Not sure why we should be listening to a Cardinal on the issue of a Bill of Rights, especially when their specialisation is religion, not politics or constitutionalism, however Cardinal Pell decided to weigh in on the subject recently.

Gary Sauer-Thompson discussed Pell's framing it within the culture wars, while Graham Young discusses Pell's speech as being intellectually slight and looks at differences between constitutional and statutory rights.

As I have commented before, a Bill of Rights is exclusionary. It stops the executive and legislative from intruding into liberties that are outside the domain of governance. It is particularly ironic in Pell's case as freedom of religion is one of the few entrenched constitutional rights in Australia.

Pell's fictions are exceptionally weak as well and are more stereotypes and talking points than a constitutionally or statutorially sound argument. Pell's argument is not really worth taking on other than for the reason that a Bill or Rights is an important component of limited republican government and constitutional liberalism.

This style of misrepresentation of rights is common in Australian conservative discourse; the bill of rights tag on SSR overflows with rebuttals;

I am firmly in the camp of a constitution being incomplete without a bill of rights which excludes government from any power of governance in certain areas and liberties. These remain solely within the powers of individual self-governance and where the judicial is appealed to in order to ensure that the executive and legislative do not intrude - not even slightly.

More

Avocadia has written a Bill of Rights within the Australian context. This was integrated into at least one constitution during the Constitution Fun Challenge. Avo's Bill of Rights was also used in the Gubernatorial Constitution for NSW and the Gubernatorial Sortitionist Constitution.

To make it abundantly clear the areas that the bill of rights excludes government from meddling in the Gubernatorial constitution contains:

The Executive shall execute no law; the Legislative shall make no law; and the Judicature shall endorse no law; that: ...

These become areas explicitly outside of executive and legislative governance.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • adam . # . 2/2
    I thought you welcomed the role of non-specialists in publicly analysing the role of government?
    Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
    • cam . # . 2/2
      The irony is that I wouldnt trust the opinion of anyone in the executive or legislative (specialists) on the issue either. Too much self-interest involved from political specialists.
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
  • The Church has been on the wrong side of this argument, like, forever. If 1215 was the start of this notion in the West that state power is limited, the Church was against it from the beginning, siding with John against the Barons. They had to be fought off like rabid mutts from the idea that state power derives from God - with them as the middle man of course - and they had to be fought off again from the idea that they hold a mortgage on the minds and souls of humanity. Their central conceit is the antithesis that the governed are the source of power.

    A bill of rights is a slap in the face for the Church - any religion, really - and lending them any credence that their arguments in the matter are made in anything but bad faith is foolish. They are the fox in the henhouse.

    We in the West eventually stepped on the throat of religion, told it it was a very bad dog indeed, and left it only those vestiges of authority it could con out of the believers. We kicked them out of the government equation. We should be helping everyone else in the world do the same rather than listening to bad actors like George Pell. Far from irony, Cam, I suspect Pell would be quite happy indeed to scrap freedom of religion if he felt he could get away with it.
    • "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

      We may have officially abolished the church as the second estate, (well, less so in Britain), but the Church is far from out of the "government equation".

      There are the subtle things. Faithful politicians pandering to churches at election time. Parliaments adopting faith based stances of things like stem cell research, euthanasia, RU486...

      Then there's the tax breaks.

      But the real role the Church is adopting in the modern government equation is that of subcontractor. Think government funding to religious schools, religious charities bidding for all and sundry government contracts, and in doing so profiting by taking on the role of the state in welfare and education.
      • Felix the Cassowary . # .
        Why am I unable to comment?
        • Felix the Cassowary . # . 1/1
          Do forms here expire? That's really really nasty, especially when there's no explanation given.
      • Felix the Cassowary . # . 1/1
        Just to be contrary and difficult, I don't understand why people complain that politicians listen to churches as if that is somehow an ethical challenge. Politicians are free to listen to groups of workers and employers, and weigh their opinions in parliament when making law. Politicians are free to listen to groups of scientists and those who follow them, and weigh their opinions in parliament when making law. Politicians are free to listen to groups of people who have certain hobbies and socialise in common.

        Why can't they listen to religious people? They do comprise a significant proportion of our population, after all. Is it just because you don't agree with them? That's only a good reason not to vote for them, not to wish for them to be disenfranchised.

        And especially in the case of Tony Abbot and other "faithful" politicians, would you prefer them to be dishonest? If their opinions cause you offense, don't vote for them. But don't ask them to lie.
        • Felix the Cassowary . # . 1/1
          I suppose my point, much more concisely, is that any polity that excludes people and opinions on the basis of religion is fundamentally unfree. I would prefer to live in a country with freedom of religion for everyone, including politicians and voters and lobbiests, than one which denies people political involvement just because they believe certain shared myths.