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.