Do you trust the government to adequately defend your rights, or would you prefer to see your rights enshrined in law?
I for one would prefer to see my rights enshrined in law.
Believe it or not Australia is the only western country that doesn't have a bill of rights. I think it's about time that changed.
In the wake of the September 11th attacks in 2001 a raft of anti-terrorism laws were introduced some of which may curb terrorism but in reality could also be used to curb dissent or silence critics. We've already had people deported with out any due process or the relevant ministers having to account for their actions. Our spineless opposition didn't oppose our "anti-terrorism" laws. I think the root of this is the politicians fear of appearing to be "soft on crime".
The greatest threat to our liberty is not terrorism, it is the state. The protection we have from the state is the rule of law and the separation of the judiciary and executive. Rule of law protects us against arbitrary decisions by the bureaucracy and executive that could adversely affect our life. Possibly the most important protection is against deprivation of liberty except by due process. But above all this must sit a bill of rights that prevents laws from being enacted that could erode our liberty, all we really have is the "good will" of our politicians and their self proclaimed wisdom.
As of 2008 we've already had someone (Dr Haneef) who was detained under these laws on virtually no evidence at all. Once the Federal Police had detained Dr Haneef they waited several days to question him. He eventually obtained bail, through the strenuous efforts of his solicitor. But when he was due to be released the immigration minister acting by executive fiat (there was no due process) revoked Haneef's visa so that he could be deported, presumably to prevent embarrassment to the government and Federal Police. Subsequent inquiries have established that Dr Haneef had no case to answer.
Fortunately some states and territories in Australia have started to enacting a bills of rights. They could be overridden by the Federal Government if it felt it necessary to do so.
Politicians are generally very reluctant when it comes to bills of rights. There are many reasons cited but the most frequent seems to be "A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic to give unelected judges the power to override the judgment of parliament." This plays on the public's low opinion of lawyers. There's nothing democratic about politicians and bureaucrats removing our liberty without any check on their action. All other democracies have bills of rights and as far as I can tell they all function just fine.
Having thought about Bills of Rights for a while I came up with my own bill of rights, somewhat palgarised from the US Bill of Rights. It's not perfect and I'm sure a junior solicitor could pick it to pieces. Some possibly overlap as well.
Definitions
Government = Federal, State, Territory or any other law making body.
I for one would prefer to see my rights enshrined in law.
Believe it or not Australia is the only western country that doesn't have a bill of rights. I think it's about time that changed.
In the wake of the September 11th attacks in 2001 a raft of anti-terrorism laws were introduced some of which may curb terrorism but in reality could also be used to curb dissent or silence critics. We've already had people deported with out any due process or the relevant ministers having to account for their actions. Our spineless opposition didn't oppose our "anti-terrorism" laws. I think the root of this is the politicians fear of appearing to be "soft on crime".
The greatest threat to our liberty is not terrorism, it is the state. The protection we have from the state is the rule of law and the separation of the judiciary and executive. Rule of law protects us against arbitrary decisions by the bureaucracy and executive that could adversely affect our life. Possibly the most important protection is against deprivation of liberty except by due process. But above all this must sit a bill of rights that prevents laws from being enacted that could erode our liberty, all we really have is the "good will" of our politicians and their self proclaimed wisdom.
As of 2008 we've already had someone (Dr Haneef) who was detained under these laws on virtually no evidence at all. Once the Federal Police had detained Dr Haneef they waited several days to question him. He eventually obtained bail, through the strenuous efforts of his solicitor. But when he was due to be released the immigration minister acting by executive fiat (there was no due process) revoked Haneef's visa so that he could be deported, presumably to prevent embarrassment to the government and Federal Police. Subsequent inquiries have established that Dr Haneef had no case to answer.
Fortunately some states and territories in Australia have started to enacting a bills of rights. They could be overridden by the Federal Government if it felt it necessary to do so.
Politicians are generally very reluctant when it comes to bills of rights. There are many reasons cited but the most frequent seems to be "A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic to give unelected judges the power to override the judgment of parliament." This plays on the public's low opinion of lawyers. There's nothing democratic about politicians and bureaucrats removing our liberty without any check on their action. All other democracies have bills of rights and as far as I can tell they all function just fine.
Having thought about Bills of Rights for a while I came up with my own bill of rights, somewhat palgarised from the US Bill of Rights. It's not perfect and I'm sure a junior solicitor could pick it to pieces. Some possibly overlap as well.
Definitions
Government = Federal, State, Territory or any other law making body.
- Freedom of speech
The Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or right to publish such speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- No search or seizure without warrant
The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or property to be seized.
- Freedom from surveillance, right to privacy
The right of the people to be free from unwarranted surveillance whilst conducting their lawful business shall not be infringed.
- Due Process
A person accused of a crime has the right to legal counsel and to public trial by jury of his or her peers without excessive delay. A person accused of a crime has the right not to be a witness against themselves and to examine all evidence and witnesses against them. A person found not guilty of a crime shall not be tried again for the same crime except when new evidence is uncovered. Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments shall not be imposed.
- The right to die at a time of own choice
The right of a terminally ill person to make a free choice to die at a time and manner of their choosing shall not be infringed.
- Freedom of information
The right of persons to examine any government document, or accurate facsimile of, shall not be withheld except when exposure of such document would jeopardise national security. All government documents provided under this right shall be provided without monetary charge or unreasonable delay.
- Separation of Church and State
The government shall make no law abridging the freedom to practice a religion and nor shall any law be passed favoring any religion, or religious belief.
- Deprivation of Liberty
No person shall be deprived of their liberty except when found guilty of a crime that under common law would warrant a prison sentence or when held in remand before a trial. A person arrested and detained for a crime shall be charged or released without undue delay.
All rights not enumerated here shall be assumed to belong to the people.
This Bill of Rights can only be amended by popular referendum where the number of vote cast in favour is at least 75 percent plus 1 vote of the votes cast.
All rights not enumerated here shall be assumed to belong to the people.
This Bill of Rights can only be amended by popular referendum where the number of vote cast in favour is at least 75 percent plus 1 vote of the votes cast.
No comments:
Post a Comment