Bills of rights do not protect essential freedoms - all they do is present the very real risk of having judges imposing personal opinions as law, leaving everyone to guess about what the law might be.
In Canada, for example, without direction from the parliament, judges have decided that all asylum seekers are entitled to an oral hearing, that there should be gay marriage, that persons awaiting trial must be released after eight months on remand, no matter how serious the crimes involved (this position was later reversed), and that tobacco advertising is free speech.
Phillip Ruddock
I don't think Phillip is going to persuade many Bill of Rights advocates by using the example of asylum seeker and gay rights. They're interesting examples of what he presumably thinks are extreme outcomes of a Bill of Rights. Are gays and asylum seekers the worst groups he can think of that might accidentally be protected by a Bill of Rights? No, people who commit serious crimes seem to be a bit scarier. And possibly tobacco companies. I thought he was a Liberal - why does he even oppose tobacco advertising?
In the article he does make some good points about why people are choosing to support a Bill of Rights now. And it's mostly because those people disagree with the majority of Australia and are wanting to give the courts the power to override that majority.
Your comment made me laugh out loud, I needed that, =)
james clarke / 9:30am / 31 August 2007
“all asylum seekers are entitled to an oral hearing” – gosh what a zany, radical idea. Those crazy canadians!
Libby / 12:03pm / 31 August 2007
Thanks Ryan.
David / 1:03pm / 31 August 2007
You’re welcome David, for whatever it was I did.
Ryan / 2:52pm / 31 August 2007
Hey Ryan. I’ve been lurking around your blog since you gave me the link to the recipe on it. Hope you don’t mind!
Unfortunately, I think that Ruddock’s arguments about not giving rights to gay people or asylum seekers are persuasive to some parts of Australian society.
His points about people disagreeing with the need for a bill of rights, and about giving too much power to the courts are easily disputed. A recent poll (in 2005 I think) found that 61% of those polled actually thought Australia already had a bill of rights! During an extensive consultation process in Victoria, there was overwhelming support in the many (in the thousands!) submissions made to the consultative committee.
And on the points about giving power to the courts, the bill of rights models that have been adopted so far in Australia (in the ACT and Victoria), as well as those advocated by many people elsewhere (including the New Matilda campaign), promote discussion within government and the parliament and leave the ultimate power with the parliament. This is because 1) the bills (or charters) of rights are statutory and not constitutional, and so can be amended by parliament; 2) the parliament can provide that legislation is meant to be inconsistent with the charter; and 3) because the power given to the courts is to declare that legislation is inconsistent with the charter, and return it to the parliament for consideration. This sort of charter is more akin to that in the UK (although they are also subject to the European Convention of Human Rights) and NZ, and less like that in the US and Canada.
If you’re interested in reading more, let me know and I can point you in many directions!
Edwina / 6:45pm / 31 August 2007
You made me laugh Ryan.
David / 5:09pm / 2 September 2007
Hi Edwina.
I think his arguments are very persuasive for many people. However, my impression of a Bill of Rights is that it’s an attempt to protect minorities who aren’t able to protect themselves through legislation and force of media. I don’t support a Bill of Rights because I’m worried for myself. I support it for precisely the reasons Phillip Ruddock opposes it.
If someone has been convinced that we need a Bill of Rights because it will ensure minimal rights for gay people, asylum seekers and single mums, then I don’t think Ruddock is going to unconvince its supporters by threatening them with the idea that will get what they want.
He will probably entrench existing opposition to it. He does make an elegant argument, and if you believe that the legislative process is reasonable and optimal (and will continue to be) then there doesn’t seem to be any case for a Bill of Rights.
Although there probably a lot of marginal people who are more against the idea of rights for homosexuals than they are in favour of rights for furry mammals. If he can remind them that in protecting the furry mammals they’ll inadvertently be protecting homosexuals too, people will prefer to just abandon everyone to the politicians.
People seem fairly happy to infringe the rights of a lot of innocent people if it means we’re also allowed to infringe on the rights of one really nasty bad guy. Or at least, they can be comforted by the idea that one day we might find a bad guy and really infringe his rights big time.
I just reckon Ruddock should have picked nastier bad guys. What is wrong with the good ole Anthrax-spitting terrorist for heaven’s sake?
Ryan / 5:47pm / 2 September 2007