Yes!! Australia moving towards Bill of Rights

[nofear]

It's a step in the right direction. Problem is, I have little faith in my fellow Aussies deciding what MY rights should be. :(

Interesting times ahead.

http://news.smh.com.au/national/australia-moving-towards-bill-of-rights-20081203-6px8.html

Australia moving towards Bill of Rights
December 3, 2008 - 5:47AM

Federal Labor MPs are backing plans for a public debate on a national Bill of Rights, but the idea is not supported by the coalition.

The federal government is set to begin a consultation process next week into what the document should look like, Fairfax says.

The charter would outline a set of rights and require the parliament to ensure legislation complied with them.

Labor backbencher Yvette D'Ath welcomed the push, saying some in the community had been asking for a Bill of Rights.

"I think there is merit to having some basic rights outlined in a Bill of Rights or the constitution," she told reporters on Wednesday.

It was a complex issue and the government would have to make sure any Bill of Rights was enforceable, she said.

Her position was supported by other Labor MPs, but not by the coalition.

Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock said democratically-elected parliaments were best-placed to protect human rights.

"Bills of Rights impose rigidities that are determined by unelected judicial officers in the main, rather than elected parliaments," he told reporters in Canberra.

"A lot of the commentary tends to come from those who often haven't tried their arm at trying to convince the Australian public that the views that they hold ought to be preferred."

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has warned that a national bill of rights would give too much authority to unelected judges and strip power from parliament.

Mr Turnbull said he had concerns about a Bill of Rights, saying they were often vaguely worded, offered a number of interpretations and would give courts too much power.

"The problem with generally-worded guarantees of human rights in constitutional documents is that they give extraordinary legislative power to the courts," Mr Turnbull told Macquarie Radio on Wednesday.

"Judges are not elected. The good thing about politicians is that if you don't like what they are doing you can boot them out, and they are accountable.

"The real question when you talk about a Bill of Rights is how much authority do you want to give to judiciary to make laws, versus the parliament."

Mr Turnbull was sceptical about the timing of the announcement, saying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may be trying to distract people from more pressing concerns.

"Kevin may come from Queensland, but his political style is very much Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees," he said.

"It's all about politics of mass distraction. They make an announcement, get a headline, then never follow up."

© 2008 AAP

[DurkaSixTwo]

Hmmmm...... very interesting!

[Carl Spackler]

So the abos get these rights as well?

[Wandera]

[quote=nofear;1074137]It's a step in the right direction. Problem is, I have little faith in my fellow Aussies deciding what MY rights should be. :(

Interesting times ahead.

I for one am absolutely terrified at the thought of the masses determining what "my" or "our" rights should be.

I think I agree with Mr Turnball, funny time to be introducing this. Mr Rudd seems to have "lots" of ideas. Hope he starts doing and acting on a few as opposed to just waffling on and on and on...

[nofear]

So the abos get these rights as well?

"These rights" have yet to be decided.

But yes, ALL Australians, regardless of their race or culture, would be potected under the same rights. I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny, but having worked with native Australians I found your post a little offensive.

Wandera, I really don't give a flying fat toss what the opposition say. In their what...16 years of being in charge, they did NOTHING to address our rights, and were responsible for our current ridiculous firearms laws.

As much as I hate politicians, and Labour especially, at least they're addressing the issue.

[Wandera]

Nofear,

My comment in relation to the opposition was more an observation on the debate and the need to actually action the process as opposed to just talking about it. I was not comparing either party or as may have been interpreted supporting the views of one party over the other.

It is easy to talk about a potential political issue but another thing entirely to follow through.

Our gun laws right or wrong are law. There is no way known that either party will change these in any significant way and certainly not to the extent that would allow easier access to weapons.

It will be interesting to see if the debate for a Bill of rights includes any significant change to the laws concerning personal right to bear arms.

Two interesting articles on the subject.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/might-a-right-but-lets-not-bill-the-rest/2008/12/08/1228584738166.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/richard-ackland/charter-foes-tilting-at-scary-straw-monsters/2008/12/04/1228257224294.html

[Carl Spackler]

"These rights" have yet to be decided.

But yes, ALL Australians, regardless of their race or culture, would be potected under the same rights. I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny, but having worked with native Australians I found your post a little offensive.



Don't be offended I wasn't in the lest bit trying to be "funny". Native peoples seem to always get the "last in line" treatment which I find offensive but part of life. Still goes on in good ole USA too. Since I am in that group...my skin is very thick.

[nofear]

Our gun laws right or wrong are law. There is no way known that either party will change these in any significant way and certainly not to the extent that would allow easier access to weapons.

It will be interesting to see if the debate for a Bill of rights includes any significant change to the laws concerning personal right to bear arms.

Knowing our warm 'n' fuzzy limp-wristed head-in-the-sand society, I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that the subject wwon't even be brought up.

I do not expect any discussion on "the right to bear arms". What I am holding my breath for, is to see if there will be any discussion on the right to protect oneself, or oven to defend yourself.

Current laws make carrying / possessing anything, and I mean ANYTHING, for the purpose of "self-defence", a crime. If self-defence is outlined as a specific right, then this may change, which will create significant issues, both good and bad.

DDSSDV, fair enough. Believe it or not, minority groups, including our "natives" will most probbaly have more rights than those of us not in a minority. Just today there was a media article on laws being changed so it will become legal to discriminate AGAINST caucasian males......

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-2862,00.html

"Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged"

Susie O'Brien

December 09, 2008 12:00am

DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.

Such positive discrimination -- treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups - is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.

Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had "been the big success story in business and goods and services".

"Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised," she said.

"Let's open it up so everyone can have a fair go."

Victoria's peak business body expressed concern yesterday about the need for the proposed laws, and questioned if they would undermine the right of companies to make legitimate business decisions.

At present, individuals or bodies wanting to single out any race or gender for special treatment must gain an exemption from VCAT.

Companies and public bodies accused of discrimination can only be held to account after a complaint has been made.

But the proposed changes go much further, allowing the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed.

Businesses and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint had not been received.

Action could be taken where an unlawful act was "likely to occur", not just in cases where discrimination has taken place.

The commission would also have real teeth to enforce its rulings via VCAT and, as a last resort, in the courts.

The changes, shown in a Department of Justice report by former public advocate Julian Gardner, would also:

EDUCATE people so they know their rights.

GIVE more protection to people with disabilities, requiring companies and public entities to reasonably accommodate their needs.

GRANT the homeless and people who act as volunteers better protection from discrimination.

Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace general manager David Gregory said business supported the objectives of equal opportunity legislation.

"But I am concerned and curious about whether these changes mean the commission can second-guess the legitimate business decisions of individual businesses," he said.

The first raft of changes to the Equal Opportunity Act were introduced into Parliament last week.

[Starlight]

"Action could be taken where an unlawful act was "likely to occur"..."

Rob Hulls, Future Crimes Directorate...

[Old_Starlight]

Holy Flying F%^K Batman!!!!

OK, I am buying an Island and putting a big sign up that says "Trespassers will be shot! Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN"

Then let someone come in and tell me I can be charged where an "unlawful act is likely to occur" :rolleyes:

Cheers,

AJ

[Sierra290]

....
DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.

Thought this already happened :confused:

The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.

WTF, what rights, I thought they were null and void once you had a criminal record :mad:. And given that you can get up to four strikes with drug possession before the judge will actually record a conviction, how is this going to work. Surely, the skill shortage isnt that bad... "Oh that's alright, Mr Drug Dealer, can you work here because we dont sell illegal drugs" :eek:

Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had "been the big success story in business and goods and services". Thanks for that Ms SZOKE...

"Let's open it up so everyone can have a fair go." last time I checked this WAS the case.

Action could be taken where an unlawful act was "likely to occur", not just in cases where discrimination has taken place. Holy fuck, can someone please write that into the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act so I can use it to much better effect.

WTF is going on....

[Starlight]

Holy fuck, can someone please write that into the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act so I can use it to much better effect.



Only works if you are Tom Cruise... :rolleyes:

[nofear]

WTF is going on....

A lot more people should be asking that question too.....

[Sierra290]

Only works if you are Tom Cruise... :rolleyes:

Far too tall to ever be mistaken for the ole couch jumper :D

A lot more people should be asking that question too.....

I've got to say I ask the question at least once a day, some times more... :eek:
I'm also fairly sure that most people who voted for Mr RUDD were not expecting this sort of legislation to be introduced.

[nofear]

Most people who voted for him probably didn't expect them to screw up our economy so bad either.

What was it...one month our economy had to be "slowed down", (AFTER the US economy started to get shaky), and the next month everyone is panicing because our economy had to get a "kick-start"?

Politicians - What a pack of absolute fucking head-in-the-sand selfish morons!!

[Old_Starlight]

Most people who voted for him probably didn't expect them to screw up our economy so bad either.

What was it...one month our economy had to be "slowed down", (AFTER the US economy started to get shaky), and the next month everyone is panicing because our economy had to get a "kick-start"?

Politicians - What a pack of absolute fucking head-in-the-sand selfish morons!!

Mate, we've known each for a wee while now and I keep telling you...let it out mate...stop bottling it and saywhat you really think else you will end up with ulcers! :p

Another Health Warning from your friendly Starlight....stop watching what Pollies do because they will also cause ulcers:rolleyes:

Cheers,

AJ

[nofear]

Mate, we've known each for a wee while now and I keep telling you...let it out mate...stop bottling it and saywhat you really think else you will end up with ulcers! :p

I found that punching the monitor doesn't adequately articulate my emotions. :biggrin: