Bill of Rights for Australia - What is your list of rights

[ufo_investigations]

Australia is the only western country without a Bill of Rights. Odd isn't it.

We need an entrenched Bill of Rights. It can be entrenched or unentrenched. Entrenched is better because it can't easily be repealed at will without a referendum.  I would prefer entrenched with a 90% vote required to change any aspect of it.

England has had once since 1689

New Zealand since 1990

United States since 1791

Canada since 1960

European Union since 2000

I think it is about time we have one!

Tell me what rights should we have as a people?

Please make a list, like the U.S. 1st amendment etc...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I'd like the right to do the Performance Evaluations of the Mods

Of course we have clear rights to follow. We have Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam. The latter covering (but not exclusive to) what you do in the case of an intruder.

We have criminal law to tell us what we can't do and civil law to tell us what we can do.

\

And do you really believe that a Bill of Rights would have protected everyone from the atrocities of WWII? Hitler laughed in the face of International Law by disregarding the Treaty of Versailles, do ya really bel;ieve that he would have paid any attention to a Bill of Rights?

Law cannot be changed at a whim, we have a trio of checks and balances which all keep the other in line.

---

Criminal law and civil law wont help you when police turn up to your house and you tell them you hit the guy because he had a knife when he broke in and was threatening you.

Well not in the context that I think you intend, as we do not have thr right to injure or harm another, however, the law will help you, so call a lawyer. You do have a right to protect yourself and your property with appropriate but not excessive force.

What kind of right do you believe could be committed to "paper" that would give a person permission to harm another person other than during times of war?

I think you would end up in handcuffs and put in the lockup. Dunno, bet you'd get bail unless it was a geriatric with a walking stick and plastic picnic knife.

What you're doing is confusing the role of the police with those whose role it is to determine if we have or have not breached our rights. If you punch someione in the face, firstly call an ambulance, then call a lawyer - the rest will take care of itself. (The 000 call will call the police if your lawyer doesn't)

This is why we need a specific codified Bill of Rights, so the burden of proof is transferred to the intruder and not the home owner.

The idea has merit, but I don't agree, Every person already has the right to assumed innocence until proven guilty in most cases, And in your scenario, there would end up being a whole heap of unqualified people determinuing what was excessive threatening behaviour and I posit that Murder/Interference with a person rates would rise as a result.

As for Post-war Germany, yes I believe a Bill of Rights would have prevented Hitler from doing the atrocities he did. The German public were supportive of the regime from the beginning. If Germany had a Bill of Rights and the public could see this was taken away, I don't think he would have had the support he did have throughout.

---

Whoa, agauin, I have to disagree with your viewe of that era in Germany.

Are you aware of what conditions the Treatise of Versailles cast on German citizens? Hyperinflation, massive unemployment, international humilliation, no defence force - and a man comes along and delivers a way to save Germany from all that? Ya think the people would have said NO?

They didn't need a Bill of Rights to know what was happenning was morally wrong either as a result of World War 1 or the lead up to and atrocities that occured in WW!!

What were the people going to do? Stand up to Hitler and be killed by his army?

WW!! and Hitler eventuated because of the set up of their gov which enabled one man (not even a German citizen) to take absolute control through force, lack of appropriate cencorship and the spread of propaganda.

Do a little history research, on how Hitler really did rise to power, and then also do a little English History research, perhaps start around the Period of The Statute of Anne.

Then Compare and discuss if it was the absence of a Bill of Rights or the absence of a strong established framework of Governance that allowed for the rise of Hitler.

[*crikey*mate*]

The Allies, in their arrogance following WW!, were the antagonizing protagonists who imposed unjust penalty on Germany caused WW!!. Geez, they practically dared Hitler and the german public to invade Poland, their reaction to WW1 was no more than a p[oorly thought out attempt to exercise complete power with the threat of Invasion if they didn't comply, and Germany didn't like that very much.so in the absence of unjust laws and true leadership and an ineffective govt, they latched onto the only thing that gave them hope and deliverance from the situation they were in.

They delivered a "Bill of Rights" to Germany that far surpassed the punishment of and weakening of a nation. The Allies punished the wrong people, they punished innocent Germans and then along comes an opportunist at the right point in time who has just been given a platform from which to launch his evil ideologies and a vehicle to drive them.

Think about it, a homeless, peniless, uneduacated (and allegedly untalented) artist, who was not even a German Citizen rose to lead Germany and the rest of the world into war.

No Bill of Rights would have stopped that

[silverfaun]

---

@kilroy_is_here wrote:

i could not disagree more , laws have to be able to be changed easily  otherwise they could be stuck in an era no longer relivant , had we had a bill of rights set in place from federation the rights for women and aborignals to vote may not have been acheivable or jump forward the removal of gay relationships as a criminal offence may have been imposible to remove from law, we may still have a white australia policy a bill of rights can just as easily stifle rights as it can protect them, the fact that here in Australia we can change our laws to adapt to the changes around us is one of the graetest assets this country has.

a bill of righ

---

100% agree. All the facile suggestions on here show exactly why these things are not a good idea. We don't need a bill of rights under our constitution.

[silverfaun]

If people want to join a conversation like this then I suggest they study our constitution and democratic goverance and leave it at that.

Protection from our government??? did I read that right, I haven't slipped into a parrallel universe  of bizzarro land have I?

[silverfaun]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I'd like the right to do the Performance Evaluations of the Mods

Of course we have clear rights to follow. We have Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam. The latter covering (but not exclusive to) what you do in the case of an intruder.

We have criminal law to tell us what we can't do and civil law to tell us what we can do.

\

And do you really believe that a Bill of Rights would have protected everyone from the atrocities of WWII? Hitler laughed in the face of International Law by disregarding the Treaty of Versailles, do ya really bel;ieve that he would have paid any attention to a Bill of Rights?

Law cannot be changed at a whim, we have a trio of checks and balances which all keep the other in line.

---

Criminal law and civil law wont help you when police turn up to your house and you tell them you hit the guy because he had a knife when he broke in and was threatening you.

Well not in the context that I think you intend, as we do not have thr right to injure or harm another, however, the law will help you, so call a lawyer. You do have a right to protect yourself and your property with appropriate but not excessive force.

What kind of right do you believe could be committed to "paper" that would give a person permission to harm another person other than during times of war?

I think you would end up in handcuffs and put in the lockup. Dunno, bet you'd get bail unless it was a geriatric with a walking stick and plastic picnic knife.

What you're doing is confusing the role of the police with those whose role it is to determine if we have or have not breached our rights. If you punch someione in the face, firstly call an ambulance, then call a lawyer - the rest will take care of itself. (The 000 call will call the police if your lawyer doesn't)

This is why we need a specific codified Bill of Rights, so the burden of proof is transferred to the intruder and not the home owner.

The idea has merit, but I don't agree, Every person already has the right to assumed innocence until proven guilty in most cases, And in your scenario, there would end up being a whole heap of unqualified people determinuing what was excessive threatening behaviour and I posit that Murder/Interference with a person rates would rise as a result.

As for Post-war Germany, yes I believe a Bill of Rights would have prevented Hitler from doing the atrocities he did. The German public were supportive of the regime from the beginning. If Germany had a Bill of Rights and the public could see this was taken away, I don't think he would have had the support he did have throughout.

---

Whoa, agauin, I have to disagree with your viewe of that era in Germany.

Are you aware of what conditions the Treatise of Versailles cast on German citizens? Hyperinflation, massive unemployment, international humilliation, no defence force - and a man comes along and delivers a way to save Germany from all that? Ya think the people would have said NO?

They didn't need a Bill of Rights to know what was happenning was morally wrong either as a result of World War 1 or the lead up to and atrocities that occured in WW!!

What were the people going to do? Stand up to Hitler and be killed by his army?

WW!! and Hitler eventuated because of the set up of their gov which enabled one man (not even a German citizen) to take absolute control through force, lack of appropriate cencorship and the spread of propaganda.

Do a little history research, on how Hitler really did rise to power, and then also do a little English History research, perhaps start around the Period of The Statute of Anne.

Then Compare and discuss if it was the absence of a Bill of Rights or the absence of a strong established framework of Governance that allowed for the rise of Hitler.

---

So a bill of rights would have prevented a madman from murdering 6 million innocent people??  Was it their own fault for not having a bill of rights to protect them from the monster that was Hitler and his cohorts.

I know, they could have waved the piece of paper, the Bill of Rights, in front of the SS's faces,  that would have protected them.

[ufo_investigations]

Tell me, what would you do in a scenario like that. (ie) guy breaks into your home armed with a knife and is threatening to kill you.

You do know police will arrest you for assaulting him right? We have no right to stop them without being arrested. I know under the crimes act we can use reasonable force to stop the crook as long as it is not excessive force. That is still not enough to avoid being arrested though. You will still be seen as someone who commited a crime nevertheless. No matter what, you will be locked up if you use self defence. This is how dumb the laws are here. I'm just saying if we had "citizens bill of rights" we would not have to guess or worry about getting arrested.

The burden of proof should be on the criminal who broke in, he should have to explain why he broke in. Not the home owner, why should the home owner have to justify they used self-defence against someone who broke in with a knife and made threats? Don't you get it?  Your saying, the police should charge you for using self-defence and then we would have to spend thousands of dollars with a lawyer to avoid getting sued and to defend the charges? Is this what you are saying? This is not right, home owners are the victims in cases like this not the criminal. If there was a bill of rights, criminals would think twice before breaking in.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I'd like the right to do the Performance Evaluations of the Mods

Of course we have clear rights to follow. We have Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam. The latter covering (but not exclusive to) what you do in the case of an intruder.

We have criminal law to tell us what we can't do and civil law to tell us what we can do.

\

And do you really believe that a Bill of Rights would have protected everyone from the atrocities of WWII? Hitler laughed in the face of International Law by disregarding the Treaty of Versailles, do ya really bel;ieve that he would have paid any attention to a Bill of Rights?

Law cannot be changed at a whim, we have a trio of checks and balances which all keep the other in line.

---

Criminal law and civil law wont help you when police turn up to your house and you tell them you hit the guy because he had a knife when he broke in and was threatening you.

Well not in the context that I think you intend, as we do not have thr right to injure or harm another, however, the law will help you, so call a lawyer. You do have a right to protect yourself and your property with appropriate but not excessive force.

What kind of right do you believe could be committed to "paper" that would give a person permission to harm another person other than during times of war?

I think you would end up in handcuffs and put in the lockup. Dunno, bet you'd get bail unless it was a geriatric with a walking stick and plastic picnic knife.

What you're doing is confusing the role of the police with those whose role it is to determine if we have or have not breached our rights. If you punch someione in the face, firstly call an ambulance, then call a lawyer - the rest will take care of itself. (The 000 call will call the police if your lawyer doesn't)

This is why we need a specific codified Bill of Rights, so the burden of proof is transferred to the intruder and not the home owner.

The idea has merit, but I don't agree, Every person already has the right to assumed innocence until proven guilty in most cases, And in your scenario, there would end up being a whole heap of unqualified people determinuing what was excessive threatening behaviour and I posit that Murder/Interference with a person rates would rise as a result.

As for Post-war Germany, yes I believe a Bill of Rights would have prevented Hitler from doing the atrocities he did. The German public were supportive of the regime from the beginning. If Germany had a Bill of Rights and the public could see this was taken away, I don't think he would have had the support he did have throughout.

---

Whoa, agauin, I have to disagree with your viewe of that era in Germany.

Are you aware of what conditions the Treatise of Versailles cast on German citizens? Hyperinflation, massive unemployment, international humilliation, no defence force - and a man comes along and delivers a way to save Germany from all that? Ya think the people would have said NO?

They didn't need a Bill of Rights to know what was happenning was morally wrong either as a result of World War 1 or the lead up to and atrocities that occured in WW!!

What were the people going to do? Stand up to Hitler and be killed by his army?

WW!! and Hitler eventuated because of the set up of their gov which enabled one man (not even a German citizen) to take absolute control through force, lack of appropriate cencorship and the spread of propaganda.

Do a little history research, on how Hitler really did rise to power, and then also do a little English History research, perhaps start around the Period of The Statute of Anne.

Then Compare and discuss if it was the absence of a Bill of Rights or the absence of a strong established framework of Governance that allowed for the rise of Hitler.

---

So a bill of rights would have prevented a madman from murdering 6 million innocent people??  Was it their own fault for not having a bill of rights to protect them from the monster that was Hitler and his cohorts.

I know, they could have waved the piece of paper, the Bill of Rights, in front of the SS's faces,  that would have protected them.

---

nah, they would have just used em to fuel the furnaces and burn their homes

[spotweldersfriend]

We'll never get a Bill of Rights from this government.Just a bill.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

Tell me, what would you do in a scenario like that. (ie) guy breaks into your home armed with a knife and is threatening to kill you.

You do know police will arrest you for assaulting him right? We have no right to stop them without being arrested. I know under the crimes act we can use reasonable force to stop the crook as long as it is not excessive force. That is still not enough to avoid being arrested though. You will still be seen as someone who commited a crime nevertheless. No matter what, you will be locked up if you use self defence. This is how dumb the laws are here. I'm just saying if we had "citizens bill of rights" we would not have to guess or worry about getting arrested.

The burden of proof should be on the criminal who broke in, he should have to explain why he broke in. Not the home owner, why should the home owner have to justify they used self-defence against someone who broke in with a knife and made threats? Don't you get it?  Your saying, the police should charge you for using self-defence and then we would have to spend thousands of dollars with a lawyer to avoid getting sued and to defend the charges? Is this what you are saying? This is not right, home owners are the victims in cases like this not the criminal. If there was a bill of rights, criminals would think twice before breaking in.

---

So what type of right do you propose?

one that says you have a right to harm another person? and then go on with 756 exceptions to the rule for us to memorize?

The law already provides our rights and anyone who violates those rights are dealt with by the law.

In your hypothetical situation, both parties would be held accountable for breaching the rights of others, you make it sound like the ALLEGED intruder will not be called to task. Both parties will have a burdeon of proof for their particular breach, the burglar will have to explain why they were in your house etc, that burdeon of proof will be on him. Your burdeon of proof will be explaining why you chose to violate his rights.

If the victim doesn't press charges, can the police arrest you for trespass to person? its a civil action, and struggling here to imagine why any burglar would call the police and press charges and allege you punched him in the face. He'd then put himself right in the line of fire for his criminaL actions.

I'm sorry UFO, but whilst I admire your sentiments, I really don't think that you understand how the law operates

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
We'll never get a Bill of Rights from this government.Just a bill.

---

I thought Shorten batted for the other side?