The title of this thread is also the title of a lecture on human rights I attended recently. It brought up the question of whether Australia should have a bill of rights, and what sort of a bill we should have.
Most so-called 'developed' nations around the world have bills of rights enshrining certain human rights either in statutory law or in constitutional law. There are also several different types which are currently under discussion in Australia.
The good old US of A bill of rights is very much an 18th century document. Modern bills of rights don't concern themselves with the billeting of soldiers, or a citizen's right to bare arms, knees or otherwise, but we'll take it to be one example anyway.
Other bills of rights are similar to documents such as the UN resolution on the Rights Of The Child, or the Geneva convention. They outline 'fundamental' human rights which cannot be denied to anyone, by anyone. This includes the right to freedom of expression, freedom from torture etc.
Secondary examples are known as Weak and Strong bills of rights. Weak bills of rights are not constitutional documents, they are written into statutory law instead. This gives much more leeway to governments who wish to override them, as they can be changed through normal parliamentary procedure. The bill, in this fashion, is treated just like any other piece of statutory legislation.
Strong bills of rights are constitutional documents, that is, they must be taken to referendum if any changes are to be made, or indeed when they are to be created. This makes it so much more difficult for governments who seek to subvert it.
There have been many arguments for and against a bill of rights. The most outspoken advocates for argue that if we had one, atrocities such as the Boat People scandals would not have occurred, nor would Australia have taken up the habit of putting asylum seekers into permanent detention in the name of 'security'. According to Human Rights advocates, the point of a bill of rights is to protect the marginalised, the weak, those unable to speak for themselves.
Those who argue against however, state that Human Rights in Australia do not need more protection, as they are already protected enough, and as such anything else would be a waste of money, a waste of time and a waste of effort. Additionally, they state that any such bill would become a so-called 'Lawyers picnic', where lawyers swoop in to make the most they can of case after case of apparent bill violation.
Now do discuss.
Being me, I would like to see a strong UN-style bill of rights introduced to Australia. However I have realised that the country as a whole is not ready for this, so a weak UN-style bill of rights would be a better way to go first.
Most so-called 'developed' nations around the world have bills of rights enshrining certain human rights either in statutory law or in constitutional law. There are also several different types which are currently under discussion in Australia.
The good old US of A bill of rights is very much an 18th century document. Modern bills of rights don't concern themselves with the billeting of soldiers, or a citizen's right to bare arms, knees or otherwise, but we'll take it to be one example anyway.
Other bills of rights are similar to documents such as the UN resolution on the Rights Of The Child, or the Geneva convention. They outline 'fundamental' human rights which cannot be denied to anyone, by anyone. This includes the right to freedom of expression, freedom from torture etc.
Secondary examples are known as Weak and Strong bills of rights. Weak bills of rights are not constitutional documents, they are written into statutory law instead. This gives much more leeway to governments who wish to override them, as they can be changed through normal parliamentary procedure. The bill, in this fashion, is treated just like any other piece of statutory legislation.
Strong bills of rights are constitutional documents, that is, they must be taken to referendum if any changes are to be made, or indeed when they are to be created. This makes it so much more difficult for governments who seek to subvert it.
There have been many arguments for and against a bill of rights. The most outspoken advocates for argue that if we had one, atrocities such as the Boat People scandals would not have occurred, nor would Australia have taken up the habit of putting asylum seekers into permanent detention in the name of 'security'. According to Human Rights advocates, the point of a bill of rights is to protect the marginalised, the weak, those unable to speak for themselves.
Those who argue against however, state that Human Rights in Australia do not need more protection, as they are already protected enough, and as such anything else would be a waste of money, a waste of time and a waste of effort. Additionally, they state that any such bill would become a so-called 'Lawyers picnic', where lawyers swoop in to make the most they can of case after case of apparent bill violation.
Now do discuss.
Being me, I would like to see a strong UN-style bill of rights introduced to Australia. However I have realised that the country as a whole is not ready for this, so a weak UN-style bill of rights would be a better way to go first.
