avocadia . # . 1/1

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.