This article has been cross-posted at Peter Rohde’s Blog
There has been a lot of discussion in the Australian media recently about the introduction of an Australian Bill of Rights. Such a bill would, presumably, enshrine into the Constitution freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and other freedoms reminiscent of what appears in bills such as the United States’ Bill of Rights. While the aforementioned freedoms are certainly essential in a modern democracy, enshrining them into the Constitution brings with it serious problems.
Under Australian law, the High Court is the sole entity with the right to interpret the Constitution. In other words, whatever is the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court, is the final word. This represents a significant shift in the balance of power. Take for example the freedom of speech. While this is clearly a fundamental right in any credible democracy, it may have limits. For example, should religious extremists be able to use ‘freedom of speech’ as an excuse for using their influence to incite followers to conduct extremist actions such as hate crimes or terrorist offenses. While it is debatable whether freedom of speech should allow such actions, the point is that it must remain debatable. In other words, the public should be free to debate this issue, form a consensus, and pressure the elected representatives to pass motions based on this consensus. On the other hand, with a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech, it becomes no longer a debatable issue which can be influenced by elected representatives or the public, but instead becomes an issue which is decided upon by unelected judges, who are accountable to no one, and whose rulings become the uncontested rule of law.
A good example of the pitfalls of constitutional bills of rights is the 2nd amendment in the United States’ Bill of Rights – ‘The right to keep and bear arms’. ‘Arms’ is a rather generic term and can be used to refer to anything from pocket knives to fully automatic assault rifles. Gun laws are a very important political and social issue. However, under the US Bill of Rights the interpretation of this amendment is left solely in the hands of the justices. In other words, debate on this issue in the House or Senate is effectively stifled since neither have the right to influence this – only the Supreme Court does. As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles, and neither the House nor the Senate can do anything about it. In a sensible democracy, issues as important as this need to be debated, and ultimately decided by elected representatives, not by unaccountable justices whose views cannot be overruled by the democratic process.
By far the most striking example of the undeserved shift of power away from elected representatives and into the judiciary, is the Roe vs. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court in 1973. In this ruling the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s right to abortion is protected via the right to privacy of the Fourteenth Amendment. This has become one of the most cited and debated rulings in US history. Abortion is an extremely important, contentious and dividing issue in Western societies, and it needs to be debated and acted upon accordingly. However, as was evident in this case, justices sometimes feel the need to take an activist position and interpret the constitution in ways it was never intended to be. Whether you are for or against abortion is not the issue. The point is that abortion is an extremely important topic that needs to be publicly debated and ultimately decided upon by the Parliament, not by the activist judiciary.
To illustrate the fact that a Bill of Rights is not absolute and is open to interpretation by the judiciary, consider a very good example – once again the US Bill of Rights. In the hands of the judiciary the US Bill of Rights did nothing to prevent slavery, nor did it prevent segregation, nor did it prevent the circumvention of habeus corpus during the War on Terror, despite the fact that under a literal interpretation of this Bill such acts would be outlawed.
A final objection to a Bill of Rights, is that it is not flexible – it cannot evolve with evolving social views. What is enshrined in the Constitution is essentially permanent, unless a referendum takes place, which is very rare. In other words, while the views of society may change, the views of the Parliament may change, but what is enshrined in the Constitution does not.
In summary, a constitutional Bill of Rights, by definition, shifts legislative power away from the Parliament and into the hands of the judiciary, which is not elected, not accountable, and whose rulings cannot be overturned. If a politician implements a bad policy, they can be voted out at the next election. When a judge makes a bad ruling, they cannot be. A Bill of Rights is not flexible, and therefore cannot change as social views change. This is a dangerous situation and represents a complete attack on our democratic process and principles. Australia has an impeccable history of allowing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and protecting the rights and views of minority groups – historically, is the US better in these regards? As such there is no convincing reason to shift power away from Parliament and into the hands of the judiciary. Shifting around the power balance, in a system that has worked so well for a hundred years, is a precarious and pointless thing to do.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
“As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles”
So what. There is no such thing as “sensible democracy” by the way. “Public debate” over your inalienable natural rights makes zero sense to me.
I agree that ‘public debate’ over your inalienable rights makes zero sense. The point is, however, that the alternative is ‘closed debate’ by the judiciary. There’ll be debate one way or another – the question is whether it is by the politicians or by the judiciary. Both are undesirable, but at least the former can be voted out.
I thought the whole point of a bill of rights was to set out a series of rights that can not be voted away even by a majority of the people? It sounds to me like you would like to protect the ability of the majority to coerce the individual should that individual do/believe/say something unpopular.
And shouldn’t a bill of rights be about rights that are immutable? That don’t change over time and are not a matter of current social fashion? You mention religious extremists and free speech. But the extremists of today might be the mainstream majority of tomorrow and I don’t want them voting me down either. I think they should be free to spout their hatespeech just like I am free to call them frothing-at-the-mouth jerkwads.
“As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles”
What kind of libertarian believes they have the right to interfere with the property rights of others by dictating what is and what is not acceptable for people to posess?
“As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles”
The purpose of the US gun laws are to allow individuals the right to own weapons in order to protect themselves against a predatory government or invading force.
Allowing them to possess automatic weapons in this case makes sense. You aren’t going to repel a government force with a bolt action rifle.
You have me a little confused herewith your statement: In the hands of the judiciary the US Bill of Rights did nothing to prevent slavery, nor did it prevent segregation, nor did it prevent the circumvention of habeus corpus during the War on Terror, despite the fact that under a literal interpretation of this Bill such acts would be outlawed.
This seems to be more a fault of the Supreme Court rather than the Bill of Rights in itself. No one could ever argue intelligently that Dred Scott, a decision of a court of Democrat appointees was in any way correct and Lincoln’s suspension of Habeus Corpus was overturned even after considerable manouvering by the President to ensure it didn’t get to court. There is considerable doubt that the current suspension is in fact legal.
Another area of confusion is:it is not flexible – it cannot evolve with evolving social views
Rights are not dependant on the current social views of the day. Rights exist independently of current fads,social mores, and political opinion, and are not something that changes with whim in a free society. I must congratulate you on being the first in this forum to post anything advocating a need for inalienable rights which only exist within a social context.
Finally:‘The right to keep and bear arms’. ‘Arms’ is a rather generic term and can be used to refer to anything from pocket knives to fully automatic assault rifles.
This indicates that only feel that rights should only consist of a grant from the state of allowances of freedom going only as far as you approve of.
This argument never made any sense to me.
“with a constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech, it becomes no longer a debatable issue which can be influenced by elected representatives or the public”
Exactly. That’s the point. It’s begging the question – I don’t support restricting the power of lawmakers because it restricts the power of lawmakers. The power of lawmakers, elected or not, has to be restricted to avoid the tyranny of the majority and there are really two ways to do so: One is to only grant them very specific powers (e.g. defense, regulation of trade etc.) as the Australian constitution does, but historically this hasn’t stopped government getting bigger and taking on extra powers anyway; for example income tax and so on that has seen the power of the states in both Australia and the U.S. eroded in favor of a centralized government. So pretending that the mood of the populace only accords an increase in power or change in behavior of the judiciary (and not lawmakers) is clearly not true. The other way is to make it explicit that the government has no power in certain matters, which acts as a second defense in many ways, and this typically falls under the banner of rights.
Yet I don’t buy your arguments that lead to your conclusion that restricting lawmakers is a bad idea. Giving a bunch of examples that show where these rights mess up is approaching the nirvana fallacy IMO. A bill of rights is not perfect, yet neither is a lack of one. Take the issue of slavery for example. “In the hands of the judiciary the US Bill of Rights did nothing to prevent slavery … despite the fact that under a literal interpretation of this Bill such acts would be outlawed.” This is clearly facetious. A literal interpretation of the law is not always appropriate (or possible) and one alternative approach to interpretation that has been and is used is one based on the intent of the law which is not only arguably more appropriate, but also used more in rights issues (e.g. Miller v. California). The original U.S. Bill of Rights obviously did not intend the rights to apply to all people residing within the federation regardless of gender, status or ethnicity. A literal interpretation, no matter how ethical abolition would be, was not reflective of the aims of the constitution nor the society of the time. It is also worth noting that the U.S. constitution in the very first article essentially acknowledges slavery in the three-fifths compromise, so a literal interpretation may have indeed permitted slavery anyway (but not if you ask the Menzies Research Centre). Yet it is notable that it was a rights amendment to the constitution (the 13th) that explicitly made slavery illegal, something which would have failed (and did) before the courts. But hey, maybe we should sit down and have a debate in parliament about whether I can force boat-people at gunpoint to do my cooking and laundry?
But there is a good point made by anti-billers: some rights cause more problems then they solve. IMO keep the amount and scope of a bill of rights tight and minimal to ensure that the process of being represented and treated with justness is always there for citizens, and no more.
I’m in the majority here. The judiciary need to check the legislature and the executive.
Thanks to T. S. Elliot: Sir Thomas More in “A Man For all Seasons”
MORE Richard, you couldn’t answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (RICH exits. All watch him; the others turn to mother, their faces alert)
ROPER Arrest him.
ALICE Yes!
MORE For what?
ALICE He’s dangerous!
ROPER For libel; he’s a spy.
ALICE He is! Arrest him!
MARGARET Father, that man’s bad.
MORE There is no law against that.
ROPER There is! God’s law!
MORE Then God can arrest him.
ROPER Sophistication upon sophistication!
MORE No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.
ROPER Then you set man’s law above God’s!
MORE No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .
(He says this last to himself)
ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he’s gone!
MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man’s laws, not God’s-and if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
I think the most serious problem with a bill of rights for Australia is that we would in practice get a bill of rights that enshrined things other than what you have listed. If it purely entailed those things you have mentioned then I’d be all for it.
“I think the most serious problem with a bill of rights for Australia is that we would in practice get a bill of rights that enshrined things other than what you have listed.”
That’s exactly what I thought too. If we got a Bill of Rights now, I’m pretty sure we’d get a social democratic one as opposed to the liberal democratic US Bill. There’d be happy fluffy things on there like “the right to health care” and “the right to an education”. Not really the best things to remove from the sphere of elected representatives and public debate.
>or example, should religious extremists be able to use ‘freedom of speech’ as an excuse for using their influence to incite followers to conduct extremist actions such as hate crimes or terrorist offenses.
People should be responsible for their own actions, therefore, if you commit a crime, it is not a defence to say that someone or other other ‘incited’ you, and that therefore they are responsible for the crime but you are not.
The possibility that people may encourage others to commit crimes is not a reason to prohibit freedom of speech.
>A good example of the pitfalls of constitutional bills of rights is the 2nd amendment
The 2nd amendment asserts the right of American citizens to overthrow their government by force if the government violates their rights. You should think carefully about this and why it is so important that politicians should not be able to overrule the second amendment.
>The point is that abortion is an extremely important topic that needs to be publicly debated and ultimately decided upon by the Parliament, not by the activist judiciary.
Why do you call the judiciary ‘activist’. Are politicians impartial? That’s news to me. Politicians shouldn’t be legislating around abortion. Better than a public debate, let the facts of the matter be brought to light and properly weighed up. This is what courts are for.
>In the hands of the judiciary the US Bill of Rights did nothing to prevent slavery
That’s why they introduced the 13th amendment.
>nor did it prevent segregation
Then the 14th amendment.
>prevent the circumvention of habeus corpus during the War on Terror
Because ‘Gitmo’ is in Cuba, so it falls outside US juridiction.
>A final objection to a Bill of Rights, is that it is not flexible – it cannot evolve with evolving social views.
Human rights should be varied because of trends. Freedom is a natural, innate right of all human beings.
>In summary, a constitutional Bill of Rights, by definition, shifts legislative power away from the Parliament and into the hands of the judiciary, which is not elected, not accountable, and whose rulings cannot be overturned.
High Court justices are appointed by government. They are accountable to the general public. Their decisions can be overturned by subsequent High Courts (or, in theory, the privy council). But anyway, do you think Parliament (or executive government, since that what runs Parliament) is suffering for not having enough power?
The point of a Bill of Rights is that it restricts the powers of government. Naturally, to avoid a conflict of interest, the Bill of Rights is not interpreted by government.
>A Bill of Rights is not flexible, and therefore cannot change as social views change. This is a dangerous situation and represents a complete attack on our democratic process and principles.
‘Democratic process’ often contradicts freedom. If everyone were free we wouldn’t even need to have elections because everyone would be doing whatever they wanted.
>Australia has an impeccable history of allowing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and protecting the rights and views of minority groups – historically, is the US better in these regards?
‘Impeccable’? We have government censorship, FOI chicanery, libel laws where the defendant must prove innocence rather than the claimant proving the other’s guilt.
This is just an argument against having an overly vague Bill of Rights. Australia could get a Bill of Rights which says “An individual’s right to freedom of speech shall not be abridged unless…” etc. You cannot always depend on elected representatives to reflect the will of their constituents, and it would be nice to have some constitutional safeguards against problems that might result from this. You also cannot depend on the public to not make stupid decisions, particularly in times of crisis, and a higher standard is necessary to prevent the majority from taking away the rights of a minority. This is why you constrain the powers of legislators by a Bill of Rights. If circumstances arise that suggest something in the Bill of Rights is problematic, the Constitution can be amended. But that won’t happen immediately, there will be substantial discussion of it, and a referendum. All of these mean these rights won’t be foolishly thrown away during some crisis. In contrast, if one party controlled the Senate and the House, they could push any legislation that arbitrarily restricts our rights in a few months.
I also think you will find that the U.S. Supreme Court has overwhelmingly been a force for good when ruling on civil rights issues. It’s stood up for disenfranchised African-Americans; stopped racist, unequal segregation laws; stopped sodomy laws and other measures clearly motivated by malice towards gays. It has failed too. But rarely has this been in a manner by which one could conclude America would be better off without the Bill of Rights and other similar constitutional amendments.
It also seems to me that it would make more sense to discuss each proposed Right in the Bill of Rights on its own, rather than all of them together. Does anyone think that there shouldn’t be a right to a speedy trial?
In Australia I am free to carry an umbrella. However if I beat somebody to death with it the charge of murder will not be diminished. Likewise the freedom to say what you want does not diminish your role in any conspiracy to murder. Freedom of speech simply means the government can’t prosecute you for saying things they object to. It does not mean that what you say can’t be used as evidence of your involvement in things that are done.
Probably the following clauses, were they to be the basis of our constitution, would obviate any need for a bill of rights. It is quoted (with slight modifications) from the site, “Our Libertarian Spirit.”
1.0 The sole purpose of the Government is to attempt to restore justice and peace when there has been any initiation of force, threat of force, theft, fraud, or breach of contract. The government exists solely to guard against the potential negative aspects of unrestrained anarchy.
1.1 The Government shall refrain from exercising any function which does not unambiguously serve Section 1.0. The government does not exist to provide well-being, but only to attempt to assure the necessary conditions for people to pursue their own well being. There shall be no exceptions.
1.2 The Government shall not establish any official state religion or philosophy, but shall recognize there is deep within each individual an innate force for good, therefore all individuals must remain free to live as they choose, and make contractual agreements as they choose provided they do not initiate force, threat of force, theft, fraud, or breach of contract.
As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles, and neither the House nor the Senate can do anything about it.
Complete and utter bullshit.
First, firearms laws are largely State jurisdiction in the US, just as they are here.
Second, you need a Federal Firearms Licence to own a full auto weapon in the US. They are not handed out freely.
Third, several States and cities ban or severely limit semi-auto rifles. The number is declining due to political action, not the Bill of Rights.
Fourth, a “military assault rifle” is either a full auto or an ordinary semi-auto with a black stock. The term is only used by the ignorant and/or prejudiced.
I agree with you about not needing a Bill of Rights in Australia, but you don’t help by getting basic facts wrong.
It is not always helpful to slam the stable Door after the Horse has departed.
Did the US bill of rights overcome slavery etc ?
Well Slavery was in place before there was a bill of rights and the bill of rights and the US constitution were drawn up mostly by Men who were benefiting by the slave trade. So they were adopting possibly noble ideals which they probably did not want to see become reality.
The right to bear arms issue arose apparently due to unemployed soldiers and others threatening farmers over food etc after the US civil War.
It was introduced as a temporary measure so that farmers and citizens could defend themselves, but unfortunately was never repealed.
Tens of thousands of Americans have lost their lives due to loaded guns being produced in the heat of domestic arguments.
If the guns had not been available then fatal consequences might not have followed.
Presently we have the appalling Patriot Act in the US and similar Acts on the books in Australia and in other countries. You can be arrested without actually having committed any serious offence, held for some time without trial, not allowed to contact a lawyer and not be allowed to discuss the matter later.
It is an outrage that these measures ever got passed in parliaments. They need to be rescinded.
A Bill of rights might protect against that kind of legislation being introduced again.
Another Point.
We are entering a time when most people will only work a few hours a week. Robots and computers will take over many of the tasks which we presently do. So it won’t be too difficult to get people for jury service on comparatively minor issues.
A collective decision is usually more acceptable than that of one person like a judge (who might have been bribed)so if a bill of rights will have juries on call for all disputes – then that would be good I think.
Mind you the Australia Act of 1986 so compromised the Constitution act of 1900 that we actually need a new federal Constitution. A new Constitution might include most of what we see a Bill of rights achieving.
Jim, I think you have some funny ideas.
1. Many of the signatories were Northerners. Who didn’t have slaves or were abolitionists.
2. The right to bear arms is per the English Bill of Rights and earlier English charters, and was in the original US Ten Amendments.
3. The idea that guns create violence or homocide is either a non existent or a negative correlation, at least in the US and Austrlaian data. Look at it instead of making up comfortable fantasies.
4. Work hours are going down but we’re a long way off even a four day work week.
5. In South Australia, jurors can conscientiously object to jury serive. Rightly so. The Commonwelath COnstitution forbids conscription.
6. You can bribe one juror and spoil the process. Not much of an arugment.
7. The Constitution is problematic but not because of the Australia Act. It just clarified things. We are an independent Federal monarchy that merely shares a Monarch with no personal union. What’s to blame? Vertical fiscal imbalance, an inclination not to have a charter of rights by the drafters as to continue racist legislation, a reading down of rights, the expansion of Federal power vis a vis the corporations power, etc.
We don’t need a Bill of Rights- we need a new constitution! One that cannot touch private property, and can only make rules for public spaces. (Roads, town halls, territories, etc.) With a good constitution, you wouldn’t need a corrective bill at all!
I recommend to you all George William’s book and Helen Irving’s book for all the non lawyer’s out there.
Williams – “Human Rights under the Australian Constition”
Irving – “Five Things to know about the Australian Constituion”
Read these and you’ll be convinced it was busted a very long time ago.
Mea cupla. I attributed A Man for All Seasons to T S Elliot, and not Robert Bolt.
I think a lot of you have missed Peter’s point. You’ve all seen the phrase “As a result, it is presently acceptable for individuals to posses fully automatic military assault rifles” not being followed by “high fives all round” and assumed that Peter is an anti-gun tree hugger.
His point is very apt. Laying down a bill of rights, regardless of whether we agree with those rights (free speech, freedom to protect oneself etc) or don’t (right to a job etc) is essentially undemocratic. It’s closing the books. It is akin to saying: “We people at one point of time think we are 100% right about this thing. So much so that you future generations will only ruin it. So we best lock this in forever”.
The facts for libertarians are that nobody in Australia is keen for the kooky ideas we would bung into a bill of rights so Peter is right in thinking we should leave it up to the ebbs and flows of the hoi poloi for now.
Ben,
What is a big reason that made Barrie Unsworth very unpopular?
Contrast this with the ALPs more recent move to introduce the castle doctrine back into legislation.
It’s not a kooky idea. The other side can simply scare the shit out of the public with a bogey man.
Likewise, opposition to abolition of habeas corpus procedures isn’t kooky – although a few years ago, it was wildly popular.
Bill of Rights? Yeah a great idea. But lets look to amend the current laws where there is great negligence in the issuing of sentences to heinous crimes committed by under teens, teens, adults alike. Magistrates have a hard time dealing with forensic evidence presented in the simplest of forms, so how will such law regulators or law makers advocate a Bill of Rights? We all like to assume there is separation of powers, yet during the Howard years, how many of Howard’s fellow cabinet members were actually charged with AWB kick backs’ knowledge? The burden in this case fell steeply on AWB. Which brings me to conclude: A Parliamentary term is certainly too long for a particular bill or legislation to come into effect. These are modern fast times. How many past politicians have lost seat within one term of passing ludicrous reforms? Yet many large amounts of tax dollars are wasted in the process. We have an archaic judicial systems that needs amendment before the consideration for a Bill of Rights can be made. Until Magistrates/courts/Supreme Courts can clearly identify criminal circumvention without the imminent need for expert testimony, unfortunately the introduction of the Bill of Rights would need to be seriously drafted and reviewed.
Until we can be a society to successfully take governments to court, for its hierarchical disintegration of Law, we shouldn’t consider a Bill of Rights!There is much work to be done.
It seems as though the bill or charter of rights is a dead idea, stillborn. Three Cheers!!
I seriously disagree. The way things are with a two prty prefered system mean that the two parties who are in one club working it over the public in what is described as an elective dictatorship, they can be voted out yes & then they
take the blame then the the other side of the club take over & leave the ugly law in place,then they finally get voted out & the very people who implemented it get back in.Well they aren`t going to remove it,so then we are stil stuck with it. It takes a referendum to put that particular gun law into the constitution & can be removed by referendum
if the people want it removed. It is up to the government to follow the wishes of the people. With a bill of rights act the government can change it any time they want & noone can do jack didly about it. If it is in the constitution it cant be removed by self serving greedy right wing scabs going on about the dole and medicare while they strip the budget of billions & billions, go to war to create a mining boom which gives sweet F all to the people,because the MP`s own shares in the company.The people need protection from criminal polititions that get control of the country. They do nothing but tell lies and rip off the public. The people that built america knew what they were doing & for your info a lot of states in america have strict gun laws.Go back to school.
Actually it`s trillions & the money is sucked out of the country like a vacuum cleaner & turned into pocket money & guess whos pockets it goes into yeah you guessed right. If you don`t know you must be the only one . In the court it can be overturned & the executive government can sack the chief justice. If you dont like democracy go live in afghanistan, theres noone left over their because they are too scared to live there any more so they are all coming here to share our resources since we sell them off for an ear of corn. We don`t need the gun law but we need solid rights to protect individuals from beaurocrats with big heads & politicians with no scruples.
HI guys,
I am in Austraia. We have no rights. We cannot own a gun of anysort without a licence, even a BB gun. I hope that you work for your rights and I will try to work for mine.
JOHN
As an Aboriginal,I need protection, if the public are against protection to the most oppressed native people’s in the world then dont sook when they protect them selfs, if your against rights for all then I have no sympathy when an oppressed person does whats in his or her power, even if it means physically scaring someone. Its plain to see that its the racist’s that are against human protection. you lot are a joke, you justify physical violence and that will be the path if you dont have morals, attack me and you will have a Aboriginal flag scarred into your head, go on have a sook now. Your weak, mentally ill and sub human, I would care about stepping on an ant before caring for the lowest of the low racist’s that cant make their own way in the world thats why they steal land and abuse everything they touch, decendants of rapists and child murderers. SICK SICK SICK
A judge is always the person to rule on any issue, thats how the system works now. To have judges rule on their interpretation is no different to the system now. I dont understand why people are against this. I think its un Australian to not want Australian’s to be protected
“As an Aboriginal,I need protection, if the public are against protection to the most oppressed native people’s in the world then dont sook when they protect them selfs, if your against rights for all then I have no sympathy when an oppressed person does whats in his or her power, even if it means physically scaring someone. Its plain to see that its the racist’s that are against human protection. you lot are a joke, you justify physical violence and that will be the path if you dont have morals, attack me and you will have a Aboriginal flag scarred into your head, go on have a sook now. Your weak, mentally ill and sub human, I would care about stepping on an ant before caring for the lowest of the low racist’s that cant make their own way in the world thats why they steal land and abuse everything they touch, decendants of rapists and child murderers. SICK SICK SICK”
An unhinged lefty who has probably never seen an Aboriginal in his life.
A Bill of Rights – or any other constitutional measure – is a mechanism for enshrining a concept, held in society at the time, against the erosion of that concept over time.
There is a time and place for doing so. After a societal disaster, or collapse, enshrining the the values that prevailed has value against the day that threat returns. Now is not that time; now is the peak of social decadence and decay. Values enshrined at this point will only visit returning pain upon us.
It is at times like this that you realise Australia remains a young society. We have not yet been through this point in the history cycle as a nation; we’re still 80 years short of coming of age.
Not only do we need a bill of rights, we need to become a republic and write a new constitution.
A bill of right should reflect a moral foundation that one lives their lives and should be based on non coercion and non violence.
High court judges should not be immune to a bill of right and be held accountable for wrong judgment.