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.