Wibble. Wibble wibble wibble. <this is me imitating commentry on a Bill of Rights by the Right>
Piers Ackerman's editor wrote in the Daily Telegraph today:
ATTORNEY-General Bob Debus is working to erode the power of the state's elected representatives and give the un-elected judiciary the power to make the law.Daily Telegraph, 28/March/2006 The editor did us a favour, because now we don't need to actually read what Ackerman wrote. We already know it is profoundly flawed, chock-full of what can charitably be described as mendacious bullshit.
Such a charter would strengthen the hand of those who want to see a national bill of rights introduced, paving the way for the same litigation-rich culture as prevails in the US and providing ambulance-chasing lawyers with a huge bonanza.I'd love to read a breakdown on litigation by tort lawyers, paying particular attention to what percentage is based on the first ten amendments. I'm going to go out on a limb and make a rough, rough guess - not fucking many.
As environment minister six years ago, he was associated with a particularly questionable land-swap scheme in the Blue Mountains.Highly relevant as ever.
Any casual observer of the US or fans of such popular television series like Law and Order would be fully aware of the pandora's box opened by the US Bill of Rights.What can you say to that? What? What can you possibly say to a man who uses a television show as an discussion point in a debate. You can't; merely by bringing it up, Ackerman has reduced the whole argument to farce. Argue the point and you merely lend it a veneer seriousness. You just can't argue with this stuff. The whole premise is based on the idea that judges - unelected judges, no less - will suddenly be given the power to legislate, to create human rights out of whole cloth to smack down the legislative body and rule Australia like rough-trade-cruising, homosexual kings. Kings, I say!
Almost every dictatorial and authoritarian nation in the world boasts of a bill of rights because such codes can easily be thwarted.The mal-logic is just breathtaking. A bill of rights grants to the people liberty from interference from government. Piers tells us that governments are perfectly capable of policing themselves, we don't need (unelected) judges doing it. But rights bills unenforced by a judiciary are routinely thwarted by dictators. Why bother continuing? At least he didn't mention common law. I guess even he has some shame; he can hardly mention common law protections in the same article as he mentions one of his (and mine, admittedly) bugaboos, the Victorian Anti-Discrimination laws where common law and the legislature have so ably protected freedom of speech laws.
Comments