I agree with the point the article makes, and the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights was both new and useful to me. The idea of a "Bill of Wrongs" has been championed here on OLO before. Seeing it promoted again is good - it needs all the publicity it can get.

Its a pity the author didn't spend more time championing a "Bill of Wrongs" instead of dissing a "Bill of Rights". Attack one and in the minds of most you are probably attacking both. Given the AFP's history of using the current moral panic, be it over terrorists, paedophiles, of photographs, to increase surveillance their powers while locking people up without the press knowing about it, I'd like to see something in the constitution draw a line in the sand on how far they can go.

What we need is a bill of government. It is government and there increasing powers that are the real threat to democracy. The bad legislation which still needs to be scrapped (Anti Terror Laws) is a classic example of encroachment. The citizen holds all rights and allows the existence of government for there benefit. It is we the citizens who need to define the limits of government, we can do this by limiting government to certain areas and any activity beyond this would be illegal or require a constitutional referendum

Very good article, and yes you are right, the law should not protect so-called positive rights. They are not rights at all, they are simply a provision for slavery of one kind or another. They are ethically and intellectually bankrupt: the mere squalling for the tit by the unweaned.

However the problem with a bill of rights, or wrongs, is the same as the problem with governments generally, which is that it's virtually impossible to stop governments from exceeding their clearly limited powers and thieving from the population.

The US is a classic example. The current police state, and fascist empire, is virtually unrecognisable from its Bill of Rights and Constitution. Virtually every single one of the rights enumerated therein have been de facto abolished or abridged by the legislative, executive or judicial branch. It has got to the stage where the Congress no longer bothers with whether a power is unconstitutional. For example, Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment. The War on Drugs did without. But you will look in vain in the Constitution for a power to nationalise the bloodstreams of every individual in the population.

Similarly in Australia, the history of the High Court's interpretation of the Federal government’s powers is one of never-ending expansion of governmental power. The Franklin Dam case had the effect of overturning the entire section intended to limit the powers of government, giving government a blank warrant to expand at will by signing UN conventions!

There needs to be some cause of action by any member of the population against an offending member of government personally, judged by a jury, not by a government court, otherwise it will never work.

The ancient Greeks had the right idea. Anyone proposing a new tax has to stand in the marketplace on a stool with a noose around his neck. If the motion is not carried, the stool is kicked away.

More to the point would be a Constitutional amendment that, each election, the ballot lists each branch and sub-branch of government with its cost, and a tick-a-box for which to abolish.

Diocletian: "The US is a classic example. The current police state, and fascist empire, is virtually unrecognisable from its Bill of Rights and Constitution."

Perhaps. But at least the US citizen knows he is supposed to have free speech - its in the constitution and ain't going to disappear without a majority vote of the citizens. And they know what "free speech" is - because it is defined there in fairly clear terms. None of this can be made to disappear by a politician who only mentioned protecting the populace from terrorists during his election campaign, and then wanted to change the rules. He can, at best, ignore them, and he takes a considerable risk in doing so.

The US may stray from its ideals at times. But with bedrock like their BOR to stand on I am confident they will always return to them.

According to the Rule of Law, Citizen's Rights constitute an inherent property. Inherent means non-conferred. Your Rights adorn your existance since birth. For example: the Right for Equal Treatment: this is not a "conferred" Right by politicians or judges. It "has been" your Right from the start.

But authority-oriented philosophers speculate on Rights as being a tool to be "given", "granted" - or not granted, as if people's rights are their private property. See this :

"[BoR] overvalues the powers of unelected, unaccountable judges. Parliament does not make the difficult decisions anymore. Instead, they are shifted to the judiciary" - So, the question here is "Who is going to decide on and grant or deny Rights"?.

Misunderstanding the nature of Citizen's Rights turns the subject into "Power Struggle". It is a view which is based on perceiving Rights as "negotiable products". The implicit message opponents to declaring Citizen's Rights are offering is that: Rights are sooooo complex that Ordinary Citizens are unable to understand or interpret their own inherent Rights, and here comes the competition on who will decide for them.

If one believes that Rights as Human Being are inherent - not granted by powers - then why this fear from a "Declaration of Australian Citizens Rights"?

Try to see the whole thing from another point of view:

Based on the concept that Rights are Inherent since birth, what would the Australian Collective Intellect include in defining or specifying the Rights of Australian Citizens?

Safwan