Tom CravenAn Australian Bill of Rights: The Case Against
April 24th 2008 05:24
With the giant 'Rudd Circle Jerk' also known as '2020' the issue of an Australian Bill Of Rights has been raised once again. The usual constitutional minimalists are up against the lunatics from the constitutional reform side who are to incompetent to understand the basic dangers of a bill of rights. The problem with a bill of rights is that to ordinary citizens it sounds good, what’s so bad about legislating on your basic rights? Spark some deeper thought about the issue here separates the morons from the men.
We have the best constitution in the world, no one comes near us. Rightly or wrongly entrenched within this constitution and common law principles surrounding it we have basic human rights already guaranteed. These bindings on humans rights are unbreakable.
Also Section 51 of the constitution under the 'external affairs' power proves that human rights under 'UN Human Rights' sanctions already apply in Australia. These agreements are binding also. Also the 'Communist Party' High Court case in 1951 is another argument for the existence of human rights.
Those are the reasons we already havea bill of rights in Australia, here are the dangers of codifying a new bill of rights:
1) Parliament is supreme, it is up to Parliament to make decisions on how we should be governed. If we create a Bill of Rights (BOR) it won't be parliament making the decisions on the fundamental rights; it will be non-elected judges, judges who are always from the affluent upper class. A non-elected judge from Balmorral, Toorak or Peppermint Grove that drives a Jaguar and is not in touch with the community like Parliamentarians are, they should not be making decisions on behalf of the community. Those decisions are left to Parliament, which is what we as a western democratic country and our constitution provides for.
2) By having rights we would end up in a society like America where we become obsessed with 'rights' and we forget our social obligation to ourselves and the world.
An example of a BOR gone crazy is gun laws, Howard never would have been able to get those through if we had a BIR, that is fact. The raids and subsequent prosecutions against the Children of God who were a cult, and were abusing children never would have happened if we had a BOR. that is fact.
3) By codifying some rights we surely rate those more important over other rights. The beauty of common law and entrenched rights within the constitution and society, is that those rights are all equally important and are thus harder to take away. In America it is more important to have a gun than it is to be safe in one's home. That is just one example of rights being rated over other ones. This kind of thing WOULD inevitably happen in Australia.
4) Law seldom defeats reality. You can't say you have no freedom of speech, you cant vote. Because the behavioural reality is that you can. Look at Prohibition in America, you couldn’t drink, actually you could. The ability to get rid of rights is IMPOSSIBLE.
Finally, let me ask you these 2 simple questions:
Are Australia's rights threatened, do big bad MP's and Ministers regularly stop you from voting? Or is Australia a place where you have all possible civil liberty afforded to you?
Do you believe that rights should be decided by non-elected upper class Judges? Or elected officials?
If you feel everyday our rights are threatened then yes we do need a Bill of Rights, but there not. Parliament has done a good job with rights in the past, we have every possible civil right in the world given to us by parliament, common law and the constitution. Why legislate a giant piece of self gratifying, pretentious wannabe Bill of Rights?
We have the best constitution in the world, no one comes near us. Rightly or wrongly entrenched within this constitution and common law principles surrounding it we have basic human rights already guaranteed. These bindings on humans rights are unbreakable.
Also Section 51 of the constitution under the 'external affairs' power proves that human rights under 'UN Human Rights' sanctions already apply in Australia. These agreements are binding also. Also the 'Communist Party' High Court case in 1951 is another argument for the existence of human rights.
Those are the reasons we already havea bill of rights in Australia, here are the dangers of codifying a new bill of rights:
1) Parliament is supreme, it is up to Parliament to make decisions on how we should be governed. If we create a Bill of Rights (BOR) it won't be parliament making the decisions on the fundamental rights; it will be non-elected judges, judges who are always from the affluent upper class. A non-elected judge from Balmorral, Toorak or Peppermint Grove that drives a Jaguar and is not in touch with the community like Parliamentarians are, they should not be making decisions on behalf of the community. Those decisions are left to Parliament, which is what we as a western democratic country and our constitution provides for.
2) By having rights we would end up in a society like America where we become obsessed with 'rights' and we forget our social obligation to ourselves and the world.
An example of a BOR gone crazy is gun laws, Howard never would have been able to get those through if we had a BIR, that is fact. The raids and subsequent prosecutions against the Children of God who were a cult, and were abusing children never would have happened if we had a BOR. that is fact.
3) By codifying some rights we surely rate those more important over other rights. The beauty of common law and entrenched rights within the constitution and society, is that those rights are all equally important and are thus harder to take away. In America it is more important to have a gun than it is to be safe in one's home. That is just one example of rights being rated over other ones. This kind of thing WOULD inevitably happen in Australia.
4) Law seldom defeats reality. You can't say you have no freedom of speech, you cant vote. Because the behavioural reality is that you can. Look at Prohibition in America, you couldn’t drink, actually you could. The ability to get rid of rights is IMPOSSIBLE.
Finally, let me ask you these 2 simple questions:
Are Australia's rights threatened, do big bad MP's and Ministers regularly stop you from voting? Or is Australia a place where you have all possible civil liberty afforded to you?
Do you believe that rights should be decided by non-elected upper class Judges? Or elected officials?
If you feel everyday our rights are threatened then yes we do need a Bill of Rights, but there not. Parliament has done a good job with rights in the past, we have every possible civil right in the world given to us by parliament, common law and the constitution. Why legislate a giant piece of self gratifying, pretentious wannabe Bill of Rights?
| 53 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Films Found
Zoo Parent