Bill of Rights - is it necessary?

[LawL]

I'm doing an assignment right now on whether Australia should have a Bill of Rights and it's got me thinking. Australia is one of the few countries who's laws are based in a constitution yet doesn't have a Bill of Rights.

I believe a Bill of Rights is unnecessary, and some of my reasons for this are as follows:

-rights are already well protected in Australia through common law
-giving anyone the rights to override the judgement of parliament is a bad idea
-it would lead to a massive amount of unwarranted expense
-defining a right actually limits a right
-rights need to be adjusted for individual areas, not just one uniform law across the country
-it would quickly become outdated

Does your country have a Bill of Rights? Do you think it is necessary and serves you well? Do you believe human rights would decline in your country with the absence of a Bill of Rights?

Any and all opinions welcomed.

[Foo]

Shove your assignment question right up your fucking ass.

[LawL]

Shove your assignment question right up your fucking ass.

It's not my assignment question, i've already come to my conclusion and am almost done exapnding on it. Thanks for your input though.

[Foo]

Any time.


Seriously.

[Canis]

Shove your assignment question right up your fucking ass.

[Massive Quasars]

Naive Law.

[LawL]

Looks like the topic is perhaps a little too complex for some.

[mjrpes]

-defining a right actually limits a right

defining a right could also.... define a right.

[Grudge]

ask nologic

[LawL]

-defining a right actually limits a right

defining a right could also.... define a right.

Yes but there are far deeper implications than that of the obvious.

[mjrpes]

Please do tell of the these far deeper implications.

[Massive Quasars]

Interesting approach though, having government define the rights of it's citizens rather than citizens define the powers and scope of government.

[LawL]

Please do tell of the these far deeper implications.

The nature of defining something is to limit. A Bill of Rights requires the constraint of difficult problems into its limited categories. No matter how comprehensive, it is the nature of language to expressly state, and therefore confine, the rights of the people.

Bills of Rights drafted in the past tended to base their focus upon criminal and property rights. This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts. Obviously I feel implementing a Bill of Rights is most likely the wrong thing to do in my country. But if the government was to consider such an option, the aforementioned issue is one which must be carefully addressed.

[LawL]

Interesting approach though, having government define the rights of it's citizens rather than citizens define the powers and scope of government.

Indeed my friend, indeed.

[seremtan]

The nature of defining something is to limit. A Bill of Rights requires the constraint of difficult problems into its limited categories. No matter how comprehensive, it is the nature of language to expressly state, and therefore confine, the rights of the people.

Bills of Rights drafted in the past tended to base their focus upon criminal and property rights. This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts. Obviously I feel implementing a Bill of Rights is most likely the wrong thing to do in my country. But if the government was to consider such an option, the aforementioned issue is one which must be carefully addressed.

you don't need to define a right to protect it in a bill of rights. ffs read the most famous bill of rights in the world, e.g.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

a good BOR simply tells government that it cannot trespass on a right - it doesn't provide a watertight legal definition of that right. that's for case law to work out

[LawL]

No you don't need to define rights to protect it in a Bill of Rights, but those rights which are defined run the risk of limitation.

[seremtan]

eh? undefined rights are meaningless. the right to free speech is the right to free speech, not the right to pickle babies or rape cattle, therefore it's limited (i.e. defined). it's the only way a right can be meaningful

[LawL]

It's simply a concept to be pondered. It would actually restrict rights because to define a right is to limit it. I'm also taking into account several countries Bills of Rights. As I said earlier, Bills of Rights drafted in the past tended to base their focus upon criminal and property rights. This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts. The duties of people are just as important as their rights. One must be careful before setting off down the path of an excessively right-prone society.

[4days]

It's simply a concept to be pondered. It would actually restrict rights because to define a right is to limit it. I'm also taking into account several countries Bills of Rights. As I said earlier, Bills of Rights drafted in the past tended to base their focus upon criminal and property rights. This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts. The duties of people are just as important as their rights. One must be careful before setting off down the path of an excessively right-prone society.

if you've got this wealth of stuff that can be learned from, why would making a bill of rights now automatically be bad?

[jayP.lq]

it seems to me that if you choose to not define a "right" then your actually just giveing concentrated power the ability to bend and warp that" right" in what ever way suits it the best.

You imply that by defineing what someones rights is somehow takeing away or limiting an individuals rights.

It seems to me that its actually quite the opposite.

Clarity on the rights/duties/roles of the individual and the responsibilities/roles of government are actually a protection of an individuals rights.

[seremtan]

It's simply a concept to be pondered. It would actually restrict rights because to define a right is to limit it.

which is what i just said

This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts.

examples?

The duties of people are just as important as their rights. One must be careful before setting off down the path of an excessively right-prone society.

what are these duties? who defines them? who enforces them? since rights are a part of what it is to be free, an "excessively right-prone society" is one that is what - too free?

[Canis]

Looks like the topic is perhaps a little too complex for some.

This board gets filled with philosophical debates all the time. Its too much of a burden to get involved with every one of them.

[LawL]

It's simply a concept to be pondered. It would actually restrict rights because to define a right is to limit it. I'm also taking into account several countries Bills of Rights. As I said earlier, Bills of Rights drafted in the past tended to base their focus upon criminal and property rights. This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts. The duties of people are just as important as their rights. One must be careful before setting off down the path of an excessively right-prone society.

if you've got this wealth of stuff that can be learned from, why would making a bill of rights now automatically be bad?

I certainly don't think that the countries which have a Bill of Rights shouldn't have them, I just feel that it's not necessary for Australia to have one due to the reasons i've already stated and that rights are already well protected through the constitution and the common law. Also if a Bill of Rights is not implemented in an extremely careful way it could quite possibly lead to creating more problems than it seeks to solve.

[LawL]

It's simply a concept to be pondered. It would actually restrict rights because to define a right is to limit it.

which is what i just said

This loses sight of the many other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts.

examples?

The duties of people are just as important as their rights. One must be careful before setting off down the path of an excessively right-prone society.

what are these duties? who defines them? who enforces them? since rights are a part of what it is to be free, an "excessively right-prone society" is one that is what - too free?

Then we agree upon defining a right limiting it.

An example of other fundamental rights not so easily expressed or enforced by the courts would be that of the rights of minority groups, indigenous Australians, or the rights of those which change within differences of regions. The list goes on. There are many rights which are much better defined through case law which can therefore apply to the individual rather than trying to apply a broad spectrum of uniformed rights which have, in past examples, focused mainly on other areas.

Yes, perhaps one way of looking at it is to acknowledge that an excessively right-prone society is "too free".

[LawL]

it seems to me that if you choose to not define a "right" then your actually just giveing concentrated power the ability to bend and warp that" right" in what ever way suits it the best.

You imply that by defineing what someones rights is somehow takeing away or limiting an individuals rights.

It seems to me that its actually quite the opposite.

Clarity on the rights/duties/roles of the individual and the responsibilities/roles of government are actually a protection of an individuals rights.

It's a tough issue to argue and there are two strong arguments on either side of the coin. It is perhaps a catch 22 situation, another reason why I prefer rights to be dealt with by case law.