avocadia: Some notes:

Section 1
1) In other words, no Guantanamo, no chargeless detentions in naval brigs.
3) It was an interesting choice I had. I didn\'t feel comfortable with my first impulse, that I have the right to rebellion when legislation violates my rights; I prefer the rule of law to than of man, and rebellion amounts to the latter. But immediate legal redress for all complaints would clog the legal system and bring the rule of law to a grinding halt. So, as per a suggestion by Cam and technically as per the Constituition - assuming the Rights become part of the Constitution as I believe they must - the G-G becomes the protector of my Rights, and the courts are the abitrators.
5) This pre-supposes that local government will *ever* be mentioned in the constitution :- ) But basically the US Tenth Amendment
6) A rough approximation of the US Ninth Amendment. Needs work.

Section 2
3) No Extraordinary Rendition
Section 4
No Defence of Marriage Acts

Section 7
5) No US vs Stewart s
6) I don\'t know why I included the exception for military cases. I\'m not too sure of it, actually. I could be convinced either way with a good argument.

Section 9
1) I don\'t believe criminals should lose the right to vote.
3) This needs to be re-phrased. It\'s intention was to give Australians outside of Australia representation that isn\'t the member of the last electorate they lived in. That is, the Representative of the Diaspora that Imagining Australia discussed.

cam: Given what happened in Iraq recently: It probably needs to be added, that in a democracy you have the right to a secret ballot where the ballot sheets are all uniform.

I have a much longer comment brewing which I will post when I finish it.

cam

cam: Double Jeopardy: Language for protection against being tried for the same offence more than once probably should be added.

cam

cam: Section 1.5:

Any power not specifically granted to the Federal government or the States or local government may not be claimed by the Federal government or the States or local government.

That shouldnt be in rights, that is constitutional language for the process of government. That should be in the federal constitution.

cam

cam: Doh ignore parent: Didnt read that one. It is already included.

cam

cam: Rights refereeing: Great post avocadia. This is right in line with the tradition of Pemulwey and Lingiari of stamping your foot in the ground and claiming your rights and liberties. Previously I had thought that the Australian Constitution should be composed of two parts, a meta-tution and constitution. Where the metatution was an enunciation of defensible rights (limits on government action/legislation) and the constitution component was the process of government in explicit language.

The problem is having a defensible enunciation of rights doesn\'t necessarily protect the individual from both legislation and execution of laws. The Prime Minister, as overseer and executor of laws, can jump outside legislation to contravene an individuals rights. The Governor-General can protect us from legislation being passed that contravenes our rights, but the judicial has to stop the Executive Cabinet from executing laws/actions/tyranny.

Consequently I think the metatution needs to be in two parts, one a deceleration of rights, liberties and individual sovereignty. Which is what you have written in your posts on an Australian Bill of Rights. Rather than language on the limits of government (as the US Bill of Rights is), it is a deceleration of your rights as an individual. I think this deceleration is easier for the Judicial to defend. Consequently it should be included in a metatution.

The legislative side though will need more US Bill of Rights like explicit language for the Governor-General to be able to defend our rights with the veto. So here is a go at that part of it, using avocadia\'s enunciation of rights. The constitutional legislation is in blockquotes;

Definitions;

Elector - A citizen of Australia, or an individual within the jurisdiction of Australia who is above the age of majority.

Individual - An citizen of Australia, or an individual within the jurisdiction of Australia, or if I am an individual held by, or in the charge of any individual, group or organisation that is a citizen of Australia, incorporated within Australia, trades within Australia, or is commanded by the Australian government.

Secret Ballot - An election held where all ballot sheets are uniform in shape, colour, size and printing; and where the elector\'s ballot is anonymous.

Limits on Government Authority

Parliament shall make no law; the Governor-General shall pass no law; that,

1. Freedom
   1. deprives an individual of life.
   2. limits or deprives an individuals freedom to express their beliefs, opinions or lifestyle.
   3. limits or deprives an individuals freedom of movement.
   4. limits or deprives an individuals freedom of association.
   5. limits or deprives an individuals freedom to peacefully assemble with other individuals.
2. Liberty
   1. detains an individual indefinitely without charge for a specific crime.
   2. limits or removes an individuals right to have counsel with them upon arrest or questioning.
   3. limits or removes an individuals right to a writ of habeous corpus upon detention.
   4. back-dates punitive measures for an offence.
   5. permits an individual to be detained for long than six months without trial or resolution.
   6. enabling an individual to be tried for an offence more than once.
   7. limits or removes an individuals right to refuse law enforcement access to their property, or permission to search their person and property, unless there is a warrant issued to search specific property for evidence of a specific crime.
   8. limits, reduces or removes an individuals right to own property.
   9. deprives the individual of property, or devalues an individuals property without fair exchange or consent.
3. Equity
   1. discriminates against an individual on the basis of race, age, gender, sexual preference, wealth, health, religion, associations or prior criminal record.
   2. limits or removes equal treatment under the law for an individual on the basis of race, age, gender, sexual preference, wealth, health, religion, associations or prior criminal record.
   3. limits or removes access to government services for an individual on the basis of race, age, gender, sexual preference, wealth, health, religion, associations or prior criminal record.
   4. limits or removes an individuals choice to divulge no information other than their identity, verbally, when under suspicion from law enforcement for a specific crime.
4. Democracy
   1. disenfranchises an Elector.
   2. denies an Elector representation.
   3. denies an Elector the ability to run for election.
   4. reduces or removes an individual the ability to petition their representative for a redress of grievances.
   5. abolishes the Secret Ballot.
   6. increases the period between elections beyond eight years.
   7. criminalises, or outlaws a political party.
   8. removes access to the Public Service for parties with elected parliamentary members.
   9. limits or deprives an individuals right to peacefully protest.

The not denying an elector the right to run for election is deliberate. With the definition of elector (not just Australian citizens), this would allow those that are completely disenfranchised - and without a means to have their grievances redressed - to have their issue focused upon in an election. I would love to see Peter Qasim run for government and get 5% of the vote. It might even prompt the Government into action.

I also split them up into Freedom, Liberty, Equity; in that order. I think those words have to become omnipresent in government so they seep into Australian culture and politics as the basis for our polity. Fraternity is the other word that has to become omnipresent, but it didn\'t fit in this context.

6.1 \"I have the right not to be unlawfully detained.\" poses a problem for having the GG defend it. It is about execution, rather than a law defining who/what/where it can be executed. The GG as a rights referee can only defend from legislative tyranny, not execution/action of the PM/Cabinet acting in such a manner. That becomes the domain of the Judicial then.

cam

avocadia: I believe it should be...: ...as by denying powers to the government bodies, it  de facto leaves the powers in the hands of the people. It protects the rights of the people to those powers.

avocadia: GG as rights defender:

If 6.1 is being broken by action, rather than legislation, than by definition it is the executive doing the breaking, no? Whoever it is doing the detention, ultimately they are under the authority of an executive, whether at the state or federal level. So if the police/military/whomever are doing it at the command of the executive (premier+cabinet or PM+cabinet) then the "executive act" language of 1.3 should cover it.

My rights are inviolable. No legislative or executive act - by Federal, State or local government - may remove my rights. I have the right to apply to the Govenor General for review of any law that contravenes my rights. If I am being prosecuted, detained or otherwise subject to Government action due to a law that contravenes my right, review must be immediate.

If they are doing it at their own behest then we\'re having a coup and all of the above is just words on paper until the coup is put down.

And if the PM+Cabinet (or a Premier with the tolerance of the Federal government) are ignoring the GG, or the judiciary, when they override unconstitutional action/legislation then all bets are off, mandate is dissolved, and rebellion is in play, AFAIAC.

Felix the Cassowary: Secret ballots: I\'m a bit late, but perhaps there\'s some system somewhere that emails you when people reply.

Your entrenchment of the secret ballot in the manner described is anathema to good government. The secret ballot is a good idea; but it should not be uniform in printing. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Robson Rotation, but essentially ballot papers used in the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the ACT Legislative Assembly are printed in batches where each batch has a different ordering of candidates.

This provides two advantages. Firstly, it limits the effect of donkey voting. This is rather trivial.

Secondly, it causes candidates, rather than parties, to compete. If you want to vote for the Cassowary\'s Party for Infinite Justice, which has four members, and all ballots are the same, then it\'s obvious the first candidate would get in, regardless of the fact that Tom over here wants to vote specifically for Felix. OTOH, if you want to vote for the Cassowary\'s Party for Infinite Justice, and Tom wants to vote for the CPIJ and specifically Felix, then that noticeably increases Felix\'s vote, pleasing you both. Hence, the voters, rather than the parties, choose who gets voted in.

(Vote 1 the Cassowary\'s Party for Infinite Justice. This message authorised by Felix the Cassowary, 2919 Short St, Anytown, Anystate.)

cam: Good point about the Robson Rotation: Tasmania has the most innovative electoral system in Australia at the moment. The Secret Ballot definition shouldnt require that the printing be uniform. Maybe if it has an exclusionary clause for the robson rotation.

The secret ballot in there is mainly to protect against how despots like Hussein held elections where he had a ballot of one colour and his opponent a ballot of another colour. Easy for the thugs to spot who was not voting for Hussein. Which is electoral intimidation.

As to finding new comments, there is a box on the front page in the right hand side menu which has new comments. There is also a comments rss feed, so those that subscribe to it will find new comments that way too.

cam