Bill of Rights (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

Bill of rights to rein in Parliament

AUSTRALIA is a step closer to getting a bill of rights, which could enshrine rights to free speech and non-discrimination. The Federal Government is set to begin a consultation process into what the document should look like next week.

The charter would outline a set of rights and require the Parliament to ensure legislation complies with them. It is unlikely to be a US-style constitutional document - which allows courts to declare laws invalid - but will probably be based on those in Victoria, the ACT and Britain.

The Herald understands cabinet agreed on the nationwide consultation process on Monday.

The Government will use the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, next Wednesday, to call for options on a human rights charter.

The Prime Minister threw his support behind the principles enshrined in the declaration yesterday in a speech to Parliament marking the anniversary.

"As a middle power we believe in a creative use of diplomacy to build stronger human rights protection in every part of the world," Mr Rudd said.

The Australian National University's Professor Hilary Charlesworth said the bill of rights would probably include civil and political rights such as the right to free speech and to non-discrimination. What was less clear was whether economic, social and cultural rights would be included, such as the right to education, to a high standard of health care and the right to work.

"I think [the Government] will leave it open," she said.[...]

So what should be included?
Constitutional or legislative?
Do we even need a bill of rights?

 

[Trefoil]

Bill of rights to rein in Parliament




So what should be included?
Constitutional or legislative?
Do we even need a bill of rights?

As long as it's not a US-style bill I'll probably be happy.

Among some of the problems with the US Bill of Rights is that it says what the government can't do to violate our rights, not what it can do to protect and foster our rights. It's all about negative rights not positive ones.

"the right to education, to a high standard of health care and the right to work."

Things like those are important. They've been a foundation of Australian society for at least a century. Australia is far more egalitarian than America.

 

[impervious182]

As long as it's not a US-style bill I'll probably be happy.

Among some of the problems with the US Bill of Rights is that it says what the government can't do to violate our rights, not what it can do to protect and foster our rights.

ROFL. What does 'protect and foster our rights' actually mean?

I think ensuring the government can't violate rights is a very good idea.

 

[Trefoil]

ROFL. What does 'protect and foster our rights' actually mean?

The right to healthcare, education, and police protection, for example. A healthy, educated, and safe population is far less likely to violate the so-called 'negative rights' or have their own violated.

It's what some crackpot libertarians call a 'nanny state' because the state guarantees everybody a minimum level of human rights and they don't have to fight tooth and claw for them in a system akin to social Darwinism.

 

[Trefoil]

0. A robot may not harm a human being, unless he finds a way to prove that in the final analysis, the harm done would benefit humanity in general.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
4. A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases.
5. A robot must know it is a robot.

Fuck, rule 0 is scary. Does Asimov actually cover rule 0? I've only read Caves of Steel.

 

[Trefoil]

Cheers.

 

[kevinx2]

HSC Legal Studies all over again :mad1:

 

[bigboyjames]

wont work, wont matter

 

[Iron]

Wack in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It would be a good global gesture and a move towards one world government.

But i'm still a little uncomfortable about the topic. On the one hand, I dont like our HC reading rights into our current constitution which clearly arent there, such as polcom, native title etc. In the long run I think it harms their legitimacy. But on the other hand I dont like the US system which severely limits what congress can actually legislate, and subsequently defers all politically difficult decisions to an unelected judiciary, who read further rights into the bill anyway (ie privacy) (civil rights, abortion, gay marriage...)
It's a nice idea to have the HC as a defender of minority rights against a 50+1 majority government, but in reality I think it's restricting and backward. In the 21st century, government can do more -and needs to do more- than was ever imagined 200yrs ago. The antiquated shackles on US government are evident, and in the long run this has harmed the people (eg gun rights)
We should have more faith in the common law, the robustness of our democracy, and education +good character of our voting citizens

 

[incentivation]

Speech, Association, freedom from search and seizure. Limiting of police powers, limiting of governmental powers.

Life, liberty, happiness. Take the US Bill, it works fairly well, I must say.

Freedom from search and seizure?

What implications would that have upon the distribution of illicit drugs, the concealement of weapons and the commission of property related offences?

It is a fundamental power afforded to police to act in a preventative manner when armed with sufficient cause. It is a power that if removed, would have extensive negative consequences. Thankfully, the legislature and the electorate in general wouldn't support a move of that kind.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

There is no need for a Bill of Rights since societal values keep on changing, hence some rights becoming outdated and inadequate. I.e. America and gun laws.

 

[gibbo153]

no, the limitation of a right that comes with defining it won't be good for society. if it ain't broke don't fix it

 

[Trefoil]

Wack in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It would be a good global gesture and a move towards one world government.

But i'm still a little uncomfortable about the topic. On the one hand, I dont like our HC reading rights into our current constitution which clearly arent there, such as polcom, native title etc. In the long run I think it harms their legitimacy. But on the other hand I dont like the US system which severely limits what congress can actually legislate, and subsequently defers all politically difficult decisions to an unelected judiciary, who read further rights into the bill anyway (ie privacy) (civil rights, abortion, gay marriage...)
It's a nice idea to have the HC as a defender of minority rights against a 50+1 majority government, but in reality I think it's restricting and backward. In the 21st century, government can do more -and needs to do more- than was ever imagined 200yrs ago. The antiquated shackles on US government are evident, and in the long run this has harmed the people (eg gun rights)
We should have more faith in the common law, the robustness of our democracy, and education +good character of our voting citizens

Yep, this is pretty much how I feel on the matter.

 

[zstar]

A bill of rights is as good so long as the government follows it and obeys it.

Government unfortunately tends to twist it and use it to advance their own personal cause.

 

[verdades]

A bill of rights is as good so long as the government follows it and obeys it.

Government unfortunately tends to twist it and use it to advance their own personal cause.

I agree with the need for the government to follor its own laws.
However, I disagree with the need for a Bill of Rights, because generally, it restricts the ability for human rights laws to evolve, which is what they do.

Although, also agreed on "wack in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

 

[incentivation]

I tend to agree. Our current system generally ensures that the prevailing consensus is reflected in legislation.

 

[sthcross.dude]

The fundamental problem is with our attitudes, not our system of government.

The problem is too many people believe it is legitimate for them to impose their personal beliefs on others as long as the majority of people, or in many cases only around 40% of people agree with them.

 

[verdades]

The fundamental problem is with our attitudes, not our system of government.

The problem is too many people believe it is legitimate for them to impose their personal beliefs on others as long as the majority of people, or in many cases only around 40% of people agree with them.

Many people who believe very strongly try to impose their personal beliefs on people anyway. They only succeed if they have the majority, or were there first.

 

[Tully B.]

A bill of rights works in theory, however there are number loopholes through which the Government is able to ignore it. Creating a law, for example.

Freedom of speech in America is often played up, and even more often quashed. Whether it was communist support in the 60s, or mob threats in the 80s (the latter of which I do not mind being suppressed), the US Government has always found a way to adopt an interpretation of the bill of rights which allowed them to do what they want. In some cases, this may be necessary.
For example, death threats and bounties are censured from the internet when possible. I have absolutely no problem with this, despite the fact that some may say that it interferes with our freedom of speech.

 

[Ms. BRIGHTSIDE]

HSC Legal Studies all over again :mad1:

That's exactly what I thought.
Loved the question on it in the HSC.