Bill of Rights (1 Viewer)

[Keepleft]

The 1688 Bill Of Rights preamble applies in particular State Constitutions, ditto Commonwealth, DESPITE what 'trendy, left-wingers generally, and reformist socialistist lawyers' might say.

Ignore and 'dismiss' such (as say an ancient trinket) as you wish, as we do now, but such is still enforceable, it, the Constitution - doesn't stop every government agency trying to push the boundry. Give a bit, take a lot, give a bit more back, take more again later.

The UN Human Rights Declaration undergoes 'change', or has vis; a few 'word' changes here and there, plays better for GovCo's that way.

Freedom is not hereditary.

I have no problem btw with 'medically fit' Australian citizens taking up 'sporting shooting' (clay target etc), - a sometimes seperate issue to necessarily owning a gun in a gun-safe in the house. I am not a gun owner or shooter myself.

I use to do same in PNG however, well before the onslaught of extremist political correctness.

These days, most young Aussie men are expected the break down and cry, and to then set about seeking 'counselling' at the mere sight of a real rifle. So if you ever visit an RSL or museum, stiffen up a bit and try not to cry, particularly in front of our regional 'neighbours'.

 

[Trefoil]

The 1688 Bill Of Rights preamble applies in particular State Constitutions, ditto Commonwealth, DESPITE what 'trendy, left-wingers generally, and reformist socialistist lawyers' might say.

Ignore and 'dismiss' such (as say an ancient trinket) as you wish, as we do now, but such is still enforceable, it, the Constitution - doesn't stop every government agency trying to push the boundry. Give a bit, take a lot, give a bit more back, take more again later.

The UN Human Rights Declaration undergoes 'change', or has vis; a few 'word' changes here and there, plays better for GovCo's that way.

Freedom is not hereditary.

I have no problem btw with 'medically fit' Australian citizens taking up 'sporting shooting' (clay target etc), - a sometimes seperate issue to necessarily owning a gun in a gun-safe in the house. I am not a gun owner or shooter myself.

I use to do same in PNG however, well before the onslaught of extremist political correctness.

These days, most young Aussie men are expected the break down and cry, and to then set about seeking 'counselling' at the mere sight of a real rifle. So if you ever visit an RSL or museum, stiffen up a bit and try not to cry, particularly in front of our regional 'neighbours'.

Did anybody else understand what this berk is blabbering about?

 

[ccc123]

Speech, Association, freedom from search and seizure. Limiting of police powers, limiting of governmental powers.

Life, liberty, happiness. Take the US Bill, it works fairly well, I must say.

Not really. Take Amendment II- The right of all people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now exploited by powerful gun lobby groups like the NRA and there is absolutely nothing the govt can do about it. Even enshrining rights like freedom of speech can be problematic--because where do you draw the line between free speech and defamation?

Imo, a contitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights presents too many difficulties:

1) Will congeal current attitudes towards human rights that will invariably grow outdated--too inflexible to respond to change.

2) Despite claims that it will cosolidate democratic tradition it would in a way undermine democracy by transfering power from the elected representatives of the people to the unelected judges--undermines traditional parliamentary soverignty and amounts to a form of judicial imperialism if you like.

But then again, a legislative Bill of Rights won't do anything to place human rights about transient political opinion, because statute law is inescapably political.

Maybe a quasi-constitutional approach similar to that of Canada is best?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Did anybody else understand what this berk is blabbering about?

No. I was immediately confused with the 1688 and there was also something about men crying?

 

[gibbo153]

i just assumed he smoked a whole bunch of crack

 

[Ms. BRIGHTSIDE]

i just assumed he smoked a whole bunch of crack

..through a gun.

 

[withoutaface]

1. Ironic that the party who's spent the last 12 months trying as hard as it possibly can to crush free speech (Internet, nuisance laws, etc) is canvassing this.
2. Anti-discrimination an enshrined right? Get fucked.

 

[Trefoil]

1. Ironic that the party who's spent the last 12 months trying as hard as it possibly can to crush free speech (Internet, nuisance laws, etc) is canvassing this.
2. Anti-discrimination an enshrined right? Get fucked.

1) Etc? Because it seems to me that they aren't "trying as hard as possible to crush free speech" and the only significantly controversial move they've made has been Senator Conroy pushing his stupid Internet censorship. The thing about that is a lot of people don't realise how important free speech on the Internet is (take katie tully's initial support of this until we explained the ramifications to her). It's definitely a moronic move, but it's not at all evidence of some authoritarian plot on Labour's behalf.

If there ever actually becomes an 'etc', then I'll worry.

2) There's two kinds of anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination in speech and action, and anti-discrimination under law.

The first is controversial, the second is a basic human right.

 

[withoutaface]

1) Etc? Because it seems to me that they aren't "trying as hard as possible to crush free speech" and the only significantly controversial move they've made has been Senator Conroy pushing his stupid Internet censorship. The thing about that is a lot of people don't realise how important free speech on the Internet is (take katie tully's initial support of this until we explained the ramifications to her). It's definitely a moronic move, but it's not at all evidence of some authoritarian plot on Labour's behalf.

If there ever actually becomes an 'etc', then I'll worry.

2) There's two kinds of anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination in speech and action, and anti-discrimination under law.

The first is controversial, the second is a basic human right.

The anti annoyance regulations during WYD were a blatant attack on free speech, which unfortunately were only struck down by a technicality. Further, Conroy and Co can't cry ignorance when they're consistently having people explaining to them otherwise through letters, phone calls and emails.

 

[withoutaface]

Some reading on the context of non-discrimination in the context of the Constitution: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/1999/3.html. I'm curious as to whether this would bring an end to specific handouts and land rights for indigenous people.

 

[Trefoil]

The anti annoyance regulations during WYD were a blatant attack on free speech, which unfortunately were only struck down by a technicality. Further, Conroy and Co can't cry ignorance when they're consistently having people explaining to them otherwise through letters, phone calls and emails.

So was some of the APEC stuff under Howard.

And tbh, I'm pretty sure Rudd realises how retarded the Internet censorship scheme is, and it just waiting for a politically appropriate point to back out without disenchanting the religious nutters. Probably when the trials say it's slow and inaccurate.

I'm not sure whether Conroy has realised this, though.

 

[withoutaface]

So was some of the APEC stuff under Howard.

And tbh, I'm pretty sure Rudd realises how retarded the Internet censorship scheme is, and it just waiting for a politically appropriate point to back out without disenchanting the religious nutters. Probably when the trials say it's slow and inaccurate.

I'm not sure whether Conroy has realised this, though.

Again, APEC was organised and run by the NSW government, though I guess the point is security justifications vs a blatant "we don't like what you have to say and nor will the tourists whose entertainment you're paying for" one.

 

[Trefoil]

Again, APEC was organised and run by the NSW government, though I guess the point is security justifications vs a blatant "we don't like what you have to say and nor will the tourists whose entertainment you're paying for" one.

Whores will have their trinkets.

 

[withoutaface]

Today I saw a report by one Dr Neil Berry.

 

[Trefoil]

Haha seriously? What was it on?

 

[withoutaface]

Haha seriously? What was it on?

In one of our files man.

EDIT: http://www.comcare.gov.au/compensat...nent_impairment_assessments/nsw/dr_neil_berry

 

[Trefoil]

In one of our files man.

EDIT: http://www.comcare.gov.au/compensat...nent_impairment_assessments/nsw/dr_neil_berry

That's kind of freaky. I bet he's an ace surgeon.

 

[Iron]

Again, APEC was organised and run by the NSW government, though I guess the point is security justifications vs a blatant "we don't like what you have to say and nor will the tourists whose entertainment you're paying for" one.

Are you sure about that? ANU comcon that year partly set their paper on the constitutional justification of the apec security arrangements

 

[Iron]

Lol not really. It has just been interpreted to give the states less power than they are probably entitled to. But we dont really need them, what with our modern technology

 

[shakky15]

HSC Legal Studies all over again :mad1:

thats what im thinking

why bother with a bill of rights? america's does wonders doesnt it...

i think the way our rights are protected are fine the way they are now