Paring rights down to primitives is bad drafting. All you're doing is inviting an endless replay of the abortion debate in the US where Roe v Wade grounded a derived right of privacy in several other provisions of the US constitution. It is better to state rights up front and not have silly claims about judicial activism.
Paring rights down to primitives is also undemocratic. You're asking people to consent to a charter of rights whose contents you'd make essentially unknowable. You might even then get critics of your bill arguing that primitive rights justify the courts finding wonderfully ridiculous derived rights based on 'We don't like it'.
You're welcome to characterise my post as ridiculous. Just don't expect not to have the weaknesses in your own argument treated with similar discourtesy. Some may be surprised, for example. to find the only enforcement mechanism in a bill of rights is appeal to the goernor-general, rather than a court.
I don't remember actually calling it ridiculous. I don't even recall thinking so.
For your last point, I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a bill of rights would act as a set of laws and thus be relevant in a court of law. I added the appeal to the GG as an after thought, really, an extra route of appeal that would was intended to be speedier than a court, the wheels of which occasionally grind exceedingly slowly. IIRC, cam and I had been talking around the idea of the prime role of the GG being the defender of the Consitution and - by extension - the bill of rights, so I threw that explicit right in as well, leaving the right of the court to rule on law implicit.
You are right of course in correctly pointing out that too primitive a level of rights expressed suffer exactly the same undemocratic and poorly thought out basis as a single nebulous right to dignity.
Comments