A Bill of (so-called) Rights would be a spectacularly BAD idea for Australia, just as it would be for the UK.
I hate to agree with Ruddock, but... there you go.
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
how could you?!
no, i agree. a bill of rights would create a set of abstract "just" standards that would reflect the arrangements of powerful stakeholders.
However, in an age of media spectacle, i'm not so sure about the following from Ruddock either...
"In a proper democracy, it should be the people's elected representatives, not an unelected elite, who make these kinds of social and economic decisions."
don't be too quick to agree with Ruddock a bill of rights is not the solution to protecting international rights but neither is a government that does everything it can to avoid judicial review, attempts to excise parts of Australia from the jurisdiction of Australian law, and justifies the stripping away of habeus corpus and other rights because of terrorists and people smugglers. As for Australia having a wonderful constitution that is the envy of democracies and free thinking people everywhere... it is a cobbled together document largely written on a yacht in the Whitsundays one long weekend. THe big concerns it expresses are about state rights, customs and excise duties. It has helpfully evolved through judicial interpretation - the very thing Ruddock is so often speaking against This will only become a more important issue as the Commonwealth makes noises about taking over state responsibilites
I love cobbled together stuff. I love that the Queen of England is the Queen of Australia too.
"Can we fix it?"
"No we can't!"
And that's the way I want it. Lots of little powerbrokers, all with the power to stop other people from doing what they want to, without the power to do anything themselves.
I love having no romanticism about our constitution! The Americans practically idolise theirs... and look what problems it causes.
In Canada, the opposite situation pertains (I believe): the judiciary can quash the decisions of the parliament and frequently have. A bill of rights (such as they have) would enshrine an ideology in Australian law and politics which would be (I have no doubt) inimical to Christian proclamation.
It's the idea of 'rights' that I have trouble with, too. Rights keep spreading...
What about a 'bill of duties'? 'We, the Australian people, undertake to...'
8 comments:
how could you?!
no, i agree. a bill of rights would create a set of abstract "just" standards that would reflect the arrangements of powerful stakeholders.
However, in an age of media spectacle, i'm not so sure about the following from Ruddock either...
"In a proper democracy, it should be the people's elected representatives, not an unelected elite, who make these kinds of social and economic decisions."
Really?
I agree with remylow. In fact, it was when I got to that sentence that I looked and saw that the article was written by Ruddock.
don't be too quick to agree with Ruddock
a bill of rights is not the solution to protecting international rights but neither is a government that does everything it can to avoid judicial review, attempts to excise parts of Australia from the jurisdiction of Australian law, and justifies the stripping away of habeus corpus and other rights because of terrorists and people smugglers.
As for Australia having a wonderful constitution that is the envy of democracies and free thinking people everywhere... it is a cobbled together document largely written on a yacht in the Whitsundays one long weekend. THe big concerns it expresses are about state rights, customs and excise duties. It has helpfully evolved through judicial interpretation - the very thing Ruddock is so often speaking against
This will only become a more important issue as the Commonwealth makes noises about taking over state responsibilites
Ruddock is a Christian. Do you "hate to agree with him" on that too?
Mike K,
I love cobbled together stuff. I love that the Queen of England is the Queen of Australia too.
"Can we fix it?"
"No we can't!"
And that's the way I want it. Lots of little powerbrokers, all with the power to stop other people from doing what they want to, without the power to do anything themselves.
I call it 'legislated helplessness'.
I love having no romanticism about our constitution! The Americans practically idolise theirs... and look what problems it causes.
In Canada, the opposite situation pertains (I believe): the judiciary can quash the decisions of the parliament and frequently have. A bill of rights (such as they have) would enshrine an ideology in Australian law and politics which would be (I have no doubt) inimical to Christian proclamation.
It's the idea of 'rights' that I have trouble with, too. Rights keep spreading...
What about a 'bill of duties'? 'We, the Australian people, undertake to...'
Agreeing with Ruddock is like agreeing with Gordo: sometimes you just have to grin and bear it.
I'd like to teach the world to grin! ;-)
Post a Comment