Come now, Graham, our rights are pretty well protected here in Australia even in the absence of a bill of rights. If anyone in our country suffers from a perceived injustice, they have recourse to the media to bring their problems to the public's attention; they have their MPs (state and federal) to whom they can request direct intervention on their behalf if it's a government matter; they have many aspects of common law which they can call upon in the courts; and finally there are statutes of the various houses of Parliament which protect some rights.
In combination, all of these protective measures have made Australia one of the freest and safest countries on the planet. I really don't believe that the creation of a bill of rights and giving unelected judges greater powers over the lives of Australian citizens is going to bring enough benefits to justify such a course of action.
If it ain't broke, why fix it? A hell of a lot more justification is required before the need for a bill of rights is accepted by a majority of citizens.

The problem with both a charter of rights or existing protections is that they are highly subject to the vagaries of popular and temporal opinion.

The entire idea of universal human rights is that they apply to all people within the sovereign boundaries and are timeless in their intent.

As Hannah Arendt correctly described what is required is "constitutio liberatius" - the marking out of areas of life which the State will not intervene, ever.

Whilst these themselves are subject at times by some pretty suspect interpretations of law, these are usually at such variance to common sense that the public reaction is invariably quite severe - witness the effects of the Dredd Scott case in the United States in 1857.

The best possible way to protect individual rights and liberties is through constitutional protection, rather than the reliance of the hoi polloi or by the politicians, the hoi oligoi.

BILL OF RIGHTS...

1/ All Australians will be free to practice their religions.

2/ No Australian will experience discrimination based on his religion.

3/ All Australians will be able to live in peace and must feel totally safe in all their environments, of work and leasure.

UNnnnnfortunately, point 1 and 2 are NOT compatible with point 3.

Why? A number of reasons.

a)The symbolic meaning of certain pieces of religious clothing means some will be fearful of those wearing them.
b)Some religions do not recognize such rights, and ignore them.

CANADIAN EXPERIENCE.

The Lunacy of such things as 'Human Rights Law' is clearly demonstrated in Canada, which deserves to be institutionalized if it were possible.

SIKHS. The Kirpan is now allowed, on the grounds of avoiding religious discrimination, to be taken into:
-Courtrooms.
-Schoolyards.
-ON PLANES.. yes.. that's right..on planes. (Canadian Airlines only)

I have interviewed 2 Sikhs at random. One an educated man in mid 30s, the other a youthful bloke around 20ish. BOTH declared a willingness to USE their dagger/kirpan in self defense or in the defense of others. (illegal unless attacked with a knife.)

IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME...before a Canadian Airliner is hijacked by terrorists masquerading as Sikhs.

How can a child feel safe, knowing that other children are carrying a possibly long pointed dagger like weapon? So that shows point 3 is down the toilet already.

POLYGAMY..how can you discriminate against Muslims wishing to avail themselves of the 4 wives rule?
SPOUSE ABUSE Or the Domestic violence permission?

SEXUAL ABUSE or the sexual use of captive women permission?

DENIAL OF TAXI SERVICE. To blind with guide dogs?

CONCLUSION. Bills of 'Rights' are usually selective, biased and unworkable. Being unworkable and unfair, they are simply used as a tool of social engineering by Socialist Internationalism interests.
BOR is simply code for 'destroy the existing social order'.

WHAT IS INNES REAL AGENDA?

ooh..that is pretty clear.

"However, there are 60-plus pieces of federal legislation which specifically deny financial and work-related benefits to same-sex couples." (his other thread)

as IF.."Same sex" relationships are on a par with heterosexual relationships?

Why not look at legislation which discriminates against the 'positive nature of adult/child sexual relationships' which NAMBLA would have us believe?

Why stop at removing discrimination against consenting,committed adults?

An 8 yr old Yemeni girl who was the victim of a 30 yr old sex maniac who 'married' her was able to take herSELF to court to get free of the monster and the monstrous ideas which led to her predicament...
Young people.. (15 yrs and 11months 20 days) are no less mature than those who are 16 yrs and 1 day....

INNES DARK AGENDA OF SLEAZE and EVIL..... yes.. that's my opinion.

1/ "our international obligations".. RUBBISH! (for this read "His gay rights agenda")

2/ "Legislation against same sex couples" NOW..we are getting to the nub of this 'equality' thing of his. (another thread)

This is war.. WAR! and it is between light and darkness..right and wrong.. and INNES is just acting like a footsoldier of the dark side.

The shape of our culture depends on...US..and how hard we are prepared to fight such disgusting forces as represented by Innes' argument and crowd, on issues such as these.

This author wants to feed us into the gas chambers of cultural oblivion in the name of gay sex.

Well..I'm not interested in being shipped off to Cultural Auschwitz by the likes of Herr Innes.

I think this was most apparent when both sides of politics acted several years ago to rewrite the Constitution to deprive the rights of gay people in society.

I'm also in some agreement with Lev. While I believe in the great potential of a bill of rights, I also recognise there can be flaws as well. With our current system of government, where inconsistent devious laws are dreamt up on a regular basis I would expect it to be a very flawed document. However equally the argument for not having one also has it's detractions.

More monomania, Boaz.

>>The symbolic meaning of certain pieces of religious clothing means some will be fearful of those wearing them<<

Fearful, Boaz?

Only if you and the others determined to stir up inter-faith strife have been able to instil this fear through your continuous drip-feed of hatred. Most people respect other folks' right to wear what they will, so long as it is legal (i.e. doesn't frighten the horses).

>>Some religions do not recognize such rights, and ignore them<<

Then they will be breaking the law, won't they?

>>The Kirpan is now allowed, on the grounds of avoiding religious discrimination<<

Subtle. The kirpan is allowed out of respect for a set of religious beliefs. That's a positive, not a negative.

>>I have interviewed 2 Sikhs at random... BOTH declared a willingness to USE their dagger<<

Yes, of course you have Boaz. And it is also amazing how they both instantly confessed to you their homicidal instincts. Your interviewing style must be pretty effective.

>>IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME...before a Canadian Airliner is hijacked by terrorists masquerading as Sikhs<<

Now you are being very silly. Aren't you.

>>How can a child feel safe, knowing that other children are carrying a possibly long pointed dagger like weapon?<<

I'll bet they don't give it a passing thought, Boaz. Go do some more interviewing and find out.

>>POLYGAMY..how can you discriminate against Muslims wishing to avail themselves of the 4 wives rule?<<

I'm sorry - where does it say that a Bill of Rights will include licence for polygamy? Is there, in fact, a Bill of Rights anywhere that does so?

>>SPOUSE ABUSE Or the Domestic violence permission... SEXUAL ABUSE or the sexual use of captive women permission?... <<

Ditto.

>>DENIAL OF TAXI SERVICE. To blind with guide dogs?<<

Not that old chestnut. This practice was outlawed, remember?

>>CONCLUSION. Bills of 'Rights' are usually selective, biased and unworkable.<<

I agree with your conclusion, but cannot for the life of me derive that conclusion from the farrago of bilious bigotry that precedes it.