Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
I understand all to well...
Privileges are licensed, not rights.  |
Your point is well made - and frequently a topic of debate in Australia.
Australians have no personal rights under Australia's Constitution - although the High Court has found that the constitution
implies some rights.
In deed the most overt declarations of rights afforded to Australian citizens has been through the ratification by local legislatures of UN conventions (..gasp..
).
The lack of rights to own firearms enabled the newly elected Liberal government to move to restrict gun ownership in 1996 only 3 weeks after being elected - without a mandate (i.e. without having mentioned stated this action would be part of their policy agenda)
The guns were however not ceased but compulsorily purchased by the government. This purchase was funded by increasing the tax on all taxable (personal) incomes by 0.2%.
Naturally Australians were outraged by these actions and unceremoniously dumped the John Howard/Liberal government 4 elections and 11 years later.
- that'll learn 'im !
In case anyone is interested, the central argument against a (personal) bill of rights is neatly summarised in this passage
"There are many people who fear that a Bill of Rights will effectively take power to make laws on controversial issues away from the legislature and place it instead in the hands of an unelected elite – namely, the judiciary. In interpreting what the broadly worded phrases mean, the court is said to be taking on a role which is essentially the “stuff of politics”, and therefore beyond its proper role and power..."
from:
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme...ch3March04.pdf
The judge making the speach goes on to say that he thinks such fears are highly exaggerated, and that
"The voice of that majority is indeed no proof of justice. As Hilary Charlesworth has noted, the major political parties in Australia typically agree on the groups whose rights can be conveniently and, indeed, popularly, trampled upon."
LoBelly