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 Entrenched is better because it can't easily be repealed at will without a referendum.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*]

oops sorry, to clarify the above - the burdon of oproof will fall to the person accusing another of breaching their rights.

in a civil case or tortious claim the plaintiff will be the accusor and thus bear the burdeon of proof

in a criminal case this will be the DPP who bears the burdon of proof

[ufo_investigations]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@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

---

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'll start again.

(eg) A thug armed with a knife breaks your back window and enters your house and threatens to kill you. The guy is there ready to kill you and tells you, you are going to die.

What do you do now:

(a) Defend yourself with whatever weapon you can get your hands on.

(b) Tell the killer to wait patiently whilst you ring 000.

I think most people, if not just about everyone would pick choice (a) unless you can run real fast.

The problem with Australian law is, if the person is severely beaten or ends up dead. Guess what? YOU end up in jail.

The legislation says we can use reasonable force but no excessive force. In a situation like this which force do you use?

I'd be swinging something at him to get that knife off him. I'd be trying to save my life. I don't know about you. You've got me confused on this.

[*crikey*mate*]

I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I still fail to see why we need a Bill of Rights to address this?

exactly what right are you after and how would this be worded to exclude ambiguity and exploitation?

Why if you believe that the common law and current statutes are not effective, do you believe the situation you desire cannot be acheived through new legislation?

here's a scenario for you. lets say a person enters your house invited, say a stranger from a nightclub that no one can connect you to (or so you think) and for whatever reason you argue, and you inadvertently punch the person (or kill them) when they had done nothing to require that particular force, In a panic, you make the false claim that they broke in and were threatening you, thus the reason for your actions.

or a psycho invites a person into their home with nefarious intentions, the person realizes this and tries to escape, but is stopped, perhaps killed, and the home owner than claims "but they broke in and threatened me!"

The reason why the burdeon of proof is on the accusor (in most cases) is to protect every one of us from false claims.

Just because someone says a person is guilty, does not make it so, and I don't believe that the removal of our right to presumed innocence will be an effective method of management as it is clearly open to abuse. and once the right is removed in one area and we become accustomed to the idea, how long before the maxim is completely reversed?

It's the Gov that brings about criminal cases, can you imagine the implications if the onus of proof were reversed? some of the things a dodgy governemnt could get away with? That the gov accuses you of a crime and you have to prove innocence?

Ya wanna protect us from atrocities such as those created by Hitler, but reversing the onus of proof has the potential to acheive the opposite.

[*crikey*mate*]

geez. organizations such as the Mafia and black marketeeers and other baddies would have a field day with the reversal of onus of proof.

[carls*world]

A bill of rights would be just as useless as the Constitution we already have.
Ignored completely by those in "power" of the Corporation of the Commonwealth of Australia. We already have a stream of unconstitutional laws that we happily abide by, thinking they are in place for our own good, both state and federal.
Just a quick, simple example off the top of my head in the 2 minutes I have before I have to go to work:

Traffic infringement notices. Guilty until you can prove your innocence, which is near impossible when it's your word against a sworn officer's. And now in SA, if you do take it to court, and somehow win, you are still liable for both sides' costs. Someone quoted me the section in our constitution covering that, but sorry, no time to look it up now. A bill of rights would be ignored in just the same way.

[carls*world]

Oh, and just try quoting constitutional rights in a court, and you just get told to shut up and stop rambling nonsense, do as they say or get locked up for contempt, after being tasered of course.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I still fail to see why we need a Bill of Rights to address this?

exactly what right are you after and how would this be worded to exclude ambiguity and exploitation?

Why if you believe that the common law and current statutes are not effective, do you believe the situation you desire cannot be acheived through new legislation?

here's a scenario for you. lets say a person enters your house invited, say a stranger from a nightclub that no one can connect you to (or so you think) and for whatever reason you argue, and you inadvertently punch the person (or kill them) when they had done nothing to require that particular force, In a panic, you make the false claim that they broke in and were threatening you, thus the reason for your actions.

or a psycho invites a person into their home with nefarious intentions, the person realizes this and tries to escape, but is stopped, perhaps killed, and the home owner than claims "but they broke in and threatened me!"

The reason why the burdeon of proof is on the accusor (in most cases) is to protect every one of us from false claims.

Just because someone says a person is guilty, does not make it so, and I don't believe that the removal of our right to presumed innocence will be an effective method of management as it is clearly open to abuse. and once the right is removed in one area and we become accustomed to the idea, how long before the maxim is completely reversed?

It's the Gov that brings about criminal cases, can you imagine the implications if the onus of proof were reversed? some of the things a dodgy governemnt could get away with? That the gov accuses you of a crime and you have to prove innocence?

Ya wanna protect us from atrocities such as those created by Hitler, but reversing the onus of proof has the potential to acheive the opposite.

---

The reason we need a Bill of Rights, is because if we don't, the police will process you as a normal criminal. They will file charges against you and then it is up to you to fund the defense through a lawyer. This can cost over $100k if it ends up in the Supreme Court. QC's aren't cheap. You may be found innocent or guilty but the COST of the defense, guess what happens with that? BAD LUCK.... even IF you are innocent it is bad luck you must wear the cost!  That's Australian law for you. There is no refund if you are innocent! This is how they treat victims of crime in Australia.

As for the examples you give about someone inviting someone to your home and then making a false claim to police. Well that's why before going to a strangers house, log it on your smartphone, send someone a text / facebook / twitter. BS claims can be sorted later.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I still fail to see why we need a Bill of Rights to address this?

exactly what right are you after and,

how would this be worded to exclude ambiguity and exploitation?

Why if you believe that the common law and current statutes are not effective, do you believe the situation you desire cannot be acheived through new legislation?

---

[ufo_investigations]

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

---

@diamond-halo wrote:

I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I still fail to see why we need a Bill of Rights to address this?

exactly what right are you after and,

how would this be worded to exclude ambiguity and exploitation?

Why if you believe that the common law and current statutes are not effective, do you believe the situation you desire cannot be acheived through new legislation?

---

---

Other jurisdictions worldwide haven't had a problem wording the rights of home owners. All we have to do is study the wording they have in other countries and adopt it here.

We should be allowed to protect ourselves and our property without getting arrested and charged with a crime.

[silverfaun]

This argument is more like a special bill of rights for criminals and their rights.