> The article mentions that Australia has no bill of rights which, whilst technically true, doesn't mean we don't have equivalent protections. Some are enshrined in our constitution
The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison.
> whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation.
Anything in common law or legislation isn't worth much, since a single ordinary Act of Parliament is all it takes to cancel them out.
That may be true. However, in Australia, all interrogations have to be filmed completely. Law enforcement cannot lie to the interviewees, kidnapping of targets is not allowed. If Any law enforcement fails to do the correct thing in these areas, courts here will throw out the case. We had a relatively high profile "terror" case here which was thrown out for incorrect procedural actions (starting with the kidnapping of the defendant by ASIO).
I also know of cases where law enforcement improprieties have led the police prosecutors to come down on the side of the defendant in question and the improprieties being dealt with by the judge.
So though we do not have constitutional protections a la USA constitution, we do have other protocols in place.
Mind you, irrespective of any specific political affiliation, most of our politicians are all for higher surveillance and control of the population. It has taken cooperation of both government benches and opposition benches to pass the more draconian legislation in recent years. It has been interesting to watch parliament and see that there are very few there who are willing to grow a backbone and actively protect the rights of the citizens of this nation.
None of the draconian terror related legislation has actually been needed as all such activity is covered by normal criminal and civil legislation previously brought into existence. At least one of the draconian pieces of legislation does not require changes to the legislation to have the targets of that legislation changed at whim. All it requires is an administrative change of definition to change the legislative definition of terrorist. Smart work on the part of those who framed the legislation. A new government can designate any group they don't like as terrorists without going before parliament.
So any citizen of Australia that just wants to mind their own business can be easily caught up in the entire mess.
True, they could and at various times this kind of action has been done by various state governments in the past. But the political backlash has been very large. One is able to challenge the validity of such legislation and the government of the day has to show cause as to why this is valid before the courts.
The problem with the currently enacted terror legislation (approved by both sides) is that only an administrative change in a definition is required. This does not (as far as I can ascertain) require this to even go back to parliament for approval.
The point is that we do have certain rights before the courts that they will enforce. These are not constitutional rights but they are there.
The US bill of rights doesnt define the rights. The bill of rights calls out special rights that the govt shall not touch.
The rights are granted to us by our creator aka natural law. The same law used to declare our independence from the crown and an inherent part of the fabric of the US.
Unless you live within 100 miles of the border. Or happen to be carrying too much cash, according to the authority you’re dealing with. Or are dealing with a FISA court. There’s so many exceptions that it’s naive to think the bill of rights is some kind of magic document. The only right left relatively intact is freedom of speech.
The interesting part to me is the lack of a constitutional amendment granting the govt these powers. The only reason the govt has these powers is we let them. Constitutionally they dont have a leg to stand on.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are legal documents setting out the foundations of a government and a nationstate, not some divine text from a higher power. The founding fathers were not a group of infallible prophets.
That’s not what geggam is saying. The underlying philosophy of the Bill of Rights as stated by the founders/framers is that the rights are “natural” rights which all are imbued at birth, and that the rights listed are not exhaustive but merely representative. In fact, the founders were wary of a Bill of Rights specifically because by enumerating some of them the list might be seen as complete.
But the notion is that governments do not “grant” these rights, and likewise government can never infringe upon god given rights.
In fact, the founders were wary of a Bill of Rights specifically because by enumerating some of them the list might be seen as complete.
Right, which is why we have the 9th and 10th amendments. Unfortunately they are effectively ignored, along with the Enumerated Powers clause, meaning our government effectively has unlimited power. :-(
No, they weren't infallible. They were however, experienced in human nature and saw tyranny/ death in ways you only imagine.
Ignoring that experience dooms us to repeat the problems.
Assuming your intellect is superior to that which you cannot measure is also a common failure among smart folks. I am sure you dont fall prey to that trap.
Not really -- your bill of rights can explicitly say that it does not cancel out other rights that it did not mention. That's the purpose of the 11th Amendment to the United States constitution.
NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, s28: "An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part." [1]
The protections provided by the Australian constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) are quite weak in comparison to those included in the US Bill of Rights, it isn't really a fair comparison.
> whilst others are parts of common law and other legislation.
Anything in common law or legislation isn't worth much, since a single ordinary Act of Parliament is all it takes to cancel them out.