I'm interested to see people opposing the idea who openly stated they didn't even read the article. "I shall comment, even though I'm uninformed." At least that honesty lets us know how much we should value _your_ opinion.

I used to be against a Bill of Rights, thinking that if our rights were restricted to what was explicitly laid out, that'd leave the government free to do as it pleased in everything else; the American experience is informative here.

But now I've seen that the government will always occupy the legal limbos, whether it's the legal limbo around a Bill of Rights, or the legal limbo around the Westminster tradition, or the legal limbo between state and federal. I've seen that they will in fact _create_ legal limbos, as for example in Nauru and PNG with the "Pacific Solution". So now I think we need a Bill of Rights, we need some minimum safe ground for ourselves.

What's rarely mentioned in these discussions is separation of powers, between the executive, judiciary and legislative. Abuses of human rights are generally at the hands of the executive, only rarely the legislative or judiciary. So a Bill of Rights out to talk about keeping them separate.

I think a Bill of Rights is an excellent idea. It is pretty clear that this current Federal government has no respect for the seperation of powers and sees fit to simply override any law (or legal judgment) that gets in the way of its political ambitions. Unfortunately, where one government has been, so others will follow. Without a serious attempt to claw back citizen rights and the appropriate balance between the powers of the state, I fully expect other governments (whatever their nominal political persuasion) will simply follow suit.

JamesH says: 'Hey I am white, heterosexual and male. I have never heard males being mentioned in the context of human rights or social justice.'

Never heard of David Hicks? Andrew Wilkie? Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey? Where have you been, JamesH?

Leigh says: 'Knowing Julian Burnside's politics, I'm not going to bother reading his article.' So there, that'll teach him, won't it Leigh? Your mind can only take so much.

It's all a mind-polluting conspiracy isn't it Leigh? As you say, 'A Bill if Rights (sic) is preferred only by anti-democrats who, unable to get their way via the democratic process, long for rule by unelected judges who share their autocratic values.' Let's do away with the courts, Leigh, and bung those pesky Human Rights types in gaol, eh?

For the serious people, three reports that are worth a read:

Media Reporters Sans Frontières ranked Australia only 35th in media freedom in 2006 - behind such nations as Benin, Costa Rica, South Korea, Mauritius and Ghana. http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cm2006_as-2.pdf

The 2006 US State Department Report on Australia's Human Rights record drew attention to some areas of concern including press freedom. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78766.htm

Rights Australia, working with the National Association of Community Legal Centres and the Human Rights Law Resource Centre and another thirty NGOs were critical of the Australian Government's response to the UN's report on human rights in Australia.

The concerns included the Government's avoidance of transparency about human rights in Australia and the poor example Australia is setting, particularly as a proponent of improvements to the world's human rights protection machinery.
http://www.rightsaustralia.org.au/articles115.html

These groups are now working on a "shadow report" to give a different perspective on what's really been happening in Australia in the last few years.

Mr Burnside said:

"Most people of goodwill understand, even if only vaguely, that living in a complex society requires all members of society to adhere to a commonly agreed set of norms and ideals. These are usually so basic to our thinking that we rarely give them any attention."

Yes..but MOST LAWYERS fully understand, that they are there to represent 'the law' and NOT morality, Justice or good will.

I've seen this in the case of the Terrorism Trial in Melbourne, and others of us have experienced this personally. Robert comes to mind.

I HEREBY PROMOTE MR BURNSIDE TO "PHARISEE- FIRST CLASS" Why ? because they prided themselves on knowledge of the Jewish law.. 1000s of laws.. "You cannot eat an egg laid on the Sabbath" etc etc ad- absurdum.

So, Mr Burnside, and supporters of a 'bill of rights' are seeking to basically take control of our legal system in the name of vested political interests and opinions, rather than caring about justice itself.
WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS and they are enshrined in our legal code. They boil down to "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

The criminal code proscribes specific punishments for specific crimes, ok..we can add to the list of 'crimes' anytime we like.

But this BILL OF RIGHTS garbage is just a thinly disguised attempt to FORCE AND IMPOSE certain 'left wing/progressive' ideas on the rest of us.

Its the thin end of the wedge..the camels nose in the tent door.. a TROJAN HORSE.

The people Frank mentioned are not equally straight forward. David Hicks.. forget human rights mate..he was guarding A TANK for the Taliban. Its not our "right" to tell the Americans how to process stupid Australians they catch as ENEMIES on the battle field.
Who ever said it was?

a (political) right is a freedom enjoyed by a member of the ruling class. other people have privileges, which can be withdrawn at the discretion of the ruling class. ozzies only have privileges, demonstrated by the recent removal of judicial oversight of police activities, such as arrest, supervision, imprisonment.

in oz, the ruling class is parliament. they make and break privileges, direct the police and army to carry out their will without consulting any other sector of society.

the reason british societies can not have a real bill of rights, is that the legal center of power is the crown, not the people.

in a democracy, the citizens unite to mutually defend themselves and each other from enemies foreign and domestic. assembled and united, they have sovereign power, and from that power, rights.

THE NEXT HORRIFIC STEP......

after a bill of rights, which does NOT recognize the danger in certain ideas.. religious especially, will have people who are espousing the most unjust, horrific, decadent, defiled, degenerate ideas being PROTECTED. That would include NAZI's and the Ananda Marga, and the "Children of God". It will protect pedophiles and open the way for Nambla wanna be's to advance their degenerate agenda's politically.

(See the Netherlands)

If you want a bill of rights.. how about THIS one.. "The right to criticize ideas and doctrines which make you feel uncomfortable".. such as the 'doctrine' of
-"Homosexual behaviour is normal and acceptable"
-"Adults having sex with children can be a positive experience"
-"If people leave our religion, they must be killed."

What if my freedom of expression MARGINALIZES or makes a section of the community feel 'uncomfortable' ?

Which 'right' reigns supreme.. my right of free expression or their right to hold, teach and promote ideas which vilify or disgust me?

The most vile criticism of Christians usually comes from the militant gay lobby. Sorry.. I won't accept that.

Its also true that the most vile criticism of homosexuals comes from the likes of Fred Phelps, who (regrettably) calls himself a 'Christian'.

WILL a Bill of Rights say "Citizens of Australia have the RIGHT to be protected from ANY idea which threatens in principle or practice the duly elected government of the Country" ?

HAH !..I surely doubt that... because a BOR is NOT about 'rights' its about 'P_O_W_E_R'.....

NOPE.. sorry..NO-WAY HOSAY... no Bill of 'rights'... just a body of law which protects us as it is.