Comments on: Furphies rise to greet the bill of rights

By: Greg Barns

Greg Barns — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hi Dave - I can dispel your concerns and the point you raise is a legitimate one. A bill or charter of rights can lead to improved outcomes in health, education and housing. It also helps to change the culture of government departments which are forced to think about the human rights implications of policies. That is one of the reasons ordinary Canadians are so keen on their Charter - it is their weapon against government.

Many of the human rights cases run in countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the UK have involved people who could not afford lawyers. In this area of human rights you will find that the majority of lawyers work on cases not for the money but because it is their ethial duty to ensure justice for those who cannot afford it.

By: Kevin Twomey

Kevin Twomey — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

John James - a perfect example of the furphy in full flight! Paranoid delusions about “agendas” of the Left, ad hominem smears about killing the unborn - what about those of us who support a bill of rights as a bulwark against the increasing power of the State? Hardly left-wing, or pro-abortion for that matter.
(memo to self - must not react to trolls….)

By: Pamela

Pamela — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

A Human Rights Act which provided a reassurance that no person can be detained indefinitely without charge - for their whole lives-redundancy intended- would restore our national sense of a FAIR GO.
Denying government the right to legislate to detain children indefinitely would be a plus also.

By: John James

John James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Barnes and the Left, aside from their usual endorsement of the killing of the inborn, love the concept of a Bill of Rights, because it allows them to circumvent the democratic roadblocks to their agenda.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg, can your next article on a bill of rights include some examples of practical benefits for ordinary citizens? Many (including myself) suspect that a bill of rights might mean a bit of extra work for lawyers and a few benefits for those who can afford this, can you dispel my concerns?

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There’s the ‘case’ and there’s the ‘joke’. Thanks for supporting the ‘case’ Greg.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I found some of the arguments I was looking for in this article: http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Manning%20Clark%20House%20Weekend%20of%20Ideas%202008%20-%20a%20national%20bill%20of%20rights%20final.doc

Having quickly looked through this article (I’ll have a deeper read tonight), it has helped me clarify my understanding. I’m still ambivalent though. The obvious two examples of recent times which would be affected by a bill of rights would be powers to detain under terrorism laws and aspects of the NT intervention. Both of these are examples of cases where human rights are diminished, for what John James refers to as “democratic” reasons and what a Government might defend as a case of ends justifying means.

The principle attributed to Mandela is a very sound one, though. The measure of a society is not in how it treats its ordinary citizens, but how it treats the lowest citizens such as prisoners or the homeless. My concern is that societies which have Bills of Rights don’t always achieve well on Mandela’s standards.

By: Andrew Smart

Andrew Smart — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg, you can’t go about lauding the benefits and protection that a Bill of Rights would afford us all as citizens, while at the same time deriding a citizen for exercising the one right that is currently enshrined in our Constitution. Namely s.116 which covers freedom of religion. In relation to the Victorian Abortion Law, Frank Brennan was merely putting forward the argument that Catholic medicos and health professionals should not be forced to participate in an activity that contravenes their religious beliefs. It has always been a matter of conscience for individual Catholic practitioners. While he may have advocated that Catholic doctors not be obliged to formally refer a client, I don’t remember him ever stating that they would not / could not advise their client to seek an affirmative health practitioner.

As far as a Bill of Rights goes though, I think it is an excellent idea, despite what the Doomsayers say.

By: rosemary nairn

rosemary nairn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thanks for the article. Very on point.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Read a few decisions of the Canadian High court before you sprout off about how must we have a Bill of Rights please. There are a few shockers in there.

Be very careful what you wish for, because with KRudd in power, you might just get it!

By: arty

arty — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I would like the opportunity to join the Crikey commentary on our proposed Bill/Charter/Act of Rights. But as there is no draft I can't. Those that do comment appear to know that it will or will not protect the unborn, will or not will not protect us from the astigmatisms in the eyes of AFP, and/or will or will not allow us the right to answer back the shock jocks.

From my own view of the lessons of history in the trust stakes, I Iean towards the judges over the pollies. But we could swing the game back towards the politicians by electing our judges. If that isn't sufficiently appeasing we might also appoint our pollies - sort of in the manner of a GWB cabinet and close friends.

In this touchy-feely decade, do we want the Bill/Charter/Act to be a list of DOs or a list of DON"Ts?