The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Getting a Bill of Rights into the national conversation > Comments

Getting a Bill of Rights into the national conversation : Comments

By George Williams, published 25/8/2006

A majority of the states and territories could have their own Bill of Rights in place within the next few years.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
How chuffed we all must be to know that Susan Ryan will be granted a leave of absence from the ALP pantheon in order to guide us. As one of the authors of the Sex Discrimination Act who can question her pedigree.

Might we appeal to her to expand the title of her document to read ‘Rights and Responsibilities Act’
Posted by Sage, Friday, 25 August 2006 10:06:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, I've never seen a convincing case made for a Bill of Rights, but I have seen convincing cases against. I would be surprised if there is serious popular support for such a move, at either state or federal level.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 25 August 2006 10:39:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Until quite recently I used to be opposed to a bill of rights, on the eminently UNoriginal basis that rights were better enunciated within the common law than within any document.

That belief, however, required a basic faith that there were some things that a government - regardless of political stripe - would not do. I now have to revise that basic faith.

We have a government which seems quite happy to over-ride basic rights and a compliant opposition which barely raises a murmur. Habeus Corpus is now a privilege not a right. Don't believe me? Look at the ASIO Act or alternatively, ask David Hicks what he reckons.

Freedom of speech is heavily under attack. A country which never saw any need to ban violent Nazi or Communist propaganda, rightly assuming that most people would dismiss it for the nonsense it was, now sees the need to ban Islamic writings. Don't get me wrong - any pro-jihad writing is utter bullshoit by definition, but freedom of speech gives people the right to espouse utter bullshoit. If it steps over the line and becomes inciting criminal activity - well, we already have laws to cover that.

We have privative clauses in the Migration Act, to stop people from getting due process, for the government's convenience.

If ever we needed a bill of rights to protect us from our government, we need it now.

Anth
Posted by Anth, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George should get full marks for his persistence on a Bill of Rights. He is obsessed with the damn thing.

George, like other proponents of a Bill of Rights, makes no secret of the fact that the Bill they have in mind has absolutely nothing to do with Australians, but is meant to cover ‘all people in Australia’. Those of you, who care enough, can check that out on OLO. Judy Cannon let the cat out of the bag in one of her articles on the subject and Susan Ryan’s part in it.

‘All people in Australia’ is really code for those who cannot accept democracy and the rule of law – George even refers to some of them: people in detention centres. Others not mentioned are ordinary criminals, terrorists and sundry other flotsam wanting to meddle with the democratic process for their own ends.

A Bill of Rights is a sure fire way for malcontent minorities and downright dangerous people to circumvent the democratic process. The really sad thing is that the average, dopey Australian will probably allow them to get away it
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You said "While we need better protection for human rights in these jurisdictions, we also need a national human rights law".

No, absolutely not. Nobody has yet shown me a convincing case for a Bill of Rights at either the State or Federal level. What I have seen only convinces me that this is a blatant attempt at social engineering through stealth.

If you want a Bill of Rights, the "right" way to do it would be via referendum - not, for example, Steve Bracks moving through phony "community consultation" from preconceived ideas to foregone conclusions.

Put you arguments up and convince the electorate in a referendum - but expect me, at least, to be passionately arguing against it.
Posted by Kevin, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:30:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anth,

For heavens sake get your facts right. The Communist and Nazi parties and all their publications were both banned at the start of World War 2 (remember the nazi-soviet pact?) and the ban was only rescinded on the Communist Party when Hitler attacked them.

The move to ban the communist party failed in 1951 because we were not in a state of war. The High Court in its judgement said that that if we had been at war the ban would have been valid.

We are now in a new type of war to which many people have trouble adjusting. In addition, the burgeoning world population, the main cause of all our troubles, will continue to push more illegals onto our shores, and this will not be tolerated by the Australian people.

I have just returned from overseas, and while there was congratulated six times on the wonderful Prime Minister we have. They only know one thing about John Howard; that he stopped the illegal immigrants.

I personally am strongly opposed to a bill of rights, because it will put too much power in the hands of lawyers. I can vote to throw out politicians if they fail to act as I would wish, but it is much harder to get rid of judges.

Unfortunately, the current state of quasi-war, together with the fall in living standards which must come over the next few years, means that many rights we normally enjoy will have to be suspended temporarily. This is much to be regretted, but the alternative would be much worse.

Thank heavens we are self-sufficient in food, minerals and energy, and have a sea boundary.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 25 August 2006 12:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A friend of mine in London has a welcome mat outside her front door with the words "Oh no, not you again".

Oh no, not the "we need a Bill of Rights" chestnut again.

The question I have asked before on this forum, and will continue to ask until such time as I get an answer, is this:

Can anyone identify one single beneficiary of a Bill of Rights, anywhere in the world, that could not get the same benefit from existing laws?

Specific actions and results have more credibility than the tidal wave of well-meaning waffle-words that are usually offered.

Anyone?

This is a genuine enquiry - who, precisely, has ever benefitted?

Apart from lawyers, that is.

Last time I asked this question was December 2005, and not one single example was offered. I hold out little hope that this will change, but it is important to try.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair-Go Australia, we need a Bill - to affirm Human Rights in all states and for us isolated regions of Cape York, in Far North Queensland, yesterday.

It seems to me the wrong people are getting hooked up - entangled at great cost, in what is becoming an "over-regulated system", while others needing these "regulations" are still slipping through.

I.e.: Mental Health Act in Qld being reviewed because man killer was let out 12 times. (12 times?)

This is outrageous.

It is not the Act at fault as much as those enforcing it. It means everyone under this Act it appears is being treated like a killer, rather than recieving the type of actual "CARE" they require. Where's the consumer right here?

Clumsy Stuff!

My concern is TERRORISM and the state of MENTAL HEALTH.

The social impact, to fail to investigate properly is causing more drama than it solves as the smoke screens panic and fog over the truth facts most often found in the reality.

Clear policies around legislative processes and problem-solving mechanisms, which we do have in this country, to protect people’s rights, are being seriously compromised through the process of fear and panic.

I want the media to take more responsibility, in areas of civic participation, to make the connections here. I.e.: see http://www.miacat.com - the idea of "collective securities" and especially - at home - in the story on "Stop Forced Drugging Yesterday".

Also see "23 big things" being discussed by Consumers at the Mental Health Conference-Next Week

I believe we the public are not thinking... we ourselves are allowing the over policing, without looking at sensibilities or fact.

As with the Mental Health Act... the courts have lost their role if their rule is to promote pure "scientific" bias, as they fail to consider "evidence” that there is most often, found in a most reasonable alternative view

It seems without a bill of rights we will always be subjected to the "over-reaction" of the authorities, the media and public, which ruins the lives of innocent people who are left "under-resourced" with the "burden of proof".
Posted by miacat, Friday, 25 August 2006 4:56:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This must be the sixth time in twelve months that I've seen someone from the legal fraternity pushing the notion of a Bill of Rights.With our society in serious decay,why would we want to give criminals more ways to circumvent their responsibilities? As we all know,the lawyers are looking for new ways to line their pockets and they'll do it with the unfetted avarice that permeates our society.

Their audacity and shamless overtures to sue someone that incessantlty haunts our media,will only be precurser to a new wave of litigation if they get their beloved "Bill of Rights".
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a little concerned with that view Arjay - that a bill of human rights would simply be a way for criminals to circumvent their punishment.

As far as I'm aware, the idea of a bill of rights would be to ensure two basic things: firstly, that there are things we simply don't do, even to criminals, and secondly, there are certain rights that you give up when you break the law.

A bill of rights can encompass things like the rights of children and the mentally ill - speaking for those who can't speak for themselves. We can say we already do that all we want, but tell that to Vivian Alvarez.

There are things like torture, which you just don't do if you're going to maintain any kind of moral high ground.

Seriously, if you're got issues with criminals getting off too lightly, take it up with our adversarial legal system which is based on inflated process & fees.

Leave basic human rights out if it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:48:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, you're right. A Bill of Rights will not help the likes of you, because your rights are protected by your social status and economic privilege. It is designed to provide the SAME rights to all Australian citizens, especially those in minority groups, and ensure they are not infringed by any individual, business, government or otherwise.

Its funny, that the same people that support George W's 'crusade for freedom' in Iraq and everywhere else, get all upity when anyone suggests all citizens in their own country should be guaranteed basic democratic, economic and social rights. hmmmm, is that hypocrisy I smell??

This 'old bill of rights chestnut' keeps coming up because, like me, it is something people strongly believe in. And it will keep coming up until there is a government in this country that truly believes in the principle of protection of the human rights for all. until then, the fight goes on.
Posted by jkenno, Monday, 28 August 2006 1:19:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jkenno, that's a perfect example of what I referred to earlier - lots of high-minded stuff, but no specific examples of how these downtrodden folk might actually benefit.

Human rights legislation tends to be far woollier and open to interpretation than most of the stuff we currently have codified into law. I challenge you to demonstrate any good that has come from human rights legislation, anywhere in the world, that is not already covered by our properly and carefully thought-through laws.

I'm serious. You puff yourself up by saying "the fight goes on", as if it is self-evident that what you are fighting for is actually going to be beneficial to the Australian people.

Show us. Don't just prattle slogans at us. Give examples.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 28 August 2006 3:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well seeing I have been annointed the George defender, and thus must provide examples to the 'aint broke don't fix it' troopers, I'll give it a crack.

Eg#1: prevention of the government enacting legislation breaching people's right to a fair trial and to not be detained without charge (terror legislation). Would essentially act as a counter-balance, it could provide a framework in which police, parliament and the courts could work together to make sure we strike the right balance – protecting the community from terrorism, but also preserving our basic rights.

Eg#2 - similiar to above to place pressure on the immigration department to actually process refugee claims rather than indefinate detention. (this is ridiculous even on a costs view point. It has been estimated that it costs, on average: Villawood about $120 per person per day, Baxter costs about $380 per person per day, Christmas Island about $650, and Nauru about $1500).

Eg#3 - right to housing for all Australians - make sure goverments on state and federal level ensuring adequate housing and accomodation for its citizens (you will notice the public housing crisis at the moment, not surprising..). See the UN special rapporteur on housing's recent report: www.newmatilda.com/admin/imageLibrary/images/Preliminary_observations_UN%20Rapporteur%20on%20HousingcGWj04Lyy7Bw.pdf

Eg#4 - prevent government from enacting legislation restricting peoples right to vote (recent amendments restricting the ability of young people to vote, as well as short term prisoners).

Eg#5 - In any proceedings that touch on security, the Attorney-General can, by conclusive certificate, prevent a person from calling relevant evidence to advance their case or to contradict the Government’s case. This is made possible by the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Trials) Act. It can be done when the Attorney-General considers that the evidence might jeopardise our national security.

Essentially, a bill of rights in Australia would reinforce the position that NO-ONE is above the law, not rich people, not poor people, not corporations, and certainly not the government.
Posted by jkenno, Monday, 28 August 2006 4:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that Governments are the main threat to human rights how much protection can an Act of Rights (a Bill is not even passed by Parliament) give to a citizen when the Government is really determined.

In the meantime an Act of rights gives an excuse for lawyers to interfere in the expressed wishes of a democratically elected Parliament.

Once the lawyers obtain this power we will need a Act of Human Rights to prevent tha abuse of free people by the lawyers.

this of course will need another group to sit in judgement ad infinitum.

Lets stay as we are common law with imperfections and 'recognise a need to be vigilant to preserve our freedom
Posted by 58, Monday, 28 August 2006 5:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am obviously having a bad communication day.

I didn't ask for yet another half-dozen examples of vague wishful thinking, but for specific examples of where - anywhere - it can be shown that a Bill of Rights has specifically benefitted an individual, anywhere in the world.

Just one example, that's all.

If this is so difficult an exercise, why is it so urgent that we should have a Bill of Rights at all?

In the meantime, jkenno illustrates perfectly the muddled thinking involved.

All the examples given have a high level of meaninglessness, but the classic has to be the "right to housing for all Australians".

Why should this be a "right"? How should home-owners who fund their own houses be compensated, if those too lazy to buy one themselves have one as a "right"?

What constitutes "housing"? A humpy on the Eyre peninsula? Would the owner of a "right to housing" have to move there if that was all that is available, or could he wait for one to come free in Toorak?

What defines "all Australians"? If my son decides to leave home next week, would the country be obliged to house him?

But all this stupidity aside, I'd still appreciate an answer to the main question - who benefits?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 28 August 2006 6:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Little wonder you are having difficulty communicating Pericles – you don’t even seem to be able to recall the very thing you asked for. Your request was quite ambiguous to begin with: ‘Don't just prattle slogans at us. Give examples’. So I did, and now, unsurprisingly, they are referred to as wishful thinking. I hardly think preventing government from enacting legislation to ensure Australian CITIZENS (and that is, fairly obviously, what ‘all Australians’ means) are not imprisoned without charge or trial is wishful thinking. The government should not be allowed to detain people without charge or access to trial indefinitely. Unsurprisingly, politicians are anxious to keep on side with popular sentiment, even more so when popular sentiment has been fanned by media-fuelled anxiety about threats to security. So the political process is willing to compromise on basic rights and on the rule of law so as to convey the impression that politicians are seen as tough on terrorism. A bill of rights would prevent that what is happening under terror laws right now. Specific enough? I would like to believe that is a human right that we are lucky to enjoy, and should be willing to go lengths to protect. If you truly believe that human rights are meaningless, that is obviously because in your sheltered little privileged life, you have never had to question the notion of human rights, because you have never had yours violated. A classic case of small mindedness from a big L libby
Posted by jkenno, Thursday, 31 August 2006 10:53:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beyond that, it can go to anyone. If the government were to pass an act to prevent free speech, it would invalidate that legislation. The first amendment in the US clearly states: ‘Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..’. This has been used countlessly throughout history – for more recent examples try - http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=0506_SCT_tracker .

What stops parliament from currently enacting legislation forcing all Australian families to present their elderly family members above the age of 80 to their nearest hospital to be euthenased? What prevents parliament from simply scrapping any HRA or similar legislation as being inconvenient with a view to the enactment of ever greater totalitarian laws? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Parliament needs restraint and restraint is not to be found in some general notion of democracy – the Howard government is proof of that. As the world becomes more globalised and corporatised, and governments find new ways to not be held accountable, I am entirely comfortable with the notion of enacting a core set of principles that are guaranteed to all Australian citizens no matter the time, the environment or the government. Australia now stands alone in the Western World without a general Bill of Rights, it is now a central feature of the constitutional or public law arrangements of other major jurisdictions which share the common law tradition – the United Kingdom itself, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, to name four of them.
The experience in other countries also confirms the lesson of history – that the rights of individuals are better protected by judges than by politicians. Only those fortunate enough to enjoy the full protection of their rights via economic status are unable to understand why such an bill would be required, as their blinkers prevent them from looking anywhere but in one direction. In the meantime, I anticipate a similar reply from ‘pericles’ in the view of ‘we don’t need it cause I am fine’. Way to be open-minded mate
Posted by jkenno, Thursday, 31 August 2006 10:56:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By Standers in high heels and suits join governments with deaf ears adding more unjust denials to mainstream Australia.

A Bill that helps to re-balance Rights in Australia is core, especially in todays climate.

Well said jkenno;

"Only those fortunate enough to enjoy the full protection of their rights via economic status are unable to understand why such an bill would be required, as their blinkers prevent them from looking anywhere but in one direction."

It is difficult to feel earnest with so much disconcert and ostentatiously coming from the fancy footing prank makers.

And what about the 1994 Burdekin Report.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Burdekin+Report+1993&btnG=Google+Search

I ask how could anyone negate it's content.... especially as things have worsened since this report, they have not improved.

Fair-Go No-Where... it is "shameful" Australia!
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 2 September 2006 4:15:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy