Poll: Should Australia have its own bill of rights?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should Australia have its own bill of rights?
Yes
15 60%
No
10 40%
Voters: 25.
#4
No, I think that bill is copyrighted trademark.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#7
Quote by soulflyV
Fucking America.


BWAHAHA!

We have the Bill of Rights and Funyuns... You're just jealous.
"Ignorance runs rampant through this virus we call life, dead one day, alive the next, never breaking a stride. As I take it all in and realize, nothing we do can stop it, I release the hatred from my eyes, only to feel it within."
#8
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.
#9
Quote by MiG_853
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.


I see, I didn't know about that.

Quote by crackhutch
BWAHAHA!

We have the Bill of Rights and Funyuns... You're just jealous.


Keep your disgusting un-ions (c wut i did thar).
#10
Quote by MiG_853
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.

true poo, every country that is part of the UN has no need for an individual bill of rights. America is greedy
#12
no.
to define a right is to limit it.
it will disable the ability of our rights to adapt to a changing society, and so, in time, it could be detrimental to society.
all of our rights are embedded in common law and statute law which are easily adaptable to the changing values and attitudes of society, and thats the way it should stay.
Quote by Machanix
We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Life Is A Lemon And I Want My Money Back!

A Wasted Youth
Is Better By Far
Than A Wise And Productive Old Age

Good Girls Go To Heaven, But The Bad Girls Go Everywhere!
#16
Quote by instagata0
no.
to define a right is to limit it.
it will disable the ability of our rights to adapt to a changing society, and so, in time, it could be detrimental to society.
all of our rights are embedded in common law and statute law which are easily adaptable to the changing values and attitudes of society, and thats the way it should stay.

I agree, however, having rights that are easily changeable allows people to remove those rights, the US constitution is a good example, a lot of the bill of rights has been stripped.
#17
Without a Bill of Rights, what will your government step all over?
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."-Duke
#18
Quote by MiG_853
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.

Quote by XianXiuHong
I think we're going quite well without having our own, but yeah, the previous post stated that we were already bound by one technically.


just so that everyone knows, the declaration of human rights, and international law will not be the same as an australian bill of rights.

for instance, there is no human right to own a gun, but that is in article 2 of the US bill of rights.

..... hey, you know, the fact that its article 2 has always seemed odd to me.... like, honestly, was it really their second thought that they should be able to own a weapon? it really shows where their priorities were
Quote by Machanix
We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Life Is A Lemon And I Want My Money Back!

A Wasted Youth
Is Better By Far
Than A Wise And Productive Old Age

Good Girls Go To Heaven, But The Bad Girls Go Everywhere!
#19
Quote by instagata0
..... hey, you know, the fact that its article 2 has always seemed odd to me.... like, honestly, was it really their second thought that they should be able to own a weapon? it really shows where their priorities were

If you see it like that then you could argue that it follows the 1st amendment to make sure that if anybody tries to break the first, and limit your freedom of speech then you have the power to blast the fool.
#20
Quote by MiG_853
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.



Actually according to John Choon Yoo, a former assistant to the Attorney General of our current administration here in the U.S., national law supercedes international law. He also claimed that while Congress has the authority to dictate whether we go to war or not, through the power of the purse, the executive wields most of the power in the a war situation, including a little thing called "Presidential treaty interpretation". Yoo believes that the president is the only person with the authority to interpret an international treaty.

Quote by Wikipedia
At the heart of these legal opinions is the notion that during a time of war the President, in his duty as Commander-in-Chief, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by law (see, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, UN Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions) or Congress. Yoo suggested that since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, any hindrance to that capacity, whether US and international law or even Congress, can be considered unconstitutional.


President Bush: "Mr. Yoo, in the Geneva Conventions, what do they mean by torture is illegal?"

Mr. Yoo: "Hmmm, lemme see . . . torture is illegal . . . that actually means . . . that torturing terrorists is the best way to get the information we need!"

President Bush: "Wow, that is fantastic!"


Quote by instagata0
just so that everyone knows, the declaration of human rights, and international law will not be the same as an australian bill of rights.

for instance, there is no human right to own a gun, but that is in article 2 of the US bill of rights.

..... hey, you know, the fact that its article 2 has always seemed odd to me.... like, honestly, was it really their second thought that they should be able to own a weapon? it really shows where their priorities were



The declaration of humans rights is international law and is not the same thing as the Bill of Rights in the States, which is only national law.

And yes, it really was their second thought that they should be able to own weapons. They didn't have a standing army and were relatively weak on an international level at the time it was written. The only way they could truly defend themselves was through an armed militia. For this the average citizen would have to own a weapon in case of foreign invasion.
Last edited by Seryaph at Aug 14, 2008,
#21
Quote by Seryaph
Actually according to John Choon Yoo, a former assistant to the Attorney General of our current administration here in the U.S., stated that national law supercedes international law. He also claimed that while Congress has the authority to dictate whether we go to war or not, through the power of the purse, the executive wields most of the power in the a war situation, including a little thing called "Presidential treaty interpretation". Yoo believes that the president is the only person with the authority to interpret an international treaty.


President Bush: "Mr. Yoo, in the Geneva Conventions, what do they mean by torture is illegal?"

Mr. Yoo: "Hmmm, lemme see . . . torture is illegal . . . that actually means . . . that torturing terrorists is the best way to get the information we need!"

President Bush: "Wow, that is fantastic!"


I think someone didn't read the thread title.
#22
Quote by breadstick
I think we get along just fine without one.


This

however what the guy said about the UN means it's all stupidly political anyway.
Need Singing Advice?; Read the first page then ask questions.

Quote by punkman_123
Damn Auals, you're messed up. :P


Quote by ZanasCross
This just reminded me of the time that my brother in law texted his mom on the night after his wedding. All it said was "Consummated."
#23
Quote by MiG_853
If' you're in the UN you signed several human rights charters, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Law precedes national law (or at least one would hope) so technically you are already bound by a bill of rights, there is no need for another.



actually thats not true. The US hasnt signed the childrens bill of rights because it conflicts with laws that we have that are already in place. Most countries wont listen to international law if it conflicts with their national law. Nations are really strong about not having their Sovereignty challanged. There are alot of examples of nations going againts international law even when they signed the bill. And even though the UN is a big power, for the most part this world works nation by nation and there really isnt any unifying body. If you said the world was one big giant country-community most heads of state would freak out. So australia doesnt not need a bill of rights just because they signed an international one.
#24
Quote by soulflyV
I think someone didn't read the thread title.


What he's saying is that if we have a bill of rights, it would beat out the UN. So what the guy said about the UN's treaty is false if we did in fact have a Bill of Rights, which we don't. So he used America as the example
Need Singing Advice?; Read the first page then ask questions.

Quote by punkman_123
Damn Auals, you're messed up. :P


Quote by ZanasCross
This just reminded me of the time that my brother in law texted his mom on the night after his wedding. All it said was "Consummated."
#25
Quote by soulflyV
I think someone didn't read the thread title.



Haha, I am sorry for going completely off topic there.


I think a Bill of Rights helps in terms of defining a citizen of a nation's rights. As has been stated before, it can be dangerous in regards to limiting the citizens rights, but it can also be useful in stating the rights clearly so that every citizen knows what his or her rights are in certain situations. In a fair government, this allows the average citizen to defend him or her self whenever rights are being infringed upon.
A Bill of Rights should not, in my opinion, be looked upon as something that limits the rights of a citizen, but rather as something that limits the actions of a government against its people.
If the bill were drawn up by politicians who truly look to do their best for the people then a Bill of Rights could be very beneficial for Australia.
#26
Quote by Seryaph

The declaration of humans rights is international law and is not the same thing as the Bill of Rights in the States, which is only national law.

And yes, it really was their second thought that they should be able to own weapons. They didn't have a standing army and were relatively weak on an international level at the time it was written. The only way they could truly defend themselves was through an armed militia. For this the average citizen would have to own a weapon in case of foreign invasion.

i am aware of what international law is...

in a modern context, the right to own weapons is out of place. it stands as an example of the inflexibility of a bill of rights.
Quote by Machanix
We play guitar.... we're automatically on top of the world.

Life Is A Lemon And I Want My Money Back!

A Wasted Youth
Is Better By Far
Than A Wise And Productive Old Age

Good Girls Go To Heaven, But The Bad Girls Go Everywhere!
#27
there is no such thing a rights
governements ban books, websites, games and movies all around the world and so many other corrupt things happen people go to jail for things they did not commit

rights are like guidelines (like the pirate code more a set of guidelines < 1 intenet for reference) if the government does not want to follow them then it wont
#28
governments tend to not change much unless there is lots of support to a movement that will get voters- democratic society. If its not necessary why bother, won't change.

above example of U.S rights to bear arms is a prime example of cons.
#29
Quote by cronik_desire
there is no such thing a rights
governements ban books, websites, games and movies all around the world and so many other corrupt things happen people go to jail for things they did not commit

rights are like guidelines (like the pirate code more a set of guidelines < 1 intenet for reference) if the government does not want to follow them then it wont


Wow, that's such a hard reference to get. Is it Pirates of the Caribbean? Wait, that can't be it, it's the only popular pirate movie to come out in the past 10 years...
"Ignorance runs rampant through this virus we call life, dead one day, alive the next, never breaking a stride. As I take it all in and realize, nothing we do can stop it, I release the hatred from my eyes, only to feel it within."
#30
Quote by crackhutch
Wow, that's such a hard reference to get. Is it Pirates of the Caribbean? Wait, that can't be it, it's the only popular pirate movie to come out in the past 10 years...


ure wrong man
#31
It's the porn version of that movie right
Need Singing Advice?; Read the first page then ask questions.

Quote by punkman_123
Damn Auals, you're messed up. :P


Quote by ZanasCross
This just reminded me of the time that my brother in law texted his mom on the night after his wedding. All it said was "Consummated."