Bill of Rights (1 Viewer)

[incentivation]

Illicit drugs? Don't make me laugh. Concealment of weapons, again, the act of using a weapon is a crime, which should be deterrent enough. Property related offences, again, a further issue.

Wow we disagree on everything. The police are a force of tyranny against the individual, they exist to enforce the strict morality of the current government. They do not exist to enforce anything as lovingly abstract as natural law or any manner of natural justice. The concept of one other human being having more rights than me sickens me. They have the right to detain me without cause, that in and of itself is despicable.

Give me a break. Climb back into your ideological vacuum. Reality and philosophy are two very different realms.

The police, the law and the administration of justice are the only mechanism we have to prevent anarchy. Any functioning of justice requires an authority to be placed in charge of enforcing and administering that law. Natural law, and a peaceful, functioning society are not necessarily contingent.

The law itself, cannot protect or prevent the impinging of certain rights. Ultimately, we forego particular rights for that very reason. I, like most, would much prefer to accede certain rights to crown in order for other rights, rights which I place a higher value upon, to be maintained. Humans are dishonest, untrustworthy beings. Self interest is generally promoted above all else. A belief that the mere existence of a common set of natural ideas by which we live is fanciful. One's life situation often forces their hand.

The police are legitimised by society. Thankfully, society recognises the need for balance. A belief that pure philosophical principles often fail in a practical application. Compromise generally produces the most effective results.

In what circumstance can police detain one without cause? In what statute is that power prescribed?

 

[incentivation]

I do think that defence against unlawful search and seizures and unnecessary search and seizure is very important. Police powers should be carefully monitored and reduced where maximal liberty can be gained.

Who mentioned legitimising unlawful search and seizure? Police require reasonable grounds before exercising any such function. These reasonable grounds form the basis of any such power. Without it, police cannot and should not exercise the power bestowed upon them.

Procedural fairness is achieved through the judicial system. Whilst we can do little about unlawful search at the time it occurs, both common law and statute law provide a protection of the rights of the individual against unlawful search.

No state authority allows a person to be arrested and held in custody for 48 hourse without charge. If you are alluding to the Terrorist Legislation, that is another kettle of fish.

The philosophy is rights is an endless circle. I can see the arguments on both sides. At the end of the day though, we live in a society which unfortunately cannot function with the operation of natural rights in their own right. SOcietal regulation according to consensus is essential to maintaining a sense of order, and structure.

 

[withoutaface]

A POSSIBLE Australian Bill of Rights could promote religious tolerance, equal opportunities for women in the workforce, and a higher standard of living for indigenous Australians, federal Attorney-General. Robert McClelland says.

Get fucked, get fucked, get fucked,

GET FUCKED

 

[chicky_pie]

It should include a provision to prevent the censorship of Internet content via mandatory ISP filtering.

.

& ban Aboriginals from using our tax money on alcohol.

 

[chicky_pie]

Get fucked, get fucked, get fucked,

GET FUCKED

first thing on my mind when I read the lines; 'promote religious tolerance' & 'higher standard of living for indigenous Australians'

 

[impervious182]

Get fucked, get fucked, get fucked,

GET FUCKED

Agreed.

A Bill of Rights is just another annoying attempt by the Left-wing intelligencia to impose their own ideas on Australian society... it's just crap.

There are certain rights which must not be enshrined in a Bill of Rights, for the very fact that they are based on changing assumptions.

"Associate professor Helen Irving warns that a bill of rights, now being discussed by the Rudd Government, is an attempt to use judges to impose on voters contentious political decisions best left to them:

(M)any rights are in fact political. They rest on controversial propositions, matters open to reasonable disagreement, issues that should properly be debated in the public arena.


We hear, for example, of the “right to die with dignity”. This is not a natural right, or a settled matter. It is deeply, and essentially, contentious.


Another example: the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities includes a provision giving a person of “a particular cultural … background” the “right, in community with other persons of that background, to enjoy his or her culture”. To determine whether a person has a “particular” background, and whether its enjoyment has been denied, requires detailed knowledge of cultural practices and expectations, both in “particular” and mainstream cultures.


These are sociological and historical issues, not questions for the courts.
​

Enshrining such “rights” - as determined today - and imposing them on future generations is arrogant and undemocratic. Would we accept similar “rights” as determined and frozen forever in 1900? No wonder a Bill of Rights appeals most to those with an authoritarian glint to the eye"

​

 

[jb_nc]

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers: THE REAL FASCISTS?

 

[withoutaface]

I don't mind a Bill of Rights which says:

1. No Censorship. Ever.
2. Police can't get up your grill.
3. Guns, lots of them.

Tbh that should be sufficient.

 

[jb_nc]

Habeas Corpus: A pillar of common law or a tool by which CRIMINALS get RELEASED from PRISON??

 

[withoutaface]

Habeas Corpus: A pillar of common law or a tool by which CRIMINALS get RELEASED from PRISON??

Covered by 2.

 

[impervious182]

Yep, this is pretty much how I feel on the matter.

Nup that's a silly idea.

If an Australian Bill of Rights were introduced, the UN Declaration of Human Rights should not be included. The Bill of Rights should be a bill for which all Australians have pride and appreciate; it should be uniquely Australian.

Who gives a crap about an international gesture. We already have an obligation to follow the Declaration which constitutes international law... so what would this actually achieve? (rhetorical question Trefoil)

 

[Enteebee]

The more rights we have the better imo.

\\

 

[impervious182]

The more rights we have the better imo.

The right to be killed.

The right to be oppressed.

The right to shut up.




The problem with a Bill of Rights, is that even the most intelligent amongst us, can't anticipate the restrictions which these laws will impose in the future as ideas change.

E.g.
The right to bear arms.
The right to peace. (vague things like this, which could be interpreted in many ways, and actually just restrict a country's ability to achieve their national interests.)

 

[Enteebee]

I should have a right to shut up, be killed, be oppressed if that is my wish... The important thing should really just be that your rights don't impinge others rights too much.

 

[withoutaface]

The more rights we have the better imo.

\\

The problem is that positive rights, by definition, interfere with far more fundamental, negative, rights of others.

 

[impervious182]

I should have a right to shut up, be killed, be oppressed if that is my wish... The important thing should really just be that your rights don't impinge others rights too much.

? There would only be one Bill of Rights, not an individual one for each person.

 

[withoutaface]

I should have a right to shut up, be killed, be oppressed if that is my wish... The important thing should really just be that your rights don't impinge others rights too much.

Change 'too much' to 'at all, when the other's rights are more fundamental' and I agree with you.

 

[impervious182]

I should have a right to shut up, be killed, be oppressed if that is my wish... The important thing should really just be that your rights don't impinge others rights too much.

You currently do not have a right to be killed. It is illegal to commit murder, manslaughter, suicide... etc. So entrenched in the current system are laws, which inhibit one from holding the right to be killed.

This is what I'm talking about though.

By introducing these politically contentious ideas, essentially what we do is politicise the judiciary system which is supposed to be independent and sovereign from the political system... That's the whole premise on which democracy is formed and this is the major problem with a political Bill of Rights which does not outline a just a bare minimum and works to impose some ideas held by the majority, the Zeitgeist if you will. The problem being that these rights will then become outdated as the Zeitgeist changes. etc. etc. etc..

Having more than the bare minimum is just a waste of time and actually hurts democracy.

 

[withoutaface]

You currently do not have a right to be killed.

But we should.

 

[jb_nc]

lol

what kind of idiot would make a law making it illegal to commit suicide?

ok dude prosecute me when im dead.