4 ms·

People like to wave a constitutional bill of rights (or lack of it) as an issue for Australia. Whilst that is true, our rights are just spread out within Austr

People like to wave a constitutional bill of rights (or lack of it) as an issue for Australia. Whilst that is true, our rights are just spread out within Australia's common law. This can actually be a good thing, as the laws are in theory easier to get changed for the times. Such as the right to bear arms[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU

cyphar 8y ago
I mention this in my comment, the problem is precisely that it is so easy to invalidate protections in common law -- a new law can easily invalidate an old freedom. And yes, "the right to bear arms" being restricted in Australia is an example where this was a net positive. But invalidating habeas corpus, privacy, and free speech are all things that have been done by our government in the past decade. The ability for fundamental rights to be invalidated that easily should be seen as a much bigger problem than people seem to view it as. I used to be in the "we don't need a constitutional bill of rights, we have common law protections" camp as well. But the slow march to remove many of our rights has drastically changed my viewpoint on this topic. [+]: And while it might be inflammatory, it is entirely correct to refer to detention centers as "concentration camps" because they concentrate a section of the population -- in this case possible asylum seekers -- into a single place.
dgzl 8y ago
American rights aren't presented as rights that the people explicitly have (other than right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness). Most Americans don't even realize that out Bill of Rights outlines implicit rights for citizens. That is, the laws say "government can make no law regarding this subject". This is important because if the government "gives you rights" then they're not actual rights, they're only temporary privileges that can be removed. No offense, but if the government of Australia is "giving" you your rights, then you don't actually have them.
- cyphar 8y ago
  This is a very strange argument, and is one that a lot of Americans seem to believe. Is this purely because of the wording of the 10th Amendment? The reason I ask is because there isn't (as far as I know) a legal distinction between being given a freedom and there being a restriction such that "Congress shall make no law abridging $some_freedom". To test this theory, consider if there was a new amendment that completely invalidated the bill of rights. Would you still have the same freedoms you have today? Of course not -- so therefore (regardless of the framing) the bill of rights gives you certain rights.

cyphar 8y ago

I mention this in my comment, the problem is precisely that it is so easy to invalidate protections in common law -- a new law can easily invalidate an old freedom. And yes, "the right to bear arms" being restricted in Australia is an example where this was a net positive. But invalidating habeas corpus, privacy, and free speech are all things that have been done by our government in the past decade. The ability for fundamental rights to be invalidated that easily should be seen as a much bigger problem than people seem to view it as. I used to be in the "we don't need a constitutional bill of rights, we have common law protections" camp as well. But the slow march to remove many of our rights has drastically changed my viewpoint on this topic. [+]: And while it might be inflammatory, it is entirely correct to refer to detention centers as "concentration camps" because they concentrate a section of the population -- in this case possible asylum seekers -- into a single place.

dgzl 8y ago

American rights aren't presented as rights that the people explicitly have (other than right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness). Most Americans don't even realize that out Bill of Rights outlines implicit rights for citizens. That is, the laws say "government can make no law regarding this subject". This is important because if the government "gives you rights" then they're not actual rights, they're only temporary privileges that can be removed. No offense, but if the government of Australia is "giving" you your rights, then you don't actually have them.

cyphar 8y ago
This is a very strange argument, and is one that a lot of Americans seem to believe. Is this purely because of the wording of the 10th Amendment? The reason I ask is because there isn't (as far as I know) a legal distinction between being given a freedom and there being a restriction such that "Congress shall make no law abridging $some_freedom". To test this theory, consider if there was a new amendment that completely invalidated the bill of rights. Would you still have the same freedoms you have today? Of course not -- so therefore (regardless of the framing) the bill of rights gives you certain rights.