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 Entrenched is better because it can't easily be repealed at will without a referendum.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

according to the rule of law, we all have the same rights

[i-need-a-martini]

So really, it isn't a Bill of Rights that you want. 

You simply want a law that specifically grants you immunity when you murder someone you think is trespassing on your property.

[silverfaun]

I wasn't game to say that,  for voicing what this is really about.

No Bill Of Rights will protect you from violence and death.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

So really, it isn't a Bill of Rights that you want. 

You simply want a law that specifically grants you immunity when you murder someone you think is trespassing on your property.

---

You said that not me.

If someone enters armed and ready to cause bodily harm. Self defense should be allowed without being arrested and charged.

We are probably the only country in the world where you get arrested and charged for self defense. Ask any American what they think of this they will laugh at our law.

[i-need-a-martini]

No actually you said, not me.

I just simply spelled it out clearer cause no-one else was prepared to address the ridiculous notion that we should all be ready to defend ourselves against imaginary intruders just lurking waiting to ambush us for some inexplicable reason other than our own overactive mental perceptions.

And I think you will find that the majority of Americans would not laugh at us. The would envy us our sensibilities. A small (lunatic fringe) minority would laugh at us. But who cares? Not me. And I suspect 90% of Australians wouldn't care either.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

No actually you said, not me.

I just simply spelled it out clearer cause no-one else was prepared to address the ridiculous notion that we should all be ready to defend ourselves against imaginary intruders just lurking waiting to ambush us for some inexplicable reason other than our own overactive mental perceptions.

And I think you will find that the majority of Americans would not laugh at us. The would envy us our sensibilities. A small (lunatic fringe) minority would laugh at us. But who cares? Not me. And I suspect 90% of Australians wouldn't care either.

---

A few years ago we were victims of a break-in, in the early hours of the morning some thug kicked in the back door and broke in. My family was sleeping and I wasn't there, luckily he only stole money and some goods and ran off. He did not harm anyone but he could have been a crazed drug fuelled maniac and could have hurt my family.  Police were called and investigated but the crook was never caught. The intent in this case seems to have been theft I think but it could have been a lot worse especially if my father got up and the thug hit him, he was an old man and would not have been able to do much.

It is not right to remove rights just because there is a possibility of people abusing them. That's wrong. It is a fundamental right to protect yourself without fear of being arrested and charged in your own home. I'm sorry but I don't agree with your assertion that it can be abused. Your home is your castle as far as I'm concerned.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

No actually you said, not me.

I just simply spelled it out clearer cause no-one else was prepared to address the ridiculous notion that we should all be ready to defend ourselves against imaginary intruders just lurking waiting to ambush us for some inexplicable reason other than our own overactive mental perceptions.

And I think you will find that the majority of Americans would not laugh at us. The would envy us our sensibilities. A small (lunatic fringe) minority would laugh at us. But who cares? Not me. And I suspect 90% of Australians wouldn't care either.

---

A few years ago we were victims of a break-in, in the early hours of the morning some thug kicked in the back door and broke in. My family was sleeping and I wasn't there, luckily he only stole money and some goods and ran off. He did not harm anyone but he could have been a crazed drug fuelled maniac and could have hurt my family.  Police were called and investigated but the crook was never caught. The intent in this case seems to have been theft I think but it could have been a lot worse especially if my father got up and the thug hit him, he was an old man and would not have been able to do much.

I'm sorry top hear that this happened to your family, ours too when I was a child, and also to my elderly inlaws not so long ago.

May I ask how a Bill of Rights may have protected your father from harm? or How it would have protected my inlaws from harm?

It is not right to remove rights just because there is a possibility of people abusing them. That's wrong. It is a fundamental right to protect yourself without fear of being arrested and charged in your own home. I'm sorry but I don't agree with your assertion that it can be abused. Your home is your castle as far as I'm concerned.

---

Ok, I've read the USA Bill of Rights (I'm kind of curious if you have and also what they actually are and how they have been interpreted..and also if you are aware of how, when and why both it and the Charter surround9iong Canada were created

USA

You cannot harm a man in your house, claim self defence and not face court to have your guilt or innocence ascertained.

The assumption of innocence is NOT reversed, the onus of proof is still on the prosecution

The only thing different there is that they have the right to an atterny provided for by the taxpayer if they can't afford one.

I also read the Canadian Bill of Rights (basically superseded in all but officialdom by the Canadian Charter,) and the Canadian Charter. I thought this one more relevant to us as it operates undeer the saME legal system as ours does

It also provides the presumption of innocence to everyone and does not reverse the onus of proof.

Both, without much research have extensive information pertaining to reasonable force anmd how the courts treat it.

......................................

In neither of these two documents or their explanatory materials did I find evidence to support your claim of a right to protect yourself without fear of being arrested and charged in your own home.

I can find the right for self defence, that does exist, but the act of self defence does not prevent you from being arrested or charged and nor does the onus of proof reverse.

Can you show me ANY Bill of Rights which provides the Express Right for self defence in your own home without fear of arrest and charge?

Or maybe even just a law will do, from any country, I'm not particularly fussy.

....................................................

In the Canadian Charter ( necessary only to rectify the inadequacies of The Bill of Rights), I saw nothing there that is not already contained within and protected by our laws and system of government and separation of powers.

.............................

*shrugs*

You told me to look at what other countries were doing and how they w9ordeed stuff

I did

No different to what is already provided for.

...........................................

I also note that Labor did propose a Bill of Rights prior to the last election. Considering their precarious position at the time, if the BoR was such a great thing, then why didn't they run with that as an election platform? Instead, they ignored their advisors and put it on hold.

[i-need-a-martini]

I think that ufo thinks that having a law along the lines of Amendement 2 of the U.S. Bill of Rights that specifically says that the' right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement' is what he thinks will protect him and his family.

Of course that is laughable because it is illogical. And the example he uses is a classic no brainer.

House gets broken into in the middle of the night with the intention of robbery only. Dottery old man wakes up, rustles about for his gun. But by the time he manages to get it and get's ready to fire, the (more sprightly) intruders have already overpowered old man. They seize gun and shoot him dead. When they realise there are others in the house, they panic, and shoot dead all occupants. After killing an entire family, they run off with gun and dispose of it. Now we have one dead family and another illegal gun wherabouts unknown.

Robbery now equals multiple deaths. 

Yeah makes sense. NOT!

[ufo_investigations]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I think that ufo thinks that having a law along the lines of Amendement 2 of the U.S. Bill of Rights that specifically says that the' right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement' is what he thinks will protect him and his family.

Of course that is laughable because it is illogical. And the example he uses is a classic no brainer.

House gets broken into in the middle of the night with the intention of robbery only. Dottery old man wakes up, rustles about for his gun. But by the time he manages to get it and get's ready to fire, the (more sprightly) intruders have already overpowered old man. They seize gun and shoot him dead. When they realise there are others in the house, they panic, and shoot dead all occupants. After killing an entire family, they run off with gun and dispose of it. Now we have one dead family and another illegal gun wherabouts unknown.

Robbery now equals multiple deaths. 

Yeah makes sense. NOT!

---

Have a read of this:

http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1152-firearms

I don't agree with all of LDP's policies but I agree with this one. I don't believe it is illogical.

A criminal is not going to go and get a licence for a gun. They will get them no matter what. You only have to look at some recent police raids and you will see how many firearms were confiscated including AK47s which is basically a machine gun.

Restricting access to genuine law-abiding citizens simply because it can be abused is wrong.

[*crikey*mate*]

remember the days when "dad kep[t a shotgun under the bed"?

Imaguine if the teenaged daughter's boyfriend trieed to sneak into her room one night and in all the confusion of the late night and strange nopises dad believes he has an intuder and wso can then shoot this kid withour fear of p[errsecution?

The fear of persecution is left, even in the US Bill, they still can be arrested and charged for exercising their right and have to go to court and the prosecution still has to prove that the force they used was necessary.

One reason I can think of for this is the definitiion of a home. and relevant property laws surrounding ownership, possession and title.

If you own the house, but have allowed somebody else to occupy it, do you, as the owner have the right to shoot an intruder in the house?

What if it is an overnight hotel accommodation or a trailerp[ark?

a campsite

What if your home is a park bench?

With consideration of our First People's traditional nomadic existence, what if they are attacked or intruded upon whilst on walk a bout?

Pretty soon, with a system of no accountability, there's a pretty long line of people allowed to kill in the name of self defence with immunity