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.

While the UN bill of rights has a huge "well duh" factor to it I think it is a pretty good standard to hold mankind to.

Ohh.. someone's voted no... why? Do tell.

Considering the fact that the right to own guns for self-protection is actually considered a real basic fundemental right for Americans...and the fact that the Bill of Rights also protects the federalistic nature of the US, well...

In any event, I don't think a Human Rights bill is really needed in Australia, mostly because of the "lawyer pincic" argument. The US already deals with too much debate and legalistation over the Bill of Rights already. Trust me, you'd roll your eyes yet again with another Supreme Court case arguing over issues you don't really care. Put it this way: Do you want people to interpt the Austrailian Bill of Rights to be in favor of continued mistreatment of the Boat People? Because, well, it can easily happen, as long as the Courts agree with that interpretion.

Besides, WHAT fundemental rights are we talking about here? I think we can't really start discussing the Bill of Rights until we start laying down groundlines. And if the goal of the Bill of Rights is to protect Boat People, then the Freedom of Speech really wouldn't help in such a situation. The right to immigrate to Austraila? Well that's not really a fundmental right, altough they DID make it that way when they signed that UN Asylum Treaty.

I can't really make any sort of discussion over the Bill of Rights until you give me a list of rights you want protected, so that I can knock them down. Could you consider having a bill that concerns just with the Boat People and the Aslyum issue issue? Get to the heart of the matter, if you will?

I agree to it in principal however I would keep it very strict and bare bones. The most basic of human rights in the, sorry I dont know the correct term but the unchangable bill. This is to mainly avoid such future problems as the americans right to bare arms.
The secondary bill which can be overruled if necessary is where I would flesh it out.

Hokay, so a list then.

1. Right to Dignity of person.
The details of this would be that people cannot be put through degrading or inhumane treatment in police situations etc. Think anti-Guantanamo.

2. Right to freedom of expression.
Does this need explaining?

3. Right to live freely when free of crimes
In the case of the asylum seekers, there were a number of them who have been imprisoned 'permanently' in Australia because there is no-where to deport them to as they are nationless, and the Howard government refused to grant them asylum. These people have broken no laws, and aside from their visa applications being turned down, there is nothing which the government sees wrong. Might I add that this includes children?

4. Rights of the child
This would be similar to the UN statute on children's rights.

5. Right to fair judgement under the law

6. Right to remain silent

..etc. I haven't the political/law knowledge to knock together a full one, so there's a basic few.

strong weak us un ? I don't understand any of this!

avykins:
This is to mainly avoid such future problems as the americans right to bare arms.

Gasp! Of course, it all makes sense now! The right to wear a sleeveless shirt without some nutjob accusing you of base corruption with your scandalous exposure of flesh. Way to misunderstand the your forefathers wishes...

TheDean:
strong weak us un ? I don't understand any of this!

Read the OP. It was there to explain the poll.

scumofsociety:
Gasp! Of course, it all makes sense now! The right to wear a sleeveless shirt without some nutjob accusing you of base corruption with your scandalous exposure of flesh. Way to misunderstand the your forefathers wishes...

I prefer the family guy version
http://www.itsfunnyhoney.com/video/203/right_to_bear_arms

Gee I never would have guessed labyrinth was a student (all the roll eyed smileys in the universe)Grow up get over yoourself, teenagers dont have all the answers to anything.

"At 18 I found my father to be such an intolerable ignorant bore, by the time I was 21 I was surprised how much the old man had learned in 3 years"

falcontwin:
Gee I never would have guessed labyrinth was a student (all the roll eyed smileys in the universe)Grow up get over yoourself, teenagers dont have all the answers to anything.

"At 18 I found my father to be such an intolerable ignorant bore, by the time I was 21 I was surprised how much the old man had learned in 3 years"

Get over my age and contribute to the discussion. For fuck's sake.

Sorry but It's hard to.

Teenagers...
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words...When I was young, we were taught to be discret and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint." - Hesiod, 800 B.C.

Don't think your new progressive thoughts are anything special

falcontwin:
Sorry but It's hard to.

Teenagers...
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words...When I was young, we were taught to be discret and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint." - Hesiod, 800 B.C.

Don't think your new progressive thoughts are anything special

Let me put it another helpful way. Ignore the fact that I'm a teenager and think about the topic. I'm aware that I don't know everything, and don't have the life experience to make descisions with every possible outcome thought of. Rubbing it in my face isn't going to change one damn thing. So either sod off, or say something worth paying attention to.

I think that there's quite a lot of bias in the question. I mean, here in Britain, if you offer the choice between a US-style ice-cream or an internationally-recognised kick in the nuts, nine times out of ten, the interviewee will be clutching their nether regions.

Also, in your OP, you say that the the US Bill of Rights contains protections that are no longer relevant, but that you'll include it anyway. But it also contains rights of free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to trial by jury and many other rights that are relevant today.

The main difference, as I see it, between a US-style Bill of rights and the UN documents that you mention is length. The American Bill of Rights seeks to provide some simply stated, over-arching principles to protect the rights of its citizens, whereas the UN documents try to be more specific, outlawing particular situations, and setting standards over particular issues. The UN documents have the advantage that in these particular situations, there is clear guidance on the matter, where under the American system, if it is unclear how the relevant Amendment is to be applied in this situation, then it's up to the Supreme Court to decide.

But I think that that's also the strength of the US system. Because the articles of the Bill of Rights are simple statements of rights, they can be read through a zeitgeist lens to give the fine detail, and common sense can be applied - but the spirit of the article has to be maintained. In other words, a Supreme Court judge can make a ruling that 'nudges' the interpretation of the law towards something more appropriate for the present day: but he can't interpret the article to mean the opposite that it states; neither can a series of 'nudges' get the interpretation of the article to that state.

Because of the flexibility of the US system, it has longevity. It's a little unfair to compare it to UN declarations, as UN declarations tend to be ignored by countries for whom they are no longer convenient. But comparing the US Bill of Rights to longer, more specific constitutional documents from around the world, it has survived incredibly well. Of course, you could say it's far better to have a document that is very specific, but that gets torn up every twenty years, or changed a thousand times in order to keep pace with the times, but I'm going to plump for the US Bill of Rights.

Ok I'll say something then. Having a bill of rights Is wortheless simply because anytime anything bad happens to your country they become revised and revoked in the name of freedom. The only "right" that has held up in americaland is the right to bear arms.

A system where all people are free to live their lives as they see fit is far better than a list of rules that define what freedom means.

Freedom means you are in control of your life. Rather than "I am free because the government allows me to be". As the latter can be revoked at any time

falcontwin:
Freedom means you are in control of your life. Rather than "I am free because the government allows me to be". As the latter can be revoked at any time

That is the point of having what is termed a 'strong' bill, ie. one which must go to referendum before being changed. This prevents the government from tossing it out on a whim. Even a weak bill has the High Court to back it up if the government violates it.

Additionally, the US model is not the only one available.

Labyrinth:
Ignore the fact that I'm a teenager and think about the topic. I'm aware that I don't know everything, and don't have the life experience to make descisions with every possible outcome thought of.

If youths never questioned they would not gain knowledge and if they do not gain knowledge from different sources they will never acquire the wisdom to implament it. Plus age does definatly not denote knowledge or wisdom. If it did politicians would do a much better job ne.

You know, with all of the money governments spend on things like "Studying the DNA of sea bass", I think we have the time and money for more human rights.

Our government has no such protections, but do we need them? If kevin rudd woke up tommorrow and decided we were all going to be his slaves how long do you think he would last?

The U.S constitution is a great thing as far as a symbol of defying the crown goes but in modern times it's is more of a crutch than a tool.

I.E do you need your rights to be written down before you will fight for them?

falcontwin:
Our government has no such protections, but do we need them? If kevin rudd woke up tommorrow and decided we were all going to be his slaves how long do you think he would last?

The U.S constitution is a great thing as far as a symbol of defying the crown goes but in modern times it's is more of a crutch than a tool.

I.E do you need your rights to be written down before you will fight for them?

Having a bill of rights is about laying down a humane standard for everyone, the mainstream and the marginalised. It's a safeguard against the majority turning on one group, let's say Muslims as an example in this day and age and deciding to persecute them. Due to the nature of politics, the leaders would go along because it's the popular thing to do, but it doesn't make it morally right. This bill would prevent say, unfair imprisonment and torture of that persecuted group.

If I'm not mistaken Australians already have constitutional rights that are enforced by law.

@age discussion

There is a difference between questioning what we all already know and discarding it, regarding it as useless and being disrespectful to those who helped to establish these ideas.

ThePlasmatizer:
If I'm not mistaken Australians already have constitutional rights that are enforced by law.

We don't. The only thing the constitution actually says is about the separation of the different levels of government, and who can vote. There is also a passage, I believe, about recognising Aboriginal people as citizens. That's pretty much it.

falcontwin:

"At 18 I found my father to be such an intolerable ignorant bore, by the time I was 21 I was surprised how much the old man had learned in 3 years"

that's an awesome quote and yet so true

yes you are young Labyrinth and probly heard a thing or two from some ppl and now think "omg we don't have human rights we need some" but really your country DOES have them, it's just not called the "bill of human rights" or something to that effect

most of the Commonwealth countries do have a rather good human rights laws, they are covered under British Common Law and sometimes have other bills added to it, such as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which update the law and make it more modern.

as for the American Bill of Rights, i'll leave that well enough alone. to say the least it has been changed a LOT from what the original writers intended as it was written in a version of english that we no longer speak and it's having modern english applied to the King's english (there was a King at the time of writing)

now onto the folly of youth aspect. about 10 years ago we elected a new premier of my province called Mike Harris, we had a LOT of debt thanks to Bob Rae and the NDP tho the Liberals before them didn't really help, but i digress. Mike got the nickname Mike the Axe because he "cut" jobs from the government, there were TONS of protests by students and such.
i confronted one and asked him "why are you protesting?"
the response was "well he's cutting all these government jobs."
having a mother who worked for the government AND was doing part of this, i kinda knew exactly what was going on, so i kinda asked him "well yes he's stopping the government from doing certain jobs they shouldn't be however why is the unemployment not going up if all these jobs are "lost"?"
the teen protester couldn't answer me
i then informed him of what was actually going on that the jobs were just being moved to the private sector instead of the public one because the government was wasting money on said jobs and labs and what not

not saying you're totally wrong but there is the folly of youth that you don't fully understand the world, even tho you might think you do

cleverlymadeup:
yes you are young Labyrinth and probly heard a thing or two from some ppl and now think "omg we don't have human rights we need some" but really your country DOES have them, it's just not called the "bill of human rights" or something to that effect

most of the Commonwealth countries do have a rather good human rights laws, they are covered under British Common Law and sometimes have other bills added to it, such as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which update the law and make it more modern.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't.

unfair inprisonment? Like what happens in cuba at the moment as The rules don't apply in times of conflict? I know merkins love to bang on about the protection of human rights under their constitution. written down rules provide little protection in times of conflict.

I may not be able to buy assault rifles to hunt rabbits but maybe thats a good thing

falcontwin:
unfair inprisonment? Like what happens in cuba at the moment as The rules don't apply in times of conflict? I know merkins love to bang on about the protection of human rights under their constitution. written down rules provide little protection in times of conflict.

I may not be able to buy assault rifles to hunt rabbits but maybe thats a good thing

Guantanamo Bay is considered 'outside' the US constitutional range because it's not on US soil. This has enabled the US government to overlook its atrocities.

Labyrinth:

ThePlasmatizer:
If I'm not mistaken Australians already have constitutional rights that are enforced by law.

We don't. The only thing the constitution actually says is about the separation of the different levels of government, and who can vote. There is also a passage, I believe, about recognising Aboriginal people as citizens. That's pretty much it.

Even so Australia is a member of the UN and adheres to the International human rights treaty.

(Also I was wondering if you are in favour of a republic or the monarchy?)

ThePlasmatizer:

Labyrinth:

ThePlasmatizer:
If I'm not mistaken Australians already have constitutional rights that are enforced by law.

We don't. The only thing the constitution actually says is about the separation of the different levels of government, and who can vote. There is also a passage, I believe, about recognising Aboriginal people as citizens. That's pretty much it.

Even so Australia is a member of the UN and adheres to the International human rights treaty.

(Also I was wondering if you are in favour of a republic or the monarchy?)

The UN charter of rights only applies if the government agrees to let it at that point in time. And I favour a republic, because as a country Australia needs its own head of state. That's not to say that I believe the Queen does a bad job, it's more a point of I don't agree with leadership, however symbolic, being passed down a bloodline.

cleverlymadeup:

not saying you're totally wrong but there is the folly of youth that you don't fully understand the world, even tho you might think you do

First of all i'd like to say you really need to stop being so arrogant and thinking that because someone is young that they dont understand anything, as far as i've read the OP has written some facts and asked for other peoples opinions on whether there should be any change and about 3 or 4 people are saying he's too young to understand and should go play in the sand box like a good little child (an exaggeration i know).

Back on topic though both the US and the UN laws about the rights that humans have are very similar in quite alot of places and really only change around afew key things like the right to bare arms and afew other things but that doesnt really matter much. The main difference between a US bill is that only the US has it, If an EU country starts abusing rights of its citizens then the rest of the EU can start throwing sanctions and other stuff at them. In america, as seen at Guantanamo Bay, its up to the American governement to enforce and keep the bill of rights which means that infringements arent dealt with massive consequences unless they start going crazy and say imprisoning anyone with brown eyes at which point there would be an uproar and the government would be overthrown. However if the government chose to they could take it 1 step at a time and take away the US bill 1 small chunk at a time, although its generally hoped that a government who would do that wouldnt get elected into power. As for what Australia should do i think they should sign up to the EU bill as then they have a group to hold them accountable to any infringements but as has also already been said they should start with a weak bill and build up from there.

Can australia ever break away from british rule ?
I am in NZ and we have always been told that NZ can never break away because as a country we could not support ourselves. We are dependant upon the UK for too many things. I will admit I do not care overly much so never bothered to confirm it for myself but can australia support itself ?

avykins:
Can australia ever break away from british rule ?
I am in NZ and we have always been told that NZ can never break away because as a country we could not support ourselves. We are dependant upon the UK for too many things. I will admit I do not care overly much so never bothered to confirm it for myself but can australia support itself ?

Lol what, british rule? apart from having the British flag on the flag of New Zealand I see relatively little interference from Britain in New Zealand, not to mention she is equally your Queen, granted she doesn't reside in any other commonwealth country but only the British have to pay to support the monarchy.

I'm sure New Zealand and Australia could choose to have a republic but it would waste a lot of money and damage foreign relations.

Personally I like the monarchy it makes me proud to be British and that we are still a sovereign state.

I scared to death of human rights, think about it, the right sides of people hopping at you, dripping out god knows what from the empty portion.

On a serious note, human rights are a good thing.

savandicus:

cleverlymadeup:

not saying you're totally wrong but there is the folly of youth that you don't fully understand the world, even tho you might think you do

First of all i'd like to say you really need to stop being so arrogant and thinking that because someone is young that they dont understand anything, as far as i've read the OP has written some facts and asked for other peoples opinions on whether there should be any change and about 3 or 4 people are saying he's too young to understand and should go play in the sand box like a good little child (an exaggeration i know).

it's not arrogance, it's something i've seen time and time again, so i'd call it knowledge and fact at this point. yes while some young people DO understand things, most only think they understand how the world works.

Back on topic though both the US and the UN laws about the rights that humans have are very similar in quite alot of places and really only change around afew key things like the right to bare arms and afew other things but that doesnt really matter much. The main difference between a US bill is that only the US has it, If an EU country starts abusing rights of its citizens then the rest of the EU can start throwing sanctions and other stuff at them. In america, as seen at Guantanamo Bay, its up to the American governement to enforce and keep the bill of rights which means that infringements arent dealt with massive consequences unless they start going crazy and say imprisoning anyone with brown eyes at which point there would be an uproar and the government would be overthrown. However if the government chose to they could take it 1 step at a time and take away the US bill 1 small chunk at a time, although its generally hoped that a government who would do that wouldnt get elected into power. As for what Australia should do i think they should sign up to the EU bill as then they have a group to hold them accountable to any infringements but as has also already been said they should start with a weak bill and build up from there.

well now to prove your former point oh so incorrect, if the US is wholesale violating human rights other countries CAN impose sanctions on them if they wish and try to get them to stop it. there's numerous examples of this happening when countries do have human rights violations, tho the large investments from countries in your own tend to put a kibosh on this practice, hence the lack of people pulling out of the Olympics in Bejing due to China's numerous human rights violations. now as for Gitmo, a few interesting things happened here first off the people in Gitmo have been labeled as enemy combatants and war has been declared, which means that certain rights and actions are ignored. secondly Bush suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and there's been a legal battle over it since then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#War_on_Terror

so basically they used a few loopholes and side steps to do what they are doing in Gitmo with little repercussions, which doesn't mean it's right tho in the same breath doesn't condone what some of the inmates there did

avykins:
Can australia ever break away from british rule ?
I am in NZ and we have always been told that NZ can never break away because as a country we could not support ourselves. We are dependant upon the UK for too many things. I will admit I do not care overly much so never bothered to confirm it for myself but can australia support itself ?

Australia could easily manage it in just the way we've always done things: send a nice letter to the Queen and have her politely accept our decision - it's the Australian way.
We had a referendum on the republic a few years ago. It failed by a close margin but it remains an issue.
It's a foregone conclusion that one day Australia will be a republic. The question, though, is what kind of republic? The one suggested in the referendum was out-and-out terrible: we would vote for out local member of the lower house of parliament; the majority party in the lower house would become the government, led in the lower house by the Prime Minister (this is already how it works as Australia is a Westminster system, but I'm leading up to something here); the legislature would then vote for the President amongst themselves. The people would effectively be removed by three degrees from choosing our Head of State. No one's looked into this, but I think that key numbers of informed (and appalled) voters who knew this decided the referendum. At least the our current head of state (the Queen) doesn't actually do anything with her unearned power.