Bill of ‘lefts’

It strikes me that those who really need a Bill of Rights never have them and those that don’t need it keep demanding one. Thus by definition a Bill of Rights is useless – having one doesn’t protect the downtrodden. The ACT Labour Government became the first Australian jurisdiction to introduce a bill of rights. It enshrines to rights to: *Equality before the law, without discrimination of any kind *Life, beginning after birth *Freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment *Not to be subject to medical or scientific experimentation without consent *Protection of family and, for children, such protection as is appropriate for minors *Privacy *Freedom of movement *Freedom of thought, conscience and religion *Peaceful assembly and association *Freedom of expression *Participation in public and cultural life *Liberty and integrity of the person *A fair trial *Not to be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced or compulsory labour *Self-determination *For minorities to enjoy their own culture, practise their own religion and use their own language I have just one question. Why? Chief Minister John Stanhope is why. The bill of rights has little to do with the rights of Australians and a lot to do with his politics. The bill would allow Heroin trials, same sex marriages, same sex adoptions and his loony left-wing activist mates to throw rocks at Parliament house. It would pay school fees for mobs of labor lawyers kids as every time society stopped the extravagances of the looney-left whatever agency did the stopping would end up in court with our money transferring to Stanhope?s mates coffers. Strong on ‘rights’ and totally devoid of ‘responsibilities’ Stanhope is the idiot that used a recent Citizenship ceremony to rail against the government and their participation in the Iraq war. Stanhope confuses rights to politicize citizenship ceremonies with the responsibility to only dissent in appropriate circumstances. Standing on soapboxes, in the House and on TV are appropriate venues for dissent. Ceremonies, where the recipients are about to get the greatest gift of all – the right to live in one of the greatest democracies in the world, one that doesn’t even go close to needing a bill of rights- is not the place.


  • “*Life, beginning after birth”

    Late term abortion?

  • Yes. It does look strange. Maybe lefties don’t mind abortion.

  • Apart from disagreeing with Stanhopes ideology, Kevin, would you mind elaborating on just why a Bill of Rights is so un-necessary?

  • Rule of law, separation of powers, democratic society.

    Why would anyone want ‘right to life, after birth’ enshrined in law. To allow for late term abortions? Where in Australia don’t we have ‘freedom of movement or thought, conscience or religion? What idiocy is the term ‘freedom of thought’? Why didn’t he say we should have free alfoil to stop Howard locking us up for our thoughts.

    Does freedom of conscience allow people to use ‘conscience’ in court for defence of a crime? As in ‘My conscience” tells me our participating in the Iraq war was wrong and therefore it was ok for me to break the laws? No. Then what does he mean?

  • Bill of Rights?

    Or a Pandora’s box.

    Can’t wait for the first nudist to find comfort in this Bill of Rights as a Kiwi did a couple of years ago.

    Also when freedom of ….. religion clashes with “Life, beginning with birth” clashes with “Minorities ……… and use their own language” do we refer to the very effective following rules.

    No 1 – The Boss is always right
    No 2 – Refer Rule No 1

    Common Law may not be perfect by a long way, however a codification of a Bill of Rights has got to be heading for a “Didn’t think of that” problem in the not too distant future.