Whether a Bill of Rights would have helped, hindered or had any effect on Ben's campaign depends on what rights were listed in the Bill of Rights, and to what extent these rights would be judged to be maintained during imprisonment.
They include the right to vote in fair and democratic elections, trial by jury, freedom of religion, and the right to own property. Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional implications are rather complex and require stringent interpretation at common law.
Article 3 states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The prison authorities did not want the Ombudsman to become involved, so they refused to allow Ben to lodge a complaint.
The Australian constitution, in absence of a Bill of Rights, is very dull in regards to our basic individual rights and freedoms. This was the case with Dr Haneef, who was imprisoned for a period of 12 days, without any charges being laid on him.
The constitutional Bill of Rights would involve a referendum, which would at least allow greater public discussion and some level of democratic choice.
Again, we see a direct statement in the constitution that clearly illustrates a right that is given to us. Some sections of society have a much greater access to property than others.
If human rights are equal, how does this effect the right to own property listed in article 17? Australia is a strong promoter of human rights across the world, however if one looks at our own system, it is vague and ambiguous at best, which is somewhat hypocritical of our nation.
So which of these rights is inalienable? Christian revelation and the natural law. Overall, the debate over whether Australia should have a constitutional Bill of Rights is largely nonsense, as are most debates over constitutional change.
The problem with this argument against a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it applies equally to the other law-based methods of expressing human rights.
In this sense, different judges may interpret the constitutional implications in different ways, causing confusion and at times controversy in the judicial system.
Only one media outlet in Victoria would report on Ben's hunger strike aside from 3CR, on which the publisher of the political material has a weekly programmeand that was The Age, where a crime reporter, Gabrielle Costa, took an interest in the story.
The latter unambiguously based his rights-claims on two foundations: Modern philosophy cannot provide a moral account of anything insofar as it declines to—and cannot—identify an ultimately authoritative source of moral goodness. After two weeks, Ben was transferred back to Pentridge. The question remains, will a Bill of Rights lead the way for protection of ur individual rights and freedoms?
In fact it could be possible that some criminals deserve the punishments for the crimes that they do. The American Bill of Rights, for example, includes statements which might not be widely acceptable in Australia. It is clearly evident that Australia needs to implement a statutory Bill of Rights.
This is an unfortunate example of the total lack of commitment by a legal framework that should have ideally considered all citizens equally.
Although due to the fact that the citizens of the nation would be aware of their rights, the government would be under heavy scrutiny if they were to change or remove a right. Once we examine such questions, we immediately find ourselves confronted with a major problem.
Currently this can be seen in the United States of America.Essay: "Is there a need for a Bill of Rights in Australia?" Evan Ling, 15 October This essay discusses whether an Australian Bill of Rights would enhance the maintenance and enforcement of human rights in Australia. This alone should give those who genuinely believe in human rights good reason to be cautious before supporting any Bill of Rights.
About the Author: Dr.
Samuel Gregg is an Adjunct Scholar at The Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney. This is a great example of why Australia needs a Bill of rights, as the New Zealand bill of rights is direct and clear, the loss of certain individual rights in these circumstances is rare.
A Bill of rights is difficult to achieve and expensive to implement, and as the essential rights are already provided there is need for one to be enacted within Australia. A Bill of Rights is “A declaration of individual rights and freedoms, usually issued by a national government” (legal dictionary, ).
If Australia had a Bill of Rights, a conviction may not have been necessary to bring about a challenge. The Bill of Rights ideology is to give the same rights to every individual and to lessen the power of governments to impose their bias, prejudices and even morals within our laws.
Essay: "Is there a need for a Bill of Rights in Australia?" Evan Ling, 15 October This essay discusses whether an Australian Bill of Rights would enhance the maintenance and enforcement of human rights in Australia.Download