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.

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".

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".

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.

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.

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.