Yes t.u.s, the weak left[Democrats] and the latte sipping lawyers know full well that rights are easier to peddle to the public since responsibilities require our personal effort, while rights usually require the efforts of others.

In the real world of survival,none of us should have rights unless we have fulfilled our responsibilities.

If a base jumper for example kills himself in thrill seeking we say it is his own fault,yet when a drug peddler [The perveyer of destruction]faces the death penality in a foreign land, with full knowledge of the consequences ,we blame the brutal regime.

Rights V's Responsibilities is not and easy orchestra to conduct; however if we are to enshrine one in law, a balance surely would require the it's complement be also included.

As an American who has experienced the prejudice of the Australian magistracy, I can tell you honestly that your country desperately needs a Bill of Rights.

One ugly result of not having equal protections under the law has produced a statistic that defines Australia as a sick nation: 8 out of 9 men in relationships in Australia are abusive.

That statistic is false, unless this country is truly sick.For the rest of the free world, the statistic is 5 out of 9.

Because men are not given equal protection under the law, any woman can go to a number of agencies and be coached in what to say, then remove her husband or partner from his and her home, denying him all his possessions and the means to make a living, and access to his children.
The simple application of equal protection will change that disgusting statistic because the woman will no longer be supported explicitly by the police if she does performs the actions she wants protection against. Currently, the police will tell a man that if he resists anything -- even bashing or other physical attacks -- he will be arrested. (I have the station and name of the officer who told me this.)

A magistrate may ignore all the factual evidence. The magistrate may exclude from the court records the whole of evidence taken out of context to convict. The magistrate may ignore even the complainants testimony that shows them to be perjurous.
In Australia, that is all legal because there is no Bill of Rights.

Who does this affect?
-- 30% of all Australian families every year. And Australia is so desperate to have children, the country is paying people to get pregnant?

It's not just the aboriginies Australia owes a sincere "Sorry."

Add one ...

There was a nationally published article last week where 2 national organizations urged young men NOT to have children in Australia. Why? --In essence, because there is no equal protection under the law.

The men are condemned by authorities before their children as abusers without proof being required.
The boys are taught, by example, to be abusive. The girls are taught, by the example of the authorities, to be victims.
If Australia were not a sick society before this self-perpetuating statistic were propogated, it will be soon. The prejudice in the courts will produce a national sickness, if it isn't already too late.

A Bill of Rights at this point would be a start. A very necessary start.
But then you have to cure the years of prejudice and sick example already in place.

NOUS, MARACAS, MAHATMA AND GANG

NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS IS GOLD
if the so called 'Bill of Rights' was actually that, I doubt there would be so many of us against it.

5TH COLUMN
But the reality is, its the thin end of the wedge, designed to link our legal system to the UN and that itself has been infiltrated and infected with so much pc thinking and multicultural lunacy its beyond a joke.

In short Andrew Bartlett raising the issue is alone enough to make a patriotic Australian VERY suspcious.

YES, LETS HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS !
The bottom line about a 'bill of rights' is the abdication of our sovereignty ! If say we did have a bill of rights, how about we make it LIKE MOST OF US WANT IT, and include the "right" of the majority of Australians to persue their cultural and social goals withOUT them being diluted and weakened by such bizzare and 'satanic' ideas as 'Multiculturalism' Ok.. lets do it... yes.. lets have a bill of rights decided by US..... I have a feeling that Bartlett and Maracas and Mahatma and co would kind of not like it. It's theme would be "Australia's rights"

THE POLITICAL ANGLE
Anyone who does not think that parties promoting a "Bill of Rights" see anything other than 'political advantage' a-blowin in the wind are without question naive, but quite possibly in need of serious therapy.

GOVERN WITHOUT MANDATE is the ultimate goal of such a bill, even though situations will arise which most Australians want to be dealth with in a certain way, some squirming lefty lawyer will remind everyone about the BOR.

It is the total absence of any fidicary duty of the state to the citizen that a bill of rights will help define a mandate to govern.
Whether lawyers are Left or Right is beside the point,the absense of an overarching principled approach to the rights of individuals and collectives needs to be enshrined in common law. Not a stop gap but a means my which interpretations of our bundle of rights are accorded to each one of us. This simply does not exist in law now.

OK,let's have a" Bill of Rights" complemented with my "Bill of Responsibilities"

* Lawyers will be financially responsible for vexacious and trivial litigation cases.

* Single mothers will be financially responsible for children after the second father.

*Criminals be responsible and pay for the the pain and suffering inflicted on their victims.

* Drug addicts be responsible for their criminal activity.

Just a start.Would others have some contributions?