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.

A thoughtful contribution.

I agree with Arjay concerning obligations. This country and its hedonistic, me-me people needs a good dose of instruction on obligations.

If anyone in Australia does not feel that his or her rights are taken care of under existing legislation, they should have a good look at themselves.

There are two many Australians, particularly the younger ones, who confuse 'rights' with being able to do as they please, and to hell with everyone else.

The whole is the sum of its parts.

The nature of any one part necessarily informs the whole, by definition.

Thus the notion that "when individual rights have to suffer for the good of the whole" is a flase dichotomy, propelled by a self refuting circularity.

When the individual suffers, a whole suffers, as it is the sum of its individually suffering parts.

The irony is the notion that the whole is improved by a deterioration in its parts.

Something cannot be simultaneously true and false.

You dont expand freedom by limiting it. In fact doing so is a good cover for taking something away and getting people to say thank you.

l think it would be more honest to say... in the interests of power, control, dominance and maintaining a self serving status quo, we are prepared to do what ever it takes, including the promulgation of speciously rationalised propaganda campaigns in service of our self interested a priori motivations. All the way thru to shooting ourselves in the foot so that we can out-hobble an opposition that we have just crippled.

Short-sighted, self-interested, emotion and irrational, in the extreme.

To read a statement like this from a Queens Counsel is beyond belief. He would have to be related to the grub in the Federal Court as he has much the same attitude towards anybody with a different religious belief who dared to question his corrupt authority. I tend to agree with Marilyn.

We live in a post 9-11 world. Our world is defined by the enemies of western civilisation, and not by ourselves. The aim of radical Islamists is unambiguous - to destroy western civilisation. This is for them an overriding and virtuous goal, ordained by a religion and one which as believers they are bound to pursue. Any means are open to achieve this goal, including the destruction of whole cities and populations by nuclear and biological weapons.

spender is happy to wax lyrical about hypothetical bogeyman stories, but spends not a word on america's actual current use of torture and extra-judicial murder. he says:

"Will there be individual injustices along the way? Almost unavoidably. We must try as hard as we can to make sure this does not happen. If torture is ever to be used, it is to be only in the most extreme of cases and under the strictest of supervision."

how does he suppose to police the kind of people who feel they are sanctioned to torture? it's obviously working wonderfully well even as it is! this is a qc who cannot see the dangers of sanctioning a state to engage in such barbarism, even when the evidence is appearing before his eyes? what a truly pathetic and disgusting man.

spender is right in one respect: he declares the world has changed. now, softly spoke barbarians are given a forum to preach torture, in the name of goodness. well done, spender, and well done OLO. kafka is proud of you.

Health is a right, education is a right and so is free speech. If we could have our time again I would say "housing or land is a right," and so is the right to work. We need to rethink the ways we work.

I want a bill of rights for Australia. I understand it is mentally and emotionally challenging for a nation to be upfront and vibrant about all the moral underlying issues to be costed through the debates but that is better that then the murky situation we presently live with (Emu Antic's) that appears to only serve those with access to resources (usually legal) and the social capital they need to emancipate what they feel is 'their right".

Just look at today for example.

We got a right for Alma Ata realized through Medicare. Yes it is to be worked through as a nation between all States regardless of the silly arguments against it. I thought we as a world agreed on RIGHTS FOR HEALTH FOR ALL. I also thought that business world were "problem solvers". It appears to me to be better to face a human evolutionary (sociopolitical) problem in our attempt to give ACCESS to Health for ALL economically, than to continue to isolate Health as an option for those only, lucky enough, who can afford it.

If I were the Doctors, including the Leader of the Federal Opposition, I would help solve the problem (as a leadership moral strength) by working to provide "better health" inclusively, as a baseline and work up from that.

Lets Face the REALITY. Health crosses over in all areas of life and is not and can not be just a free market issue.

Doctors need to "take responsiblity", as do we ALL!

More below;

The Right to Freedom of Speech. Anyone scared to hear and or agree with their opposition or critic sometimes, is not a problem solver. The ALP needs to be congratulated today for its policy to speak out on anything that might be pressing in relation to the Games in China. This policy is unifying as it reduces much potential violence, give Australians the independence they need to be Australians.

I agree, the Stadium is off limits for anything that would disadvantage the concentration of the Olympic participates. It would be difficult to argue with that. Fair is Fair there,

The "economy". The right for all citizens in this next BUDGET. It is the first chance we get to attempt step toward balance, perhaps the last this decade, before the elder-baby-boomers make their impact of needs felt, among other things. These are challenging times. While I appreciate the work of business, it is not "good business" to lopside the BOOM. The economy is creeping with unintended "invisibles". Ie: Homelessness, Single Mothers, growing Household Debt, unnecessary amounts of Household Stress, not to mention the fuel prices (transport costs), rising food prices and the tug-a-war over work and wages.

The foundation of the Australian system will erode if we do not work to keep-up or re-adjust with the times. Our foresight as a nation is primary given we can see what is happening in other countries. We have the knowledge. We know we can have both sides of the Cake if we use our nations knowledge constructively. I DEMAND this too, is a RIGHT for All Citizens.

When I argue for individual rights I argue the times we live, the way we have broken our natural links within community (as people) through industraliation, in the social, econmic and cultural breakdown through the "nuclear family".

We have some mending to do.

If we want to continue with high end "capitalism" , we need to take some responsiblity for it, and accept the socio-economical-structures (adjustments) by counter-acting the uneven or disconnected pathways it creates - even if it all just happened... unwittingly.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

What tosh. Since when has torture produced accurate results? We've had this debate on OLO before.

Some people do "live in a post 9-11 world...defined by the enemies of western civilisation." They live in fear and would find no end of comfort seeing others share in it.

A very reasonable and mundane presentation of an issue which I suspect will become ever more important to address in coming years.

The problem with dogmatic "rightists" is that they rarely allow for dilution of their stance. For example "Right to Life" exponents will not concede the death penalty on any matter no what crime has been committed.

The logical consequence of which is that ANYBODY can take the life of another person by whom they may feel aggrieved, or against whom they may simply hold a grudge, provided they are willing to submit to ten or fifteen years imprisonment with its attendant reeducation.

The scenario is becoming very familiar indeed - Do whatever you want then immediately throw your hands in the air shouting your guilt and sorrow while in the same breath requesting the services of a good lawyer and a counselor.

The name of the game played by "rightist abolitionists" is that no matter how heinous the crime committed against no matter how many people, the guilty party NEVER has to have their life on the line.

Proponents of capital punishment for capital crimes (like myself) usually argue that the motives and circumstances of the case should be considered before a person pays the ultimate price for the ultimate crime.

I profoundly resent that a price of ten or fifteen years incarceration is the price of my life to anybody who cares to take it.

well said, bennie. in fact, the true "enemies of western civilisation" are psychopaths like spender, trying to drag us back to the dark ages.

benlomond, your torture hypothetical is absurd and irrelevant. it is a poisonous question with only a poisonous answer. the reality is, whatever the law, any hyper-extreme situation as you imagine is going to be addressed with hyper-extreme action. this is simply the logic and the ethics of war.

but you don't legislate the powers of the state under the paranoid fear of ridiculously implausible nightmares, to sanction disgusting acts. this is cultural and moral perversion.

and how does spender justify his sadistic fantasies? because of the threat of "radical islam". this is paranoia to the point of lunacy. somehow hitler wasn't enough of a threat, and stalin wasn't enough of a threat. but a ragtag gang of murderous thugs is the overwhelming threat to western civilization. such a threat that we have overthrow centuries of development of the notion of rights and the rule of law.

to hear this disgraceful argument from a radio shock jock is bad enough. to hear it from a qc is thoroughly loathsome.

stop dealing with your lurid hypotheticals, and start addressing actuals. consider how even now america is torturing people, including undeniably innocent people, and destroying the evidence. this is the reality. this is torture in the hands of the good guys. good guys? it's a contradiction in terms. it is orwellian.

this is what torturers do. this is its real nature. maybe it doesn't bother you, but it disgusts me beyond expression, as do obfuscating apologists such as spender.

What about your own rights, Mr Spender? Do you uphold your own right never to made by your government to torture another human being?
As a lawyer, you must be aware of the concept (if not the reality) of equality before the law. You should also be aware that a man who commissions another to murder his wife is still considered guilty, even if his hands are clean.
Any government of the people that condones murder, makes murderers of all the people.
Likewise torture.
If you managed to find your torturer, and condoned his crime, would you then ask him home to have tea with the family?
Would you recommend him to your daughter, as a hero of the people?
You appear to have a dubious grasp of ethics, Mr Spender.

Dear Bennie

you said:

"What tosh. Since when has torture produced accurate results?"

I think you need to research this from reality rather than GreenLeftWeekly mate. Just the 'thought' of torture can be enough in some cases.

http://www.navyseals.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-133415.html

Keith Hall, aka Captain Crunch was a CIA operative who was tasked to find out who was responsible for the bombing of the US embassy in Beruit.(prior to the Barracks bombing)

He was interviewed on the History chanel, and he describes how, with an unfettered hand he discovered the whole network, and mainly that Iran was behind it, and..that Iran had a covert operation against all Americans in the Middle East.(All he did was thump the Lebanese prisoner)

They had enough intel from his work to prevent the Barracks bombing, but due to 'denial' mode in Washington at the thought that Iran was out to 'get' them... they couldn't handle it... Hall was sacked and disgraced....then.. the barracks was bombed. BOOOM, many other incidents followed.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=198518

You can make a judgement call about whether the lives of 250 people is worth less than a bit of a roughing up of a known enemy.

Just out of curiosity.. how much value DO you place on the security of your country, relative to some coercion of an enemy operative? Coersion indeed works when you can verify the info and if its wrong, well..that should be obvious.

From what I observe, your thinking is incapable of comprehending that the 'law' is pretty much just to keep we masses in line, and there is a different 'code' which all countries live by..and that code is "do what you have to" to survive.

At first glance, you would think this article was an argument against adopting a bill of rights. But it is more an apologetic for the use of state-sanctioned torture to prevent a terrorist attack. Clearly the autor has no moral compass and is willing to violate human rights for information that may be totally useless and from a suspect who may well be innocent. Even if it were useful in preventing such a catastrophic attack that the author maintains we are facing, if that was the only piece of information the authorities had then what a dismal failure of the intelligence services because there are many other means to source information than resorting to torture!

Oh. A US military blog said that torture works. OK, I was wrong.