The standard argument is that a Bill of Rights gives veto power over legislation to the judiciary. The framing is that of elected versus unelected. The people are just popcorn-stuffing spectators to be appealed to, presumably with bread and circuses.
(more)
cam : The weird one is Canada\'s charter of rights: it has a clause where the rights are inalienable, until parliament says they arent and suspends them for a short period. That will have to be resisted in Australia.
I cant find the Victorian rights bill on their parliament website.
cam
Wibble. Wibble wibble wibble. <this is me imitating commentry on a Bill of Rights by the Right>
(more)
avocadia : Why I loathe Piers Ackerman:
Allow me to make a note on how the original article illustrates why I loathe Piers Ackerman so profoundly, why he fills me with sick contempt, why he reduces me to incoherent irrationality.
I read the above article and my first reaction was to hope that within his lifetime Australia would be governed by the Australian Greens, and that they would commit all of the whackiest of their fringe policies on Australia; and then pass legislation making it illegal, say, to be fat. That would be karma. Then I\'d sidle up to Piers, in Cell Block H, and whisper \"Would you like to support some amenedments restricting what avenues of human liberty the government may meddle in?\"
adam : Btw: Changed the tags to be comma separated, spaces allowed, I think you posted them de.li.ci.ous style?
Beyond the personal attack, this article really wouldn\'t have been out of place in Pravda ...
avocadia : del.icio.us style: Yeah, I did actually. Force of habit; when I implement tags I do them del.icio.us style as well. I\'ll remember next time.
cam : Does Piers make his driving decisions: based on COPS? or maybe Reno 911.
cam
