Does anybody else find a lawyer and politician arguing that the ideals we cherish can't be written downright surprising? It looks like after a lifetime of working in the law is he having a crisis of faith.

I am sure that all the downsides he describes to writing down the law are correct - and after all he would know. But as far as I know no-one has come up with anything better - and he doesn't suggest otherwise.

I personally much prefer to see the things I regard are critical to the maintenance of our society written into the constitution. Things such as freedom of political speech, transparency of government, and freedom to life your life and religion in whatever way you please. We seem have a constitution whose primary aim seems to be ensuring our continued allegiance with Britain. The current situation of leaving it to the whim of Judges to read these other things into it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Those such as myself who are very dubious about a bill of rights would be more inclined towards one if the courts recognised some of the rights we already have in the Federal Constitution. Sections 41 and 117 are the first that come to mind. Over the years the High Court has virtually interpreted them out of existence. Similarly in the United States, court decisions have severely limited the rights expressed in the so-called "bill of rights".

The real argument is whether we want to be governed by politicians or judges. I consider the decisive factor is that we can remove politicans from office if we don't like their policies, but not judges. Having a bill of rights would move us a long way along the path of being governed in a manner similiar to that current in the European Union.

What utter tripe John Spender. The world did not change on September 11, 2001 except in the paranoid minds of the west. Those nasty muslims are not out to get us, they just want us to stop invading, killing, torturing and interfering in them as we steal their oil and resources.

Why is it that the majority of western men lost their marbles on that day as if the west are the greatest good in the world without ever analysing the reality.

We are the barbarians. As for suspending rights in war, mate that is precisely when they must be protected the most or we descend into situations like Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase murders as seen in Taxi to the Dark side, Gitmo, and our own Gitmo called Woomera as an excuse to say the world changed.

The world did not change.

According to this reactionary logic the problem is with 'rights'and not the crooked politicians and the profit system. This is an old well worn rightwing misleading canard for attempting to undermine any and all legal, political, social and democratic rights. This nonsense is always supplied with the attendant political cover:It is all being done "for the good of society" or the "fight against terrorism". Never do they mention that terrorism itself is a rightwing political agenda. Nor do they ever mention that is the very essence behind all the politicians deceit and doings over the last hundred years viz., "that workers have no rights and the bankers, bosses and ruling oligarchy have every right."
Two examples of "no rights" took place this week. The military junta in Burma, despite advanced warnings refused to let the public know and issue any strategy. Nor any warnings about a flow on in tides being 4.5 meters above the norm. Then there was the criminal privatisation of the States Electrical Industry. Despite some grandstanding at the public rally, all the Labor and trade unions supported the privatisation process. But the majority of the public as one poll suggests 85% opposed it.

I think Marilyn Sheppard is much like the lunatic right whom she detests.
John,you cannot have rights without responsibilities.What we need first of all,is a Bill of Responsibilities which the legal profession should be first signatories,then we can have rights.

It won't happen because the legal profession like past aristocracies want absolute power,but today use the ruse of left wing socialism to justify their existence.

At least past aristocracies were honest in assuming "manifest destiny."

Every totalitarian government and would-be dictator in history has been ready with a long list of reasons why the people should have rights and power -- but not just yet. There is always some crisis which requires a 'temporary' suspension of the people's privileges... and if there is no convenient crisis, it's easy to manufacture one.

The advantage of a Bill of Rights is that it recognises that the balance of power has changed since the days of Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, and that a smarter, richer population deserves its due share of participation in power and privilege. A Bill of Rights provides one more backstop against a slide back to barbarism -- like the one which temporarily took hold after 9/11 and still seems to be infecting the author.