Is a Bill of Rights the best way to actually protect human rights? I don't think so!

[eclipsenow]

I have to thank you as this conversation has just sparked point 6 which I have added to my blog as:


6. Australia's model: the Constitution guarantees enough basic rights to ensure our democracy does the rest

We have some rights in our constitution, but it is minimalist on rights which leaves the rest of our rights to the democratic process. We have just enough rights to guarantee our vote, property, trial, religion, and freedom from prejudice based on which State we're from. (An archaic concern born out of Australia Federating from a bunch of disparate colonies into one nation.)

But the bottom line is this. Where Americans argue that their Bill of Rights protects them from government overreach, I would argue that a Bill of Rights is government overreach - from one generation seeking to bind all future generations to their vision of human rights.

EG: In one historical context Americans valued the right to carry firearms. But now so many Americans are being murdered each year maybe they would like the right to vote against widespread gun use? Maybe they would like whole categories of guns made illegal, and have a huge government sponsored buy-back of all the illegal weapons? Except they can't. The Supreme Court will not allow it - their very right to vote on this issue is locked up in the Bill of Rights and not touchable by something as small and petty as the will of the people!

But in Australia, we had the Port Arthur massacre and the government of the day banned many categories of fast reloading weapons, ran an enormous gun buy-back program, and we haven't had a gun massacre since!

Australians generally accept this ruling - and tend to be proud of our anti-gun stance. A small number might disagree - but the vast majority support it. I like being in a society where I am 19 times less likely to get shot than America!

But guns are not the issue - who decides is. I have a right Americans do not have - the right to vote for or against guns, RBT, or a host of other issues of the day. Voting means the right to talk about and campaign for a whole host of specific policies we might love or hate. It's not perfect - and Australia has many areas of prejudice and aboriginal health and human rights to address. But did America's Bill of Rights fix this? Did it give African-Americans protection against Jim Crow and segregation all those decades? Or what about police brutality now?

Managing human affairs is not an exact science. We are often trying to compromise to have the 'least bad' society to live in. It might change down the track - but that's a good thing. It acknowledges that human beings run imperfect systems and do not have all the data all the time. If we don't like something we tell our politicians. If they don't get it - we'll vote for the other team. That's why the top 4 fundamental rights are so important. (I hardly think point 5 is an issue today.) They support our basic democratic functions so we can decide everything else together. As it should be. We're not trying to encode our silly blind spots for centuries to come.

There are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution.

1. These are the right to vote (Section 41),
2. protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)),
3. the right to a trial by jury (Section 80),
4. freedom of religion (Section 116) and
5. prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

The High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia's form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.

Australia's common law was inherited from the United Kingdom. Common law is often called 'judge-made' law. This distinguishes it from laws made in Parliament. As well as common law, United Kingdom law includes the Magna Carta of 1215 which was probably the first human rights treaty. Student and teacher resources about the Magna Carta are available here: Magna Carta - the story of our freedom. 800th Anniversary (2015).

From Humanrights.gov.org​

 

[Direct Driver]

That's why our CONSTITUTION exists with 5 basic rights that protect us.

Yes, this one really spoke to me:

"the right to a trial by jury (Section 80)"

That one exemplifies what I'm talking about. Jordan Peterson fought back against the requirement to use people's preferred gender pronoun. Great. But if brought up on charges that he ignored the law, he could get a "trial by jury", but he'd still be found guilty under the law. I know that's Canada, but it brings home the point that being guaranteed a trial by jury doesn't help much when the law you are being accused of breaking tramples all over your personal rights for some sort of "perceived right" of others.

And that gender pronoun law can't exist in the US. One of the protected rights of Americans is the right to be offensive. And that matters because we don't have the right to tell others what is or isn't offensive. A simple example: Back in the 1950's it was common for people to light up a cigarette at the table after a meal, but you would NEVER hear the F word. Now it's the opposite. So, someone can ask you not to light up or they can kick you out of their house if you light up, but you do not break the law by lighting up. And that is how it should be.

 

[eclipsenow]

But if brought up on charges that he ignored the law, he could get a "trial by jury", but he'd still be found guilty under the law.

Has it happened yet with him or anyone in a similar circumstance? What do you think the answer is to laws you don't like? Is it better that an equivalent of the US Civil War's worth of Americans die every 20 years because the American "right to bear arms" is written into the Bill of Rights? What if it were just a law the majority didn't like? What would they do then?

Basically, it is vastly easier to fix laws that are broken than Bills that are broken.

 

[Direct Driver]

Has it happened yet with him or anyone in a similar circumstance? What do you think the answer is to laws you don't like? Is it better that an equivalent of the US Civil War's worth of Americans die every 20 years because the American "right to bear arms" is written into the Bill of Rights? What if it were just a law the majority didn't like? What would they do then?

Basically, it is vastly easier to fix laws that are broken than Bills that are broken.

The constitution protects us from laws we "don't like". The "bake the cake" law is a good example. He got a trial by jury and was guilty. But the supreme court said the law violated his constitutional rights. The founders of the US did not trust government, so they created the bill of rights to protect the citizens from elected officials (federal and local) that get too "authoritarian". That's actually a big deal right now with all the pseudo laws being enforced regarding this rona nonsense. And the governors of California and NY are in deep doodoo over it.

 

[Arcangl86]

The constitution protects us from laws we "don't like". The "bake the cake" law is a good example. He got a trial by jury and was guilty. But the supreme court said the law violated his constitutional rights. The founders of the US did not trust government, so they created the bill of rights to protect the citizens from elected officials (federal and local) that get too "authoritarian". That's actually a big deal right now with all the pseudo laws being enforced regarding this rona nonsense. And the governors of California and NY are in deep doodoo over it.

Yes, I too consider a highly contagious disease that has killed half a million Americans nonsense.

 

[Direct Driver]

Yes, I too consider a highly contagious disease that has killed half a million Americans nonsense.

I don't believe it has actually killed that many. Maybe a fraction - mostly us old people with one foot already in the grave. And it is not the disease that is nonsense. It is the lockdowns and masks that have destroyed our culture that are nonsense.

 

[Direct Driver]

What if it were just a law the majority didn't like? What would they do then?

That's why, if necessary, we can invoke the second amendment. That is what the founders were preparing us for.

 

[eclipsenow]

The constitution protects us from laws we "don't like".

No - you're dodging a particular issue I've raised - and that's the fact that most Americans want stricter gun controls but the Supreme Court owns that subject - not your Congress.
Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

The "bake the cake" law is a good example.

No it's not - as you want to bang on about that because it illustrates religious freedom. I've already granted that Australia has it as one of our 4 most important rights.

that get too "authoritarian". That's actually a big deal right now with all the pseudo laws being enforced regarding this rona nonsense. And the governors of California and NY are in deep doodoo over it.

Republicans call any scientific threat they don't like nonsense. Climate change and pandemics are 'nonsense' to them because the moment the government has to intervene on your holiest of holies - your PERSONAL FREEDOM - even if it is the most patriotic and sensible thing for the public good and therefore your whole community prospering - you batten down the hatches and yell "Muh freedom!" But I must thank you. You're exemplifying the selfish Rights culture the Australian Christian Lobby have warned against and that I've put up as one of my top 6 reasons for Australia NOT to get a Bill of Rights. It makes people unreasonably selfish - to the point where they won't take minor inconveniences for MAJOR public benefits.

Also, you still haven't substantively addressed the fact that I have more freedom than you - in that I have the freedom to VOTE on RBT, guns, and other areas that are off limits to you guys bound into the selfish individualism of a Bill of Rights. You can't imagine a society with that freedom, and so shoot for the lesser 'freedom' of being bound to selfish individualism, 8 times the drink driving deaths and 19 times the firearms deaths. Enjoy your 'freedom' - you're welcome to it!

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes - I've rejigged and clarified my whole blog page now as a result of our jousting. It has been very profitable.

1. A Bill of Rights is stuck in an ivory tower and is not specific or real!
2. A Bill of Rights will make unelected Judges the interpreters of our rights, but we want democratic debate to respond to the latest science and data about specific policies in the real world.
3. Australians have just enough rights in the Constitution to guarantee democracy - and trust democratic debate to handle the rest.
4. A Bill of Rights will encode the silly prejudices and blind spots of our generation forever!
5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
6. A Bill of Rights will politicize the judiciary

Now, I'm still working on how to phrase point 5. I don't think I've captured how out of balance the American system feels to me - I've got to work on this more. Maybe debating it with you will help me flesh it out?

5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been for a bill of human rights. Of course they are for human rights, but surprisingly they are against a bill of rights! Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret’d) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that a Bill would enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community, in effect reducing all our rights. Some of the 'rights' we might give up for the community are quite small and petty to us, but have enormous benefits to the community.

Take for example the typical American reaction of horror and disgust over something as trivial as RBT. Is it really that big a deal to pull over and blow through a little tube once a year, if that? Is it really affecting my privacy that much, especially if I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear? RBT has reduced drink-driving deaths in New South Wales by a factor of eight. Imagine if we didn't have it and instead experienced eight times the drink-driving deaths and grief and sheer cost, all because we banned RBT on the alter of "My rights!" All because the individual's 'right' to not blow into a tube once a year is perceived to be more important than another individual's right to live? That's bizarre. I find that horrific, even unpatriotic. How self-centered can you get? RBT is trivial! I've experienced RBT many times and never experienced cops abusing it. They are courteous and efficient and I am soon on my way. If anything, it is a comfort to see them running an RBT station - doing their job to protect me.

It's about balance. I'm not arguing that the police should have the right to do whatever they want, follow you home and enter your house and demand you explain your whole life to them without due process. A right to privacy is important. But so is RBT. Australians can enjoy the benefits of both privacy and being protected by RBT. American's can't.

A Bill of Rights generates an individualistic society that enshrines petty selfishness against sometimes vastly overwhelming public good. The American 'debate' about wearing masks during a pandemic is just another example of this entitled whining. Their deaths per million citizens is now 45 times higher than Australia's. Please, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights​

 

[Direct Driver]

No - you're dodging a particular issue I've raised - and that's the fact that most Americans want stricter gun controls but the Supreme Court owns that subject - not your Congress.

Maybe this is another difference between Americans and Australians. Australians believe polls.

Polls are the equivalent of sticking your finger in the air to get a feel for which way the wind blows. In the US, the only poll that matters is the voting booth. In my state, one gubernatorial' candidate was down by 5% in the polls. He won by 9%.

I could go on, but I've read much and commented much on the problems polls face for the last 30 years. In the US, polls are like sticking your toe in the water, with shoes on.

 

[Direct Driver]

No - you're dodging a particular issue I've raised - and that's the fact that most Americans want stricter gun controls but the Supreme Court owns that subject - not your Congress.

Maybe this is another difference between Americans and Australians. Australians believe polls.

Polls are the equivalent of sticking your finger in the air to get a feel for which way the wind blows. In the US, the only poll that matters is the voting booth. In my state, one gubernatorial' candidate was down by 5% in the polls. He won by 9%.

I could go on, but I've read much and commented much on the problems polls face for the last 30 years. In the US, polls are like sticking your toe in the water, with shoes on.

 

[Direct Driver]

internet glitch dupe

 

[Direct Driver]

internet glitch dupe

 

[eclipsenow]

Now, I'm still working on how to phrase point 5. I don't think I've captured how out of balance the American system feels to me - I've got to work on this more. Maybe debating it with you will help me flesh it out?

5. A Bill of Rights enshrines petty selfishness over the rights of the community, sometimes at a vastly disproportionate cost to the community and very little reward for the individual.
I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been for a bill of human rights. Of course they are for human rights, but surprisingly they are against a bill of rights! Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret’d) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that a Bill would enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community, in effect reducing all our rights. Some of the 'rights' we might give up for the community are quite small and petty to us, but have enormous benefits to the community.

Take for example the typical American reaction of horror and disgust over something as trivial as RBT. Is it really that big a deal to pull over and blow through a little tube once a year, if that? Is it really affecting my privacy that much, especially if I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear? RBT has reduced drink-driving deaths in New South Wales by a factor of eight. Imagine if we didn't have it and instead experienced eight times the drink-driving deaths and grief and sheer cost, all because we banned RBT on the alter of "My rights!" All because the individual's 'right' to not blow into a tube once a year is perceived to be more important than another individual's right to live? That's bizarre. I find that horrific, even unpatriotic. How self-centered can you get? RBT is trivial! I've experienced RBT many times and never experienced cops abusing it. They are courteous and efficient and I am soon on my way. If anything, it is a comfort to see them running an RBT station - doing their job to protect me.

It's about balance. I'm not arguing that the police should have the right to do whatever they want, follow you home and enter your house and demand you explain your whole life to them without due process. A right to privacy is important. But so is RBT. Australians can enjoy the benefits of both privacy and being protected by RBT. American's can't.

A Bill of Rights generates an individualistic society that enshrines petty selfishness against sometimes vastly overwhelming public good. The American 'debate' about wearing masks during a pandemic is just another example of this entitled whining. Their deaths per million citizens is now 45 times higher than Australia's. Please, “Don’t leave us with the bill!” Download the podcast here.
Don't Leave Us With The Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

 

[eclipsenow]

In the US, the only poll that matters is the voting booth.

Are you saying you're not frightened of having an election about banning self-loading rifles and guns and running a huge gun buy back scheme?

Oh, that's right.
You don't have that right.
Irony, much?

The only poll that matters is an election poll - but on this and many other subjects - you can't. Oh well, I guess it's just lucky for you that you've got this mantra that you don't believe in polls?

But we're not talking about a 4% discrepancy - indeed these polls still allow an absolute majority of Americans wanting stricter gun control with a MARGIN OF ERROR allowed up to the 4% you're talking about. Last time I looked 67% - 4% is still 63% of the population wanting stricter gun controls.

In February 2018, 66% of American voters supported stricter gun laws, in a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%, the highest level of support measured since 2008.[15][16] 70% of American adults supported stricter gun laws, according to a CNN poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.7%.[17] 75% of American adults supported stricter gun laws, according to an NPR/Ipsos poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.[18][19] 65% of Americans support stricter gun laws, according to a CBS News poll with a margin of error of +/- 4%.[20] In March 2018, 67% of Americans supported stricter regulation of firearms sales, according to a Gallup poll with a margin of sampling error of +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level, the highest in any Gallup survey since 1993.[21]
Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia​

 

[Direct Driver]

Are you saying you're not frightened of having an election about banning self-loading rifles and guns and running a huge gun buy back scheme?

Oh, that's right.
You don't have that right.
Irony, much?

First, no, I'm not frightened of that at all. Second, what right are you talking about that I don't have? That line confused me. I have the "right" to be frightened of pretty much anything if I choose fear.

 

[Direct Driver]

Are you saying you're not frightened of having an election about banning self-loading rifles and guns and running a huge gun buy back scheme?

I think I get your comment now. The answer is that I am not "frightened" about such an election. It would require a constitutional amendment, and this is where our constitution protects the minority from the majority.

I will be totally comfortable with elections when they raise the voting age to 25. Kids are too easily influenced by the press. I used to be a kid. I know how they think. Why do you think, throughout history, most protests are young people? It's only when it gets really serious that you see a lot of adults. And this is why January 6th scared the crap out of our misguided representatives. And don't think it didn't. They've pushed to far and don't fully get yet that January 20th (the day Biden was sworn in) was not the end. It was the beginning. We are simply now in what is called the "Phoney war". Think of January 20th as "September 1, 1939". A lot of Americans do. Our being so "armed up" is what makes our federal government so nervous. And it should be:

"When the people fear the government you have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, you have liberty."

 

[eclipsenow]

Second, what right are you talking about that I don't have? That line confused me. I have the "right" to be frightened of pretty much anything if I choose fear.

Read it again. This is pretty much how your 'argument' goes. (It's circular.)

1. I don't believe polls - I'm a Republican
2. The only poll that counts is an election
3. Oh, but guns are protected by the Supreme Court
4. So we'll never vote on it ever, but I 'just know' those polls are wrong

I just pointed out as an Australian, gun laws are controlled by our parliamentary democracy so IF it were even an issue in the first place (and it isn't - we all pretty consistently hate guns) - we could vote on it.

You can't.
You don't have that right!
Get it now?

 

[Arcangl86]

Read it again. This is pretty much how your 'argument' goes. (It's circular.)

1. I don't believe polls - I'm a Republican
2. The only poll that counts is an election
3. Oh, but guns are protected by the Supreme Court
4. So we'll never vote on it ever, but I 'just know' those polls are wrong

I just pointed out as an Australian, gun laws are controlled by our parliamentary democracy so IF it were even an issue in the first place (and it isn't - we all pretty consistently hate guns) - we could vote on it.

You can't.
You don't have that right!
Get it now?

We do have that right though. The Bill of Rights isn't set in stone. It can be amended, though politically speaking it's not likely I admit. If we were in a situation where everybody agreed that guns were bad like you are saying is the case in Australia, then the amendment can itself be amended. We just believe that certain rights are important enough that they require broad consensus of the people to change, not just the will of the often mercurial legislature.

 

[eclipsenow]

We do have that right though.

When are you actually going to read what I wrote? Maybe if I right it in American. You don't have the right to vote on it in your regular processes of democracy in Congress.

But to change a hallowed Bill of Rights - that holy of holies that's so untouchable in the American system - and not just change it through the normal processes of normal democracy - you have to get the population worked up into a frenzy to hold a once-a-century Referendum on it.

That's totally different to setting government policy in a democracy which is then voted on. It's so much more WORK just to have the right to evaluate what you think of the government's policies.

So I say again - we have a right you don't.

Australia, then the amendment can itself be amended.

Of course a constitutional amendment can be amended. But that's NOT what we are discussing!
Again - when are you going to read what I actually wrote - unless you like hiding behind obfuscation all the time?

We just believe that certain rights are important enough that they require broad consensus of the people to change, not just the will of the often mercurial legislature.

Oh, so when you vote it's not democracy? Well, that's another matter where I might actually agree with you - about America at least.

Voting should be OBLIGATORY and on a SATURDAY and should be EASY. You put it on a Tuesday, make it optional so the poor can't afford to vote, and make it hard. Like queuing all day in the snow. When I vote it's over in about 45 minutes - and that includes having one of our famous Australian Democracy Sausages! But again, that's another subject.

If your voting systems were actually fair, I'd say why not have guns and RBT and privacy and all those other things in the government policy arena where you could have the RIGHT to evaluate the government's handling of these policies every time you voted?