Orwell knew his stuff, and Gordon Brown knows his Orwell.

Brown's speech is pure doublethink.

Orwell described doublethink as "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Brown says:

"I want to explore how together we can write a new chapter in our country's story of liberty"

Liberty, in the sense that he uses it in the rest of the speech, here means "restrictions upon your liberty"

Take a look through the list of "freedoms" that he urges everyone to respect - "respecting and extending freedom of assembly, new rights for the public expression of dissent... freedom to organise and petition, new freedoms that guarantee the independence of non-governmental organisations... freedoms for our press, the removal of barriers to investigative journalism... respecting the public right to know, new rights to access public information where previously it has been withheld..." etc. etc. ad naus.

Name one of these "freedoms" that cannot be underpinned by clear legislation, as opposed to the wishy-washy, lawyer-friendly platitudes of a Bill of Rights. Explain to me, for example, how a Bill of Rights will competently enshrine the public's right to know information "that has previously been withheld"? What government would willingly allow their citizenry those rights?

If Brown learned one thing from Blair, is is that you can say anything you like, mean the complete opposite, and hold that both are "true".

I can guarantee you, right now, that nothing will come of these fine words except a further curtailment of freedom.

A Bill of Rights is simply an excuse for further meddling with our real freedoms, in the joint causes of enforcing Political Correctness, and controlling the citizenry with extra-legal concepts that can only be discussed with the aid of expensive lawyers.

Of course, if we believe that the government has our best interests at heart, and would willingly give up its own hard-won mechanisms for keeping us plebs under control, then all is well and good.

And I have a fine bridge, vintage 1932, for sale right now.

per, you're absolutely right that prime ministers seldom give away power. if you know of an instance, anyone, speak up!

none the less, a bill of rights is a very good thing to have. any privelege extended by parliament can be withdrawn by parliament. a right, on the other hand can be ratified by referendum, not parliament, and is easily defended by the people. that's why it's a right, rather than a privelege.

the hard part is getting a bill of rights that works for the people. prime ministers will tend to say, i've written one for you, it's a dandy, no need for you to participate.

if the electorate organizes a committee to propose any article that can show some support, and to demand separate ratification of each article by majority vote, the pollies will probably give in. they certainly will if the electorate threatens to elect another party.

this is unlikely to happen in britain, they have no history of democracy in their culture. likewise oz, only worse if anything.

Suddenly, the document which Barnes wanted to tear up and rewrite in 1999 is now sacred. And note how seamlessly he moves from Brown's statutory bill of rights to a constitutional bill of rights for Australia. More power to unelected and unaccountable judges who don't submit to a performance review every three years.

An article arguing for a bill of rights and not one mention of lawyers and judges and their role in interpreting such "rights", the most controversial part of the argument. How extraordinary! Must have slipped the mind of Greg Barnes, a lawyer.

And how exactly can one man's opinion "debunk" anything?

A bill of rights is the biggest Trojan horse since, well, the Trojans.

I think the last group of men whom had their rights 'protected' were cave men...mainly because there was no 'law' to break...feel like thumping your chest and grabbing your friends food...go for it...only risk is if he is bigger than you with a reactive temperment...

However, I agree that we should have a bill of rights to protect the individual...not for reasons argued in article or speech but the opposite...our rights are being infringed and a carefully worded bill is needed to mark the line of 'no-go-zones' for parliament or statue executive bodies and for that matter judiciary...

Now, as you move out of your front door there is legislation of some form that controls your behaviour and acts...traffic, profession, trade...etc..

the 'safest' time in terms of least applicable laws(or relatively safest)is when you live alone, and are alone, without a pet, computer turned off, in your own paid home on land without neighbours within hearing distance...which to most would be after a hard days work at home to eat then sleep...

Point is the way things are going with more legislation enacted, we are already over legislated, it wont be long before your average common person is going stumble against a law/regulation of some sort while doing what is right in the circumstances to them, to see the inside of a court on the wrong side of the docks having your criminality/rights assessed, and at that time having a bill of rights to rely on is going to be god sent...

Sam

A Bill of Rights will see our country reach the lowest ebb of US litigation.Why don't we have a Bill of Reponsibilities so lawyers can be more accountable?