Why does Australia need a Bill of Rights?

[Atrax Robustus]

I'm not trying to be a nark here - this is a genuine question.:confused:

I find it difficult to understand why there is such a push for a Bill of Rights, particularly from the secular community and a corresponding push against, from the religious community.

I simply see no need for a Bill of Rights - isn't our current legal system good enough? Perhaps some of you can enlighten me in regard to the pros (and cons) and the objective/s behind the current push/es.

[David Nicholls]

Atrax Robustus,

It is my understanding that the basic reason as to why Australia or any other country needs a Bill of Rights Charter is to have a means of protecting the rights of minorities against majority opinion. Discriminatory laws or those, which impose non equal rights, made by a majority or at the behest of powerful, external to political, bodies, will be challengeable in a court of law.

A Bill of Rights Charter would afford protection from a tyranny over minorities by the majority. It would possibly also prevent or curb religiously oriented or ideologically driven governments from imposing tyranny on everyone.

Examples you would know about are, abortion rights, the right to choose voluntary euthanasia, the rights of lesbian, gay and transgender people, the right for children to be religion free is state schools etc.

Religious leaders would rather have the opportunity to influence politicians to vote in their favour than have these matters dealt with taking equality of all persons into account, where arbitration would have to follow strict rules covering human rights.

Thus, we have religions campaigning very strongly for Australia not to have a Bill of Rights Charter.

Kristy will no doubt give a better run down later but until then, this URL will give a background view of the battle going on about a Bill of Rights Charter. It is a lot of reading but you will come away with a better understanding on the topic. (Waiting for Kristy may be the better option) :)

http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC#comment-1351

David

[Atrax Robustus]

Thanks for the link David and taking the time to reply.

I have to admit that I am very uninformed with respect to the Bill of Rights. Have just spent the last two hours reading and the pros and cons are starting to become more apparent.

It is interesting that a Bill of Rights is not clearly within the purview of the committee - however it is most definitely the major theme throughout the discussion to date.

[David Nicholls]

Atrax Robustus,

The reason it is not officially mentioned is that the Federal Government is trying to get away with not having a Bill of Rights by making it look like Australia does not need one. That, in my opinion is why they are having this inquiry. No government wishes to surrender power to others, in this case, to the courts. They hope by going through the motions of shoring up rights in selected areas, they will be seen to be doing something positive for the population.

That they have chosen Father Frank Brennan to head the Commission shows the shallowness of their intentions. He may be a ‘good guy’ but he still is someone with fixed and immutable views bound up in his catholicity.

David

[David Nicholls]

By the way, take my opinions with a grain of salt on this topic. I’m just giving out thoughts that appear to tie up. I am ready to concede errors in fact and logic if someone who knows better comes along and points this out. :D

David

[kencooke]

Did not the USA have a bill of rights at the same time as slavery was flourishing in their southern states?

[Chrys Stevenson]

You might like to take a look at the Atheist Nexus submission on "Freedom of Religion" (http://api.ning.com/files/JlxXGwK19SL08EjuQagojReVMawZItDgqv*ZJEGJuzo2pkHW3y XopfNtBkUeSjFQ4o81VvJUFkMIfLfWHEIIQJEL5U*D7OxE/SubmissionAtheistNexus.pdf) made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission earlier this year.

Section 2.5 on pages 73-80 (going by the numbers on the top right of each page) canvasses the debates for and against a Charter of Rights from an atheist's perspective. We ultimately argued in favour of a Charter of Rights, but acknowledged that not all atheists would feel this way.

The easiest way to get to the relevant section is to do a "find" in the PDF for "contentious". That will take you directly to the relevant section.

May I also suggest you read Geoffrey Robertson's Statute of Liberty. It's a small, inexpensive book and well worth reading.

[Atrax Robustus]

Thanks Dave and Kristy.

More reading! I knew I shouldn't have started reading that Dostoyevsky novel!

Much appreciated though - I really do need to get up to speed on this issue.

[David Nicholls]

Thanks for that, Kristy. Apparently I have most of it right. :)

The only thing I could add to my spiel, as you rightly point out, is that religion must not have an undue influence in formulating a Bill of Rights Charter. That will be a battle involving us all at a future date.

kencooke,

You are possibly correct about the American situation with slavery but as Kristy's submission importantly states, any Bill of Rights has to be very well thought out. And of course, slaves were not human beings with plenty of support for that proposition in the Bible.

David

[kencooke]

Sir, As members of a nine religious traditions, we call on MPs to eradicate two forms of discrimination that breach human rights and are religiously offensive, yet are currently enshrined in the Equality Bill. ...
From Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6408944.ece).

[SchizoDeluxe]

Did not the USA have a bill of rights at the same time as slavery was flourishing in their southern states?

Yep but slavery at that time was an accepted thing, not just by the US but by pretty much all western countries including Australia. A lot of the origins and reasons for it's existence in the first place has a lot to do with the biblé's stance on slavery.

[Seamus]

Yep but slavery at that time was an accepted thing, not just by the US but by pretty much all western countries including Australia.
Technically correct. Although as far as I'm aware slavery was all but non existent in Australia.The one exception was the "Kanakas" mainly in Queensland. Although technically indentured labour,in practice they were effectively slaves. This practice continued in Australia until 1908. (Largely due to the White Australia Policy,introduced with federation in 1901)

Slavery was also outawed by Brtitain (which included its colonies) in 1833.


Slavery had been an issue with drafting of the US constitution. Allowing slavery to continue was the only way to get all of the colonies to sign the document.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Technically correct. Although as far as I'm aware slavery was all but non existent in Australia.

I've studied Australian history and believe me, slavery was rampant here, the treatment of aborigines alone was pretty bad, read up on the history of Tasmania, some of the stories of that time were pretty brutal. As I said, it's the results of western countries, or european originated colonies I should say, being in control, has been for centuries now. Though that being said, even Africans have been heavily involved in it as well, in fact I think it even originated there to begin with

[Kid]

excellent postings there...can anyone tell me exactly who it was that appointed Fr Brennan in the first place? I'm rather curious as to who it was and why a catholic priest was chosen, especially in the light of recent catholic crimes as reported from Ireland. I'm sort of smelling a rat somewhere here...but that could just be me...

[gibreel farishta]

wasnt it robert mccelland , a non practicing catholic, he does seem to go into bat for the catholics quite a bit , the choice may have come about because rm probably sees the bill to be more about religious rights than human rights .
which is even crazier.

[Seamus]

I wasn't ignoring our treatment of the aboriginal people until well into the C20th. EG Aborigines were not enfranchised nationally until 1967. (they did have the right to vote under the STATE constutions of New South Wales,Victoria,South Australia and Tasmania.althoug few were aware of such rights)

I was perhaps using the term "slavery" too narrowly. I meant the trading and treatment at law of human beings as property, not just merely forced unpaid labor.

I have heard accounts of Aborigines being hunted for sport until the 1920's. (this an anecdotal, I can't prove the claims)


It was not my intention to act as an apologist for our treatment of the indigenous people of this country.

[TimB]

I didn't have much of an idea about what a Charter of rights would mean then given that the ACL was so strongly opposed I figured it may be something worth investigating....

So, I bought "A Charter of Rights for Australia" by George Williams (can get from the UNSW bookshop) and started reading - it's pretty horifiying how little protection there is for rights in Australia.

[Atrax Robustus]

So, I bought "A Charter of Rights for Australia" by George Williams . . .

Thanks for that Tim - I'll grab a copy soonest!:)