"Time for Aboriginal rights written into Australia's Constitution." - Kevin Rudd (2 Viewers)

[Will Shakespear]

They're getting ahead of themselves. A proper bill of rights for all Australians would be a better start. Indigenous rights, perhaps related to minor legal exemptions or similar, could always be built into it.

That could interfere with the NSW government's ability to randomly introduce extreme police powers

it'd never get off the ground

 

[withoutaface]

They're getting ahead of themselves. A proper bill of rights for all Australians would be a better start. Indigenous rights, perhaps related to minor legal exemptions or similar, could always be built into it.

Minor legal exemptions? Like what?

 

[Slidey]

Minor legal exemptions? Like what?

I thought that was a bit dubious, too.

Bill of Rights. Pfft. Sif we need one.

I'm neutral on the matter. I'm not convinced there would be benefit in a stable, centrist country like Australia. I wouldn't exactly say America's Bill of Rights is either perfect or effective. I think the fact that Australia doesn't have one, yet most other countries do is somewhat strong evidence that it serves a purely aesthetic function.

That could interfere with the NSW government's ability to randomly introduce extreme police powers

it'd never get off the ground

Yeah, because it totally stopped places like Britain, Sweden and America from doing that, hey?

 

[Will Shakespear]

No, no it did not.

But it still could

 

[sam04u]

Can't say I'm impressed (or particularly unimpressed) with Rudd so far. I didn't vote for Rudd or Howard, though.

Now I'm intrigued.
So who did you vote for?

 

[Slidey]

We can learn from past mistakes. Despite critisims of America in particular, they would probably be much worse of if they had no contitutional protection of their rights. Well maybe not the right to bear arms, but we don't have to include that.

Most importantly, there is no disadvantage to protecting basic rights. Even if it proves ineffective we have lost nothing.

Also, in the long term you can't guarantee Australia's political stability.

I know, I generally agree with these things, thus I'm neutral on the matter.

Now I'm intrigued.
So who did you vote for?

I wanted Rudd to get in, but I didn't want him to be too powerful, so I voted Greens (knowing everyone else would vote Rudd).

 

[sam04u]

I wanted Rudd to get in, but I didn't want him to be too powerful, so I voted Greens (knowing everyone else would vote Rudd).

You know, when it's between Rudd and Howard, it's hard not to choose Rudd. What I want to see though, is a Labor vs Green. Infact, I want the conservative/liberal element completely abolished from Australian politics. That would be ideal, but like all ideal things, incredibly unlikely. If that were to happen, Rudd would have to really work for his votes. I don't want Australia to turn out like Britain, where the politics are so colluded, you can't tell a conservative policy, from a Labour one.

Those right wing policies are like a cancer. Though I must confess, the Keating/Howard days, (prior to Howard's long standing majority, ending in an opposite landslide) Aussie politics were great!

*Recruits allies to destroy the Liberal party/conservative elements in Australian politics!*

 

[Slidey]

Right. But in the lower house, your vote had the same effect as either a vote for Labor or Liberal.

Hence the horrible flaw in our plurality voting system.

Proportional Representation FTW.

I realised there was a problem with my logic a bit after the election. For example, if the majority of people voted for Liberal rather than Labour, then I'd essentially done nothing to alter Liberal's power, but detracted from Labour's power (essentially increasing Liberal's power!). Thankfully this didn't happen.

As for the point you bring up: there's still the Upper House. But yes, I plan to research it more carefully next time. I was simply disenchanted by both Liberal and Labour at the time.

As it stands, the election results went roughly as I desired.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm neutral on the matter. I'm not convinced there would be benefit in a stable, centrist country like Australia.

Our judicial system would be less constrained if they could appeal to more perhaps abstract ideals such as 'freedom of speech' rather than our fairly lackluster 'freedom of political communication'... Laws which would have most likely been found invalid had we had such freedoms include the sedition clauses in the anti-terrorism legislation from 2005. Such an ease of constraint however could have some negative consequences and some may view it as leading to more power for the courts to 'create' law.

 

[Slidey]

Our judicial system would be less constrained if they could appeal to more perhaps abstract ideals such as 'freedom of speech' rather than our fairly lackluster 'freedom of political communication'... Laws which would have most likely been found invalid had we had such freedoms include the sedition clauses in the anti-terrorism legislation from 2005. Such an ease of constraint however could have some negative consequences and some may view it as leading to more power for the courts to 'create' law.

I'm basically basing my opinion on how America uses and abuses their Bill of Rights.

But then I realise that America is a bit of an outlier as far as typical Western society and culture goes (full of libertarians, conservatives and theists), not to mention that size does matter (in terms of population), and then I remember that America's Bill of Rights is, what, 400 years old?

 

[sam04u]

Yet you don't think it's a miraculous document?

Bush has committed serious crimes and is now ruling in an unconstitutional manner. Their brilliant framework has been torn to shreds. I think the US constitution and the bill of rights are two of the greatest documents ever penned by mankind.

I've got to agree to a certain extent.

Too bad the right to bear arms (rawr) hasn't helped the Americans in defending it. They fail pretty much.

 

[Slidey]

Yet you don't think it's a miraculous document?

Considering when it was written, I think it was amazingly progressive. I think that today, you'd need to make a few adjustments to it, though, for it to fit in Australia.

But yes, the American Bill of Rights stands the test of time rather well.

 

[KFunk]

Minor legal exemptions? Like what?

I intended for it to be vague - I don't know many fine details about the law or aboriginal communities. I simply assume that there may exist at least a limited number of cases where minor exemptions would be reasonable for historical/cultural reasons. Take for example the use of land - perhaps they could be granted limited hunting rights in certain areas which are otherwise protected.

In any case, this is really just a naive assumption. I'm perfectly open to arguments to the contrary.

 

[zstar]

Rudd's a left wing nut.

 

[Slidey]

Rudd's a left wing nut.

Let me know if you ever say something not borne of knee-jerk right-wing conservatism.

 

[A High Way Man]

the right to bear arms is possibly the most archaic amendment.
CIVILIANS DONT HAVE M1 ABRAMSs

 

[A High Way Man]

these guys would get a RUDE SHOCK

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms ... It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

haha

 

[zstar]

The thing is I don't get how writing "Aboriginal rights" in the constitution is supposed to improve their standard of living.

Last time I checked most Aborigines are still poor and have high rates of alcohol abuse and attrition, They're in worse health than non Aborigines and the petrol sniffing problem are still there.

Rudd is basically putting into place a bunch of pointless motions that in the long run don't actually do anything but make him look good.

 

[Snaykew]

these guys would get a RUDE SHOCK





haha

Are you suggesting that a disorganised militia made up of your average day Americans can beat a well-trained and experienced and heavily armed United States military? Do you forget that Americans do not have ready access to anti-armour and anti-air weaponry? Do you forget that the US military has access to highly advanced technology such as the ability to track enemy movement from space? Seriously, HAMAS is more armed than the American citizenry and they aren't doing too that great against the Israelis.

But of course, the American military would not attack its own people. You know why? Because they have friends and relatives who are part of those people. The United States military swears an oath to the constitution and I'm pretty sure can refuse an unconstitutional order or something. Let's hope the US military still has humanity in them when that time comes.

As for the constitutional amendment, I'm against it. Fuck separating people. Let's bring everyone TOGETHER, because...

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian

>=)

 

[Captin gay]

Are you suggesting that a disorganised militia made up of your average day Americans can beat a well-trained and experienced and heavily armed United States military? Do you forget that Americans do not have ready access to anti-armour and anti-air weaponry? Do you forget that the US military has access to highly advanced technology such as the ability to track enemy movement from space? Seriously, HAMAS is more armed than the American citizenry and they aren't doing too that great against the Israelis.

The point of the right to bear arms amendment was so that if need be, the populace could rise up against the government. Back then there was no distinction between a standing army and a civilian militia, hence those two quotes from the early federalists who thought that with enough men and arms, the populace could defeat the army of a tyrannical Congress.

Of course, now, the US military is vastly superior to any band of militia that could ever be conceived, so the right to bear arms is a rather redundant. l0l.

Bloody federalists could've checked Da Vinci's sketches, at least. RESEARCH