pericles

Thank you for the Fiji example.

Is it a case of horses for courses though?

the case you cited reminds me of so-called Westminster governments systems in some of these third world island nations. One such small nation has something like 24 ministers, mostly propped up by foreign aid. Corruption is endemic, and rule of law just a puppet show.

BoR is dysfunctional in Fiji, but it might well be okay in Oz, even a safety net, and in truly first world countries.

Similarly communism has not worked well as an ideology, but that was the only thing that got rid of foreign domination in China for over a century. (It is time for it to metamorphose in China though.)

Seems to me that no idea is perfect for any human society at any time, let alone for all times. But we are wise to harness what is helpful to the maintenance of our core values, and reserve the capacity to change what we had harnessed from time to time. (Legalism is often an impediment to sensible discourse. Flint's current article provides a good example of this.)

Chek

Fair point, Chek.

A well-developed, democratic system that over time has established an underlying code of behaviour, is surely more likely to resist tyrrany and embrace fairness, simply in the natural course of events. If the legal system has evolved at the same rate, there should be a reasonable degree of checks and balances within the system that render an additional "codifying" document largely unnecessary.

Conversely, the introduction of foreign ideas and ideals to an under-developed society (or, to be fair, a 'differently-developed' society) stand little chance of being embraced in the short term. The Iraq experiment for example will take decades to unfold, yet the world press is examining the entrails every day for evidence of "success" or "failure", depending upon its own agenda.

In these situations, a Bill of Rights is far less meaningful - to the people involved - than the gauntlet they have to run every day just to buy food.

I certainly see the Platonic ideal involved, but fail to understand the mechanics, and therefore the lasting usefulness and value, of such a document in real life.

Thank you, Pericles for your questions and JR, Chek & Danny2cents for your input. I have been trying to determine whether a BoR would help or not.

Given the situation federally with a majority senate and the recent bills pushed through without adequate debate I can see where a BoR could be an additional tool to assist the average citizen. I agree that as a developed country Australia is more likely to uphold a BoR, than third world countries.

Comprehensive debate is needed. If carefully worded I do not see how it could be a waste of time - we do not (as Aussies) have the same autonomy that we had only a few months ago. I see a BoR as a way of protecting us from a government with too much power and too little compassion.

Hi Scout and Pericles

My feeling is that BoR would also have a deterrent effect on errant autocractic PMs. In Oz there are people outside the parliament who do speak up,and take legal and social actions against the government, and the BoR would also serve as a safety valve for government members with upright spines to stand up against tyrannical leaders.

As for the already built in checks and balances in our highly developed democracy, there should be little doubt that prevention is better than cure. The redress of government excesses can take a very long time, and it has all our taxes to smother our dissent through their friendly QCs, their hired guns in the media etc. But the harm, however unjust and enormous can never be undone. I just saw the film Good Night, and Good Luck. It took 5 or 6 years before Joe McCarthy was stopped from his crusade to find the reds and pinks amongst them. Not sure what was done about all the innocent lives lost and ruined during that period.

I confess I do not follow all the legal ins and out, but what have we got to lose?

Cheers

Chek

Er.... McCarthy?

I haven't seen the movie, but to the best of my recollection the McCarthy fixation was to rid the America of communists and communist sympathizers. The background of the Korean War enabled him to play on the fears of his fellow-citizens, and he hurt a lot of people.

But one moment - the wrongs done to all those people could have been prevented by a well-established and well-defended Bill of Rights, couldn't they?

What a shame the US didn't have one.

For Pericles,

"The Bill of Rights has gone from a constitutional afterthought, added to placate the objections of Anti-Federalists and of the ratifying states, to the best-known and most widely invoked portion of the Constitution. Taken together with the Fourteenth Amendment, which has applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the first eight amendments to the Constitution were the source for a majority of the most important court decisions of the twentieth century."

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=1000565-h&templatename=/article/article.html

This is why, of course, I compared it to masonry: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3992#24529

Pericles,

I have not seen the movie but....

Typical. You know everything even if you have not seen it.

I wish i was like you pericles.

By the way, i have found you my man.

I urge you, since you know me and my background so well, to give me a call and discuss our differences of opinions, and your thoughts on me (as you dont mind the odd ambush) over the phone. i want to see if you have some backbone, and can voice yourself more than just in cyberspace.

If you are any sort of man, you will have the guts to stand by your words and your opinions and perhaps we could have a beer (my shout of course, i understand your situation) and discuss our opinions face to face.

You intrigue me now pericles, and i want to find out what has happenned for you to have such critical views of people with my ideals.

Just like you and your opinions, there is a reason for everything. there is a reason for my views as well, and by revealing parts of myself to display my insight into certain topics i did not expect it to be used against me in this cowardly manner.

07 3387 2200 to make it easy.

Steel, I understand where you are coming from, but I still question whether it is evidence for or against our adopting some form of Bill of Rights.

The fact that in the US it is "the best-known and most widely invoked portion of the Constitution" might easily be construed as evidence that it is too vague, and therefore is the most argued-about.

Or that it is the prime mechanism for creating or adapting laws, and therefore constantly being drawn into legal argument where one side or the other feels disadvantaged.

Or that the legal system is unable to withstand too much pressure, and requires some form of ballast.

It is the need, in 2006, given the systems in place in Australia, that I question.

What, exactly, are we missing in our system that we need to graft such a document on it? There is no doubt that it has been essential to the development of the US Justice system, but we have done pretty well without one for a couple of centuries - what has changed?

I would still like to see some more concrete examples that would illustrate why Australia needs a Bill of Rights at this point in our history.

Realist, re: >>Typical. You know everything even if you have not seen it.<<

I read in the press that "Good Night, and Good Luck" was about Joseph McCarthy, but don't know enough to determine whether it was an accurate documentary or merely a piece of Hollywood fluff. Hence I confined my remarks to what I know about McCarthy, not about the movie. And pointed out that the existence of a Bill of Rights did not prevent his victimization of a whole lot of people.

What's your problem?

Mirko - will you be addressing my question (posted 25/12/05) re your view on Australia withdrawing its ratification of the ICCPR (and/or other international treaties that substantially inform a bill/charter?

I think it is important to understand the parameters of your approach to such standards for the discussion thread. cheers,

I cannot believe the unsubstantiated belief that the courts armed with a bill of rights can protects the society's citizens when the parliamentary process can't or won't. Judges are appointed by the politicians, hence if we give them a "political" role then they will be appointed more and more based on their political philosophies rather than on their judical skills and expertise.

In 1936 in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to be unconstitutional. This was the central pillar in Roosevelt's New Deal for Agriculture.

The lawyer for the plaintiff was a lifelong friend of the Justice Roberts. Pepper (plaintiffs lawyer) actually persuaded President Coolidge to appoint Roberts to the bench. Roberts should have recused himself from the case but did not.

Surely giving the judiciary an expanded role to vet the actions of the legislature will only mean that the court appointments will be more political then ever.

As these appointments are for life or we would achieve is keeping a political straitjacket on our democracy

Hi Slasher

Seems to me that the problem of political appointments to the High Court is a separate issue. For instance appointments could be made by an independent committee.

Stacking the High Court is a huge problem. Barwick in all likelihood championed the tax avoidance industry for the 18 years he got himself on to the High Court - possibly to recover from the humiliation he suffered in failing to get his seditions bill through parliament.

Cheers

Chek

jboywonder, Thanks for pointing out my error re: figure for Bennelong. I had written in 10,000 until I had a chance to check the figures. I forgot to do so before posting.

Nevertheless, the figures still confirm my argument re: 10000 (really 38326) out of about 19 million not really representive of a majority. Indeed, without considering the preferential system, 38326 out of 76814 isn't even a majority in his own electorate of Bennelong. What I am having a go at is not John Howard but his and the Liberal's media machine's constant bellowing that they have a mandate based on a majority. The only way to find out that would be to have a referendum on every issue, which is laced with its own problems.

Parliamentary democracy is not perfect but is the best system around. Having saidd that I also think it needs to be seen for what it is and that, I think, means we need a Bill of Rights.

Nothing I have done justifies your, jboywonder, dishonest response and exploitation of my mistake to make entirely false accusations and innuendo. Thanks again for pointing out my mistake. (Sunflowers)

chek, there is no such thing as an independant committee the politicians either appoint the judiciary or the selection committee, the end result is the same.

I believe the Bill of Rights advocates want to be able to protect their views by simply paying a lawyer rather than getting off their backsides and changing the government if they believe it is doing the wrong thing, because gee politics is so below me and dirty

talk of a bill of rights is a waste of time. only the citizens of a democracy can have a bill of rights,and australia is not a democracy.

have a look at what aristotle had to say about democracy, and oligarchy, and you will discover we are in the latter class.

people in an oligarchy can have privileges, but privileges can be withdrawn by the power holders who extended them in the first place. only members of the power elite can have rights. rights are in fact just the label put on power by the powerful.